[0:01] All right. All right. All right. Here we
[0:03] go. Here we go. It is another
[0:08] Federal Reserve rate decision and press
[0:11] conference. The difference this time is
[0:14] it is Jerome Powell's last. Now, this is
[0:17] uh quite bittersweet. Jerome Powell has
[0:20] been covered on this channel for about 8
[0:22] years. Uh we've been covering him uh
[0:24] certainly since at least 2018, maybe
[0:26] even longer than that, which is crazy
[0:28] because welcome to 2026.
[0:31] Means it's been 8 years of talking about
[0:35] J Pow on this channel. And honestly,
[0:38] it's I don't know. It's kind of sad. You
[0:42] know, Papa Pow is going away. You know,
[0:44] don't fight the Fed. You know, all the
[0:46] fun stuff over the past years. uh you
[0:51] know, inflation, transitory, you know,
[0:53] all the entertainment. It's incredible.
[0:55] But it uh it really ends uh today. Now,
[0:58] Powell's term doesn't end today.
[1:00] Powell's uh term as governor ends on the
[1:02] 15th of next month. That's May. And uh
[1:06] at the uh beginning of 2028, January
[1:09] 31st, 2028, Jerome Powell uh will be
[1:12] required to leave as a um Fed board
[1:16] member, you know, one of the board of
[1:17] governors there. Uh Dr. Pal may leave
[1:20] now as is typically tradition uh after
[1:23] May 15th. Of course, I think he'll
[1:25] probably just end up getting sued again
[1:26] by Trump. And if he waits until January
[1:29] 31st, 2028, maybe uh Trump will have
[1:32] forgotten about him. So, we'll see. It's
[1:34] it's uh it's going to be really
[1:36] interesting. And uh it's it's the last
[1:38] time. So, you know, I'm actually going
[1:40] to put on our bingo board. Uh this is I
[1:44] think he's going to get a standing
[1:45] ovation today. So, we think he's going
[1:48] to be on time. We we expect that.
[1:50] Hopefully, Wars can keep that up. We'll
[1:52] we'll see. Uh but uh but I'm actually
[1:54] going to mark standing ovation here. Uh
[1:57] so, we'll say um let's get the pencil
[2:00] here. There we go. Standing
[2:04] uh ovation.
[2:06] Ovation
[2:08] for uh Powell.
[2:10] Uh like at the end probably, right?
[2:13] Standing ovation for Powell. He's on
[2:15] time. Obviously, uh this is going to be
[2:17] a hard column to get. So, we'll throw an
[2:19] easy one in here. We'll throw in the
[2:21] purple tie. Uh you know, I I do think
[2:24] we'll probably hear some form of a
[2:26] reference of uh you know, high for
[2:29] longer. Uh high for longer
[2:33] uh or or some sort of a hold for longer.
[2:38] I think that overall he is going to
[2:41] cheer the ADP and the job numbers.
[2:45] sheer job numbers
[2:48] uh job numbers
[2:50] I think he'll uh say that the economy is
[2:53] doing better than expected
[2:56] economy
[2:58] uh better than expected
[3:01] and that's going to justify uh you know
[3:03] rate stabilizing right uh better than
[3:06] expected
[3:08] you know obviously we have uh an oil
[3:11] shock which is a apply uh driven shock
[3:17] uh oil uh/supply shock.
[3:25] So, uh you know, that'll kind of get our
[3:28] bingo board started here. We'll have a
[3:30] little bit uh extra work to do. Yeah,
[3:32] you know, we we could throw in a good
[3:33] afternoon. And honestly, it might be the
[3:35] last good afternoon we get, you know.
[3:37] Good afternoon. Yeah, good afternoon.
[3:41] Good afternoon.
[3:45] Uh, I do think he'll likely say he has
[3:48] not made the decision yet on whether
[3:50] he'll stay. Uh, will you stay?
[3:56] Um, no decision yet.
[4:01] Uh, yet. This is not the place.
[4:06] Uh, the place.
[4:09] Okay.
[4:11] Uh so he'll share the job numbers. I
[4:15] think we'll see some of the if you've
[4:16] been we talked about this in the uh the
[4:19] alpha report this morning. Uh the
[4:21] capital good orders non-defense xair
[4:24] phenomenal. I mean like blew
[4:27] expectations out of the water. Uh
[4:30] obviously a lot of this is artificial
[4:32] intelligence related spending but uh you
[4:35] know that's already been factored in to
[4:36] expectations. So, you know, there there
[4:39] are still components of this economy
[4:41] that are booming. And you know, this
[4:42] week has obviously been a little
[4:44] volatile. We went in Monday morning
[4:47] before the market opened up. We said in
[4:49] the course member live streams, this is
[4:51] not the week for calls. And you know,
[4:54] the market's been I actually even said,
[4:55] I'm leaning bearish this week. And I
[4:58] mean, some of the numbers, you know, a
[5:00] little little rough right now. We
[5:02] actually have a um a we created this
[5:04] probably eight months ago. uh back when
[5:08] Robin Hood was like 14%. We did a
[5:11] fundamental analysis on Robin Hood and
[5:13] we're like I'm not touching this this
[5:16] stock until it is $69
[5:19] or below.
[5:22] We're at 70. Uh so we're almost there.
[5:25] It's it's actually really incredible uh
[5:27] that that you know it it came down this
[5:30] far because that's where I thought was a
[5:32] more fair price for the stock. So it's
[5:35] really incredible. Uh but uh you know,
[5:37] same thing with even something like an
[5:39] NPC. You know, they've been going into
[5:40] this power purchase agreement, low
[5:42] margin business. I'm like, this is
[5:44] ridiculous. You can't go anywhere near
[5:46] this thing, as has been the case for a
[5:48] while. Um but um let's keep going with
[5:51] the uh the Powell sheet here. Uh in
[5:54] honor obviously of Powell's last day,
[5:56] we're doing a very brief code for him.
[5:58] Goodbye Powell at meetke.com. So if you
[6:01] want to join us in that membership, meet
[6:02] Kevin.com. But let's focus on this. So
[6:04] we got goodbye. Good afternoon. You
[6:05] know, I actually have an old one here
[6:07] which is kind of cool. Look at this. I
[6:08] could kind of cheat. Fit flexible
[6:11] inflation targeting. You know, they
[6:12] stopped referencing that. They
[6:14] referenced that for a while. Low,
[6:15] higher, low fire. You know, we might
[6:16] hear that banking sounded resilient,
[6:18] right? This is an old one. This is from
[6:20] October. Evolving outlook. There's no
[6:22] evolving outlook anymore. You know, some
[6:24] of these are kind of old.
[6:28] Uh 50 BP cuts not necessary at this
[6:30] time. We didn't get any 50 BP cuts
[6:32] anyway. So, that was somewhat in
[6:34] alignment. Uh I I do think low higher
[6:36] low fire is sort of an easy win here we
[6:38] could write down. So let's do it. Low uh
[6:41] higher low fire. But uh but
[6:47] uh bonus or or uh but
[6:51] uh labor market
[6:55] uh showing signs
[7:00] of uh rebounding
[7:05] after stabilizing, right? So um
[7:09] rebounding is is even better than
[7:11] stabilizing. You want that. That is that
[7:14] is bullish, right?
[7:19] So, uh we got labor market, we got the
[7:22] oil supply shock obviously is going to
[7:24] get a mention on time. Good afternoon.
[7:26] Um you know, I I do think we'll see the
[7:28] two-sided risk. Twosided
[7:32] risk. You know, I I do think he hawks
[7:37] he hawks more than expected.
[7:43] And overall, it's actually bullish for
[7:45] the economy.
[7:47] Bullish
[7:49] uh economy.
[7:52] And I think he'll also cheer
[7:55] uh handing
[7:58] uh a strong economy
[8:01] economy
[8:03] to uh Worsh, you know. So, I think he'll
[8:07] he'll sort of like declare victory on
[8:09] that a little bit, right? Uh question on
[8:12] the lawsuit. Yeah, he'll get asked
[8:15] and he'll he'll ignore
[8:17] Pentagon to send one of its aircraft
[8:19] carriers home from the Middle East. Oh,
[8:21] wow. Uh okay. So, let's mark how are we
[8:26] going to put that? Uh I'll put um punts
[8:32] question
[8:34] on
[8:36] uh lawsuit.
[8:41] That's pretty much expected. I also
[8:43] think he's going to talk up consensus
[8:45] about the rate cut, right? Uh so uh talk
[8:50] up
[8:52] consensus
[8:54] on uh rate
[8:57] rates
[8:59] I'll call it rates staying stable rates
[9:02] uh staying
[9:05] Uh there we go. Stable.
[9:09] Okay.
[9:11] So, because he wants to set up consensus
[9:13] before WSH gets in is my anticipation.
[9:17] Uh yeah, transit. I don't know that
[9:19] he'll use the transitory over time. Uh
[9:22] but um the I certainly think he'll refer
[9:25] to longer inflation shocks,
[9:28] longerl
[9:30] lasting
[9:32] inflation shocks.
[9:36] Shocks. Uh I think it's pretty obvious
[9:39] that he's going to say the job isn't
[9:41] done. something like um
[9:44] job isn't
[9:47] done yet
[9:51] on inflation.
[9:54] There we go.
[9:58] Uh let's see here. H
[10:02] his last words. F everyone.
[10:05] Does he call it a soft landing? Yeah. I
[10:09] mean, um I think we're kind of beyond
[10:11] the land part and it's more of the
[10:12] takeoff part, right? Um
[10:17] he might he might, you know, I'll write
[10:19] it down. Uh so some reference to having
[10:21] achieved
[10:25] reference
[10:27] to
[10:28] achieving
[10:31] soft landing.
[10:34] Yeah, it's very interesting, you know,
[10:35] just because the economy has really been
[10:37] through the ringer. You know, it's like
[10:39] there have been a lot of shocks and
[10:41] stresses for the economy. Uh and uh you
[10:44] it's a lot for the economy to go
[10:45] through.
[10:48] I think certainly uh one of the reasons
[10:50] we we went through it as well as we did
[10:52] is you know the amount of money that
[10:54] people had been able to build up postco
[10:57] obviously artificial intelligence helps
[10:59] as well but the economy went through the
[11:01] reamer you know the ringer the reamer
[11:03] had like a colonoscopy you know it's
[11:05] like it's almost like getting a PCAOB
[11:08] audit you you all might know like very
[11:11] few companies actually get PCAOB level
[11:14] audits they're they're very expensive
[11:16] they're very rigorous uh house hacks
[11:19] going through or reinvest is going
[11:21] through its PCAOB audit right now
[11:24] dude it finishes tomorrow it is a lot I
[11:28] mean it's really good you know it's like
[11:31] uh it's like somebody just checks and
[11:33] questions everything and it's great
[11:35] because you know the better the more you
[11:37] do them the better you are at just like
[11:39] having things prepped for them because
[11:40] you kind of anticipate what they're
[11:41] going to ask uh and our books are like
[11:44] really good so it's nice to affir
[11:46] confirm that what we're doing is great
[11:47] at house hack and reinvest but it's a
[11:50] lot of work. Uh and so I I understand
[11:52] why a lot of companies don't go through
[11:53] it but I mean that was all reference to
[11:56] this building on like the economyy's
[11:57] really been has gone through this sort
[11:59] of like colonoscopy and it's you know
[12:02] it's done really well. It's it's come
[12:03] out you know it's gotten it's gotten a
[12:06] lot of biopsies but doesn't seem to have
[12:09] any big problems right now which is
[12:10] great. Somebody writes Jerome Powell
[12:12] statue on the lawn. You know, we did say
[12:14] that. We did say we need a Jerome Powell
[12:16] statue if uh if he sticks the soft
[12:19] landing. And uh uh Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[12:23] You're right. We're going to have to
[12:24] Does anybody know somebody who can make
[12:27] a statue?
[12:29] If you can make a stone statue, please
[12:33] email staffmeke.com.
[12:36] Uh you know, I need like a three foot
[12:38] tall mini. That's not really mini. is
[12:40] pretty big, but 3 ft. That'd be about
[12:42] right.
[12:44] We got We got to follow the problem. I
[12:46] just need somebody to make it. I'll put
[12:47] it right next to my giant gong. That's
[12:50] with a G in case in case that didn't
[12:52] come through clearly. You know, one of
[12:54] the bong.
[12:57] Anyway, uh all right. So, I you know, my
[13:00] big call today is I I think he deserves
[13:02] a standing ovation. We'll see. But, uh
[13:05] you know, reference to achieving soft
[13:06] landing. I'll I'll I'll see that.
[13:08] Somebody says I can make a bronze one.
[13:10] Bro, I'd take a bronze one. Email us
[13:13] because I'll, you know, I'm gonna hose
[13:15] that thing so much it's going to turn
[13:16] green like the Statue of Liberty. I need
[13:18] him holding a book. No, I don't I don't
[13:21] know. What should he hold? Should he
[13:22] hold anything? No, he doesn't need to be
[13:23] holding anything. He's just got to be
[13:25] like a smug face with his arms crossed.
[13:26] That's all you really need.
[13:29] Victory. But anyway, uh
[13:32] um
[13:34] or or him with the construction hat on.
[13:37] Oh, that'd be hilarious because uh you
[13:39] know it's sort of like standing up to
[13:40] Trump.
[13:42] All right, we got to finish this board.
[13:44] Uh
[13:46] come on, baby.
[13:49] Uh reference shaving off landing. Good
[13:52] afternoon. Higher for longer. Uh I'm
[13:55] going to say uh no no discussion of
[13:57] cuts. No talk of cuts. Uh, I think I
[14:05] wouldn't be surprised if even Myin goes
[14:07] for a hold. Even Myin uh might
[14:14] uh go for hold.
[14:18] Who knows? But it's possible. Uh let's
[14:21] say he does. Uh
[14:25] let's say he holds.
[14:29] Okay. Then uh no talk cuts. Good
[14:32] afternoon. Uh it's, you know, wait and
[14:34] see. Meeting by meeting. So we'll go
[14:37] meeting by meeting
[14:40] uh by meeting data dependent. And then I
[14:43] got one more meeting by meeting uh data
[14:49] dependent.
[14:51] And
[14:52] how about uh how about something like um
[14:57] uh let's see let's see let's see let's
[14:59] see let's see here.
[15:02] Somebody's like, "The Fed building is
[15:03] taxpayer dollars." The ballroom is like,
[15:05] "Bro, come on. Everybody knows that the
[15:07] ballroom is just like tariff extortion,
[15:11] you know. Hey, I'll give you a better
[15:12] deal on the on your tariffs and I'll
[15:14] give you some exemptions. Nvidia,
[15:16] Jensen, I'll let you sell some of your
[15:17] chips to China. I'll let you sell to
[15:19] China, but you know, I'm going to need a
[15:21] couple hundred mil for my ballroom." You
[15:24] know, it's all [ __ ] Oh, it's not
[15:26] taxpayer money. Come on, man. You know
[15:28] how much rigging is going up in there?
[15:30] And I mean, they all do it, but let's
[15:31] just say the level of rigage has been a
[15:33] little elevated lately. Okay, I think we
[15:35] can all agree on that one.
[15:40] Meeting by meeting. Come on, baby. I
[15:41] need one more. We got about a minute to
[15:43] figure this out. Uh, hold meeting. you
[15:47] know,
[15:49] the honor the he'll say something like
[15:52] honor the like he hopes that the future
[15:55] Fed chair honor will continue to honor
[15:57] the independence of the Fed. There
[16:00] independence
[16:02] of
[16:04] Fed. There we go. All right, cool. So,
[16:07] we got our bingo board ready. Let's uh
[16:09] you know, feel free to uh to take a
[16:11] little snappy doodle snapshot over here.
[16:15] Coupon code is goodbye Powell at
[16:18] meetcaven.com and househack.com.
[16:21] Keep in mind house hacks valuation AI is
[16:24] still on schedule for a June release.
[16:26] That's at the end of the Q2 time frame
[16:28] that we forecast. Uh that's still
[16:30] looking uh like it's on schedule. Got a
[16:32] lot of cool things coming out to the
[16:33] Meet Kevin Heaven app here as well soon,
[16:36] which we're very excited about. We've
[16:37] been doing a lot of updates lately and
[16:39] uh yeah, let's get hooked too. We're
[16:42] about to get He's JPAL's about to hawk
[16:45] to us.
[16:46] Yeah, it's staffmekke.com.
[16:49] If you want to make either a bronze or
[16:50] stone bust,
[16:52] email staff meetke Kevin.com.
[16:56] All right, here we go. Uh, okay. I got
[16:58] some headlines already while we wait for
[17:00] them to show up. So, we have uh policy
[17:03] statement draws most number of
[17:04] dissenting votes. What? 8 to four. Myron
[17:09] descented for a quarter point cut
[17:14] and then there was talk about Oh. Oh,
[17:16] right. Cuz we're not getting Powell now.
[17:17] We're just getting the statement now.
[17:18] Duh. Powell's in 30 minutes. Uh, so vote
[17:21] in favor of 8 to 4. That's a crazy
[17:24] split. Fed is considering the extent and
[17:26] timing of additional adjustments uh to
[17:29] Fed rates. The committee will carefully
[17:31] assess incoming data. Okay. The market's
[17:35] not really moving so far off the
[17:37] statement uh like at all. These are the
[17:40] cues right here. Job gains have remained
[17:43] low on average. Unemployment little
[17:45] changed. Indicators suggest economic
[17:47] activity has been expanding at a solid
[17:49] pace. Interest rates are unchanged with
[17:53] no signal for when rates may change with
[17:56] a high level of uncertainty due to the
[17:58] Middle East.
[18:00] Job gains have remained low on average.
[18:02] The unemployment rate little change
[18:04] characterizes inflation as elevated
[18:05] versus somewhat elevated in the previous
[18:07] statement. So we've moved to elevated
[18:10] versus somewhat elevated character.
[18:13] We've got the committee is attentive to
[18:14] both sides of the dual mandate. That's
[18:16] that dualsided risk. Developments in the
[18:19] Middle East are contributing to high
[18:20] level of uncertainty. Characterizes
[18:22] inflation. We saw that attentive to risk
[18:24] of dual side. Yes. Uh we've got okay
[18:28] vote in favor of policy was 84 with
[18:31] Myron dissenting in favor of a quarter
[18:33] point cut. Okay so that he's still going
[18:36] for the cut but a hammock Qashqari and
[18:39] Logan dissented against the inclusion of
[18:43] the easing bias in the statement. Okay,
[18:46] so that's really interesting. So
[18:47] basically
[18:49] there are members of the Fed who voted
[18:52] against Powell here to argue that we
[18:55] should actually get rid of any
[18:58] indication that we are even open to
[19:01] cutting rates in the future. Uh so let's
[19:06] write that down. That's uh that's
[19:07] somewhat interesting and then we can
[19:08] kind of uh understand this a little bit
[19:10] better uh together. So, the Fed's
[19:12] statement,
[19:15] and we'll jot this down together. So,
[19:17] we've got Hammock,
[19:19] uh, Cashari, and Logan, uh, voted no.
[19:24] Cash Kari voted no because they wanted
[19:29] to remove easing bias language from
[19:32] statement. Basically,
[19:35] they're trying to send a little warning
[19:37] sign. uh basically uh warning that we
[19:41] may not uh cut rates anytime soon. The
[19:46] committee
[19:48] uh is happy where they are. Uh and
[19:54] uh let's see here. What else would you
[19:55] get? It it also somewhat sets up for a
[19:59] harder time for Worsh, right? Sets up a
[20:01] harder time for war. war um biases uh
[20:08] towards rate cuts. If already committee
[20:12] members are freaking,
[20:16] uh wanting to remove any hints of cuts,
[20:19] uh they're preserving their optionality
[20:23] to go up in rates due to of course uh as
[20:29] they say, Middle East uncertainty.
[20:33] Okay.
[20:34] They do in the statement mention that uh
[20:37] job gains have remained low. So this is
[20:41] a lack of reference lack of uh mention
[20:44] in statement uh on the ADP reports. You
[20:49] know obviously rates unchanged that was
[20:52] expected.
[20:53] Uh, myin wanted a 25
[20:57] want a 25 BP cut
[21:00] and uh let's see committee carefully
[21:03] assess incoming data and the balance of
[21:06] risks. A lot of talk for rate cuts
[21:10] uh future rate cuts based on a balance
[21:15] of risk
[21:17] risks. Yeah, we've already known that uh
[21:20] most number of dissenting votes. This is
[21:22] four descents. So 8 to4 vote.
[21:27] Most descents since October 1992.
[21:32] That's when Kevin was born.
[21:35] Uh well Jan 92 but close enough. I think
[21:39] that's when hurricane What was the
[21:41] hurricane? I think that was hurricane
[21:42] Andrew. Oh that may have been September.
[21:45] Hurricane Andrew. Hurricane Andrew. Oh,
[21:49] was it the year before? No. August 92.
[21:52] August. That makes sense. More in
[21:54] hurricane season. Okay. Interesting. So
[21:58] then we've got
[22:02] inflation elevated. Oh. Oh. From
[22:04] somewhat elevated, right? And then they
[22:06] moved
[22:08] uh moved
[22:11] uh job gains have remained low.
[22:13] Unemployment rates stable.
[22:16] moved inflation from somewhat elevated
[22:20] to elevated. Now that's actually
[22:22] important.
[22:24] So
[22:26] this is uh this is a the these
[22:28] statements together here
[22:31] uh important because Fed will act on
[22:35] whichever
[22:38] mandate is closer from their goal. Okay,
[22:42] they're telling you
[22:44] employment is stable
[22:48] and inflation is now further from the
[22:51] goal, worse than before. This implies or
[22:56] sets up, you know, rate hikes.
[23:01] Um,
[23:03] and then, uh, I should put a note just
[23:05] at the quick top over here. Uh, goodbye
[23:09] Powell is the coupon code at meet
[23:13] kevin.com
[23:15] and uh, househack.com
[23:18] expiring tomorrow just in honor of
[23:21] Powell.
[23:24] Oh, I can't wait till we get to release
[23:26] some of these new things that are coming
[23:27] out for some uh, for the course members.
[23:30] We we already have such cool things. Uh,
[23:32] but then we'll be raising the price
[23:33] again quite a bit because when this
[23:35] stuff comes out, it's going to be
[23:36] incredible. Okay. So,
[23:40] yeah, let's send that through. Let's go
[23:42] uh let's listen into CNBC for a moment.
[23:44] See if they have anything fun for us.
[23:45] Opposite direction.
[23:46] I I know. Okay. Let's go back. This is
[23:48] We didn't get a rate cut. Nobody
[23:49] expected a rate cut. Okay, Francis, but
[23:51] I I think I'm one of them. And if I
[23:53] frame this incorrectly, please correct
[23:55] me.
[23:55] I'll let you know. I I'm sure you will,
[23:57] even your nice Canadian way, which is we
[24:00] have three members of the Fed board who
[24:02] dissented not on rates, right,
[24:04] but dissented because they indicated
[24:06] they don't want to cut later. It felt
[24:09] like a direct shot across the bow of an
[24:12] incoming Kevin Worsh administration.
[24:14] That's that's exactly what I was saying.
[24:16] It's basically this setup where you're
[24:19] like, "Hey, we're going to start uh
[24:22] planting the seeds for being anti-war
[24:26] internally." Internally, it's coming
[24:27] through. This is a committee that is
[24:29] marking to market the view, the language
[24:32] with where the data is. The data is
[24:34] telling you the labor market is
[24:35] extraordinarily tight. The data is
[24:37] telling you inflation is running near 3%
[24:39] and heading in the wrong direction. soft
[24:48] and the way you argue inflation, right?
[24:51] The just understanding this, the way you
[24:54] argue this is you call it transitory.
[24:56] That's all you could do. The only way
[24:59] you can mirn a rate cut or wash is if
[25:03] you argue the oil shock is short-term
[25:07] uh transitory. The problem is
[25:12] the more you call problems
[25:15] uh transitory, the more you risk
[25:18] deankering expectations. And then
[25:21] welcome to the 1970s, right? So here's
[25:25] the red line.
[25:27] Uh job gains have remained low on
[25:29] average, right? Because we've we've seen
[25:31] some highs and lows on some of the
[25:32] numbers. Inflation is elevated, right?
[25:37] They got rid of the remains somewhat
[25:42] high level of uncertainty
[25:45] whereas before they just had uncertain
[25:49] and that's it.
[25:51] Yeah, there it is. Maintaining the
[25:53] target funds rate, federal funds rate
[25:55] but did not the support the inclusion of
[25:57] an easing bias in the statement.
[26:02] Uh that would be this right here. In
[26:05] considering the extent and timing of
[26:07] additional adjustments,
[26:10] uh, we'll carefully assess the incoming
[26:12] data. Uh,
[26:17] I mean, I guess that's that's why they
[26:20] call it a bias because the implication
[26:21] there is like, hey, when are you guys
[26:23] going to do future rate cuts? Oh, well,
[26:24] it depends on the data. Okay,
[26:28] I think this vote might have been even
[26:31] more in favor of dissense or even that
[26:34] they would have taken out the easing
[26:36] bias if this was not Powell's last
[26:39] meeting. I think Powell wanted a hand to
[26:42] to war the status quo and didn't want to
[26:45] make a big change of where the Fed had
[26:47] been over the past several months just
[26:49] before he left. But I think that there's
[26:51] maybe more than three people and I've
[26:53] been following this torsion and I know
[26:55] you do probably better than I do. Each
[26:57] each word that's come out and a lot of
[26:58] those words have been about we're not
[27:00] comfortable with this idea. We want to
[27:02] go to more.
[27:03] Somebody says uh they're shorting AMD.
[27:05] You know, AMD has been one of the stocks
[27:08] that we've been shouting out in the uh
[27:10] the course membership because we've been
[27:12] talking since since the beginning of
[27:13] April about how uh AMD is actually very
[27:16] undervalued and how there's a uh a CPU
[27:19] boom happening that people aren't paying
[27:21] attention to. Uh and so we've been
[27:23] talking about this for quite a while.
[27:24] And so it doesn't it doesn't surprise me
[27:26] that it's rocketed like this. But if you
[27:29] are shorting AMD, you do want to watch
[27:30] this 34226
[27:32] line. I personally don't have the balls
[27:36] to do that. I I I I'm not going to make
[27:38] bets against hardware right now. Uh I I
[27:41] do think the better bet in the long
[27:43] term, like over the next 10 years, I'
[27:44] I'd rather take my money that I would
[27:46] spend on shorts because I don't know
[27:48] that I can call that timing to that
[27:50] perfectly. I'd rather invest it into
[27:53] 10-year stocks, you know, stocks where
[27:54] I'm like, "Oh, okay. Well, there are
[27:55] some good deals on sales right now, and
[27:58] I want to go buy those." Like, you know,
[28:00] Robin Hood's almost at my $69 target. We
[28:02] don't own it in the Meet Kevin
[28:04] membership. We have 13 stocks that we're
[28:06] buying for the next 10 years. And you
[28:08] know, I want you to be a part of it, but
[28:10] you know, my hope is that in 10 years,
[28:11] we look back and we say, "Wow, out of
[28:13] those 13 stocks, you know, 12 of them
[28:15] were killers, like amazing winners." You
[28:18] know, I I mean, I don't think I'm going
[28:19] to have a 100% batting average, and I
[28:21] don't think anybody does, but um but uh
[28:24] yeah, I'm very very excited. Uh
[28:26] obviously, no guarantees, but I'm pretty
[28:28] excited. And so I actually like some of
[28:29] these discounts I'm seeing in fintech.
[28:31] You know, SoFi is is another one. Uh but
[28:34] there's also more competition coming up
[28:36] in banking. You know, one of my favorite
[28:39] um banks, Mercury, they uh they just uh
[28:44] got preliminary approval for their
[28:45] banking license. Uh so there's a lot of
[28:47] competition in this space for customers.
[28:50] You know, SoFi just reported and they're
[28:52] down 14%. I don't own any SoFi either.
[28:54] Uh but then at the same time you also
[28:56] had a Visa report and V dude Visa if you
[28:59] want to look at like an income statement
[29:02] and just have your draw drop in terms of
[29:04] how much freaking money Visa makes. It's
[29:07] insane. They literally make a Tesla
[29:10] worth of free cash flow every month. So
[29:15] the annual free cash flow that Tesla
[29:17] produces Visa generates every month. And
[29:22] Visa is like onethird the market cap of
[29:24] Tesla.
[29:26] It's crazy. It's It's Visa is actually
[29:29] not that expensive right now. You know,
[29:30] it's trading for like what was it? A 1.6
[29:33] peg here. I'll just pull it up. I'll
[29:35] show you.
[29:37] Uh Stonss,
[29:39] we have them at
[29:42] uh I wrote it down this morning. Where
[29:44] was it? Where was it? 1.8. Yeah. 1.8
[29:48] peg. and and you know their marketing
[29:51] went up a little bit because of the
[29:52] Olympics and people have like stable
[29:54] coin fears because of uh you know
[29:56] transact but honestly they're just going
[29:58] to make money with stable coins. That's
[29:59] my take. It's really incredible. So um
[30:03] Alex here says I'm shorting at 335.
[30:05] Definitely short-term definitely
[30:06] undervalued. Oh. Oh, you're making a day
[30:09] trade. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh,
[30:11] so you're just using it as a proxy for
[30:13] Powell. Oh, well that's reasonable. Uh
[30:15] it's not just Powell, but also mega cap
[30:17] earnings. You have to be careful. You
[30:19] know, if you're going to hold it through
[30:20] the day, you got a lot of earnings
[30:21] coming up at the bell. So, earnings at
[30:23] the bell are uh you know, they're going
[30:26] to send a huge signal for uh mega cap
[30:29] spending. You know, the whole open AI
[30:31] hit piece yesterday in the Wall Street
[30:32] Journal I thought was a little
[30:34] overblown.
[30:36] Uh chat's gotten pretty good. They've
[30:38] caught up again to like Gemini and
[30:40] others. And uh this is just sort of part
[30:42] of the I do think they spend like
[30:44] drunken sailors but uh I I do think
[30:46] there's a lot of utility to these you
[30:48] know all of them anthropic Gemini chat
[30:51] uh perplexity actually is one of the
[30:55] they're not the first with this but they
[30:57] have a really cool feature called the
[30:59] model council and you could like enable
[31:02] three different bots and then like find
[31:04] consensus and differences between them.
[31:06] It does it all for you. Um, not the most
[31:09] detailed, but it's it's pretty cool. Uh,
[31:12] so so there's there's some pretty
[31:13] impressive stuff going on. Uh, so, okay,
[31:17] good, good, good. Uh, let's see here.
[31:20] What else? U, Tesla, you know, I I
[31:23] honestly do believe that Tesla, and this
[31:26] is not to be bearish Tesla, it just it's
[31:28] just a I can't call it a fact. It's just
[31:30] a strong opinion. That's a very strong
[31:32] opinion that it's going to be going back
[31:34] into the 200s, unfortunately. Uh, I
[31:38] think Elon's going to kind of keep
[31:39] sandbagging this one, uh, intentionally
[31:41] so he can acquire it. Uh, so I think
[31:43] it's all part of the greater plan, uh,
[31:46] if you will, which is, uh, unfortunate,
[31:48] but what we'll see. Even Palanteer's
[31:51] come down. You know, a lot of the
[31:52] software plays have really come down
[31:55] lately. I think Michael Bur's been
[31:57] watching too many meek Kevin member live
[31:58] streams and, you know, apparently now
[32:00] Michael Bur is like getting into
[32:02] Microsoft and software plays. And I'm
[32:04] like, dude, how many of my live streams
[32:05] have you been watching?
[32:07] Uh, six Iranian crew members of Iranian
[32:10] flag container ship uh, freed after
[32:13] seizure. 22 Iranians are still being
[32:15] held.
[32:17] Uh, I've got, you know, SanDisk as like
[32:20] the greatest hardware meme play. I mean,
[32:22] it's $158 billion market cap after like
[32:25] 10xing, right? It's gone from like 15 to
[32:28] 158. It's actually been pretty damn
[32:29] incredible. Uh, scary because, you know,
[32:33] this is going to be one of those heavy
[32:34] U-turns. It's a very cyclical play, but
[32:37] boy, uh, it's incredible. You know,
[32:39] Bloom had another rocket of, uh,
[32:41] earnings, pretty impressive as well.
[32:43] Also quite overvalued. Hardware is just
[32:46] a there are a lot of hardware plays that
[32:47] are quite overvalued, but it's still
[32:49] pretty impressive how the market's
[32:50] trading it. Uh, so we shall see. You
[32:54] know, even Dell breaking 200. Pretty
[32:56] impressive. Uh, Super Micro is the one
[32:59] getting left behind, but uh, but anyway,
[33:01] we've got Powell in about 14 minutes.
[33:04] We've got our bingo board ready already.
[33:06] We actually got it ready pretty early
[33:08] here. So, we got reference to achieving
[33:10] the soft landing. No talk of cuts. You
[33:13] know, I realize we, you know, we could
[33:15] put something else here. I don't know.
[33:16] It's probably cheating, but we usually
[33:17] don't do our bingo board until like
[33:19] right before Powell comes out. So, let's
[33:21] just kill the little myin piece right
[33:23] there. And we'll have like one little
[33:24] opening there. Um, so,
[33:30] you know, I put talk about consensus
[33:31] about rates staying stable on there. I
[33:34] think that'll still occur. Uh even
[33:36] though we didn't have a consensus vote.
[33:40] Uh so we'll be able to fill something in
[33:41] there.
[33:44] No, no, I I don't know when Tesla uh
[33:47] would go fall to 200. Uh I think a lot
[33:49] of that sort of just depends on uh you
[33:52] know the next two or three earnings. So,
[33:55] no, it's it's not something uh to short
[33:59] that I'm going to short, but I I I do
[34:01] think it's unfortunately like the the
[34:03] trajectory is obvious to where I don't
[34:05] want to buy it. Uh it's also a little
[34:08] pricey right now. A little It's like a
[34:10] five peg.
[34:14] Donald Trump, Iran has small percentage
[34:16] of missile making facilities
[34:19] because we obliterated them. Right. We
[34:22] shall see. We shall see. You know,
[34:25] another proxy for SpaceX stock has kind
[34:28] of uh settled down a little bit. See
[34:30] this here? This is SATS Echoar. They've
[34:32] got a good uh SpaceX exposure and the
[34:35] whole Elon stock comp plan to get, you
[34:37] know, a million people on Mars and a $7
[34:40] trillion valuation for SpaceX. In my
[34:43] opinion, that's just part of the IPO
[34:45] hype because he's trying to get people
[34:47] to go, "Oh, well, if it IPOs at$2
[34:49] billion dollars and Musk thinks it's
[34:50] going to go to seven, that's a three and
[34:53] a half bagger. I'm going to three and a
[34:55] halfx my money if I buy Space X so Elon
[34:58] can get paid." That's I think what he's
[35:00] trying to, you know, brand.
[35:05] So, uh, Trump suggested a bit of a
[35:07] ceasefire in Ukraine. A bit of a
[35:09] ceasefire. Interesting. Yeah. 24 hours.
[35:12] all have that war solved. Oh, that was
[35:14] just being satirical, right? Uh but
[35:17] anyway, uh what do you think happens
[35:19] with Spirit Airlines tomorrow? I don't
[35:20] know. You know, they've um it's no
[35:23] surprise that they entered bankruptcy
[35:24] proceedings. This back when we were
[35:26] doing fundamental analysis, but on on
[35:28] Spirit, but um you know, you could see
[35:31] when a company is trending towards
[35:32] bankruptcy. It's actually one of the
[35:34] features that we're working on in the
[35:36] Meet Kevin app where we uh we flag
[35:38] stocks based on the level of bankruptcy
[35:41] risk they have. So like if you see a
[35:43] cheap stock that is trending towards
[35:45] bankruptcy, at least you're aware of
[35:46] that as well. Uh so that'll be a cool
[35:48] feature. But um yeah, you know, Trump is
[35:51] sort of muse taking a stake in Spirit,
[35:54] which is odd. uh sort of nationalizing
[35:58] of a money losing business,
[36:02] but you know, Trump doesn't want to see
[36:04] job loss and he wants to come in as a
[36:05] hero. Uh it's it's sort of his way of
[36:08] buying votes, if you will.
[36:11] I think uh midterms are not going to be
[36:13] very uh pleasant to Trump, though. We
[36:16] shall see. Uh okay, what else do we
[36:19] have? We've got now 11 minutes until
[36:22] Powell comes out. Donald Trump spoke
[36:24] with Putin in a very positive exchange
[36:26] that covered both Ukraine and Iran.
[36:28] Trump told Putin, "I would rather he
[36:30] assist in bringing the war in Ukraine to
[36:33] an end." Adding that Iran possesses only
[36:36] a small fraction of his missing missile
[36:38] making facilities.
[36:42] I believe he might declare a ceasefire,
[36:44] possibly a small one, in the near
[36:45] future. So what? Putin could just
[36:48] unilaterally declare ceasefires
[36:50] probably.
[36:52] Um,
[36:53] I don't know. That sounds like Putin
[36:55] appeasing Trump. Oh, yeah. Maybe, you
[36:58] know, I saw your ceasefire. Good job.
[37:00] Maybe we do same. Yeah, Putin would like
[37:03] to be a, you know, I think I think Putin
[37:06] knows how to manipulate Trump really
[37:08] well. I think it's very interesting. Oh,
[37:09] he just wants to help. He's a good guy.
[37:12] He Putin's a good guy. He just want He
[37:14] just wants to help. He just wants to
[37:15] help, guys. You know, we're we're going
[37:17] to we're going to work out a small
[37:18] ceasefire.
[37:21] So he says, "Damn insiders, politicians
[37:23] making bank on oil." Yeah. Yeah, I know.
[37:26] It's uh the insider trading is probably
[37:28] the most extreme we've ever seen it.
[37:30] There's always been insider trading. It
[37:32] just seems to be uh more extreme today
[37:34] than ever before.
[37:36] Uh yeah, Circle 91 bucks. Uh it is uh I
[37:39] think we are sitting right Yeah, we got
[37:41] a line at 87 for it. It is uh it had a
[37:45] little bit of a euphoria there between
[37:48] uh 87 and 121. I actually broke past 121
[37:51] but uh
[37:55] yeah the integration of stable coins I
[37:57] think will become a big part of our
[37:58] financial future both uh you know you
[38:00] won't notice it. It'll be just built
[38:02] into banking and credit cards and
[38:04] everything. I think that's happening.
[38:07] been descending a lot lately about
[38:09] wanting to cut rates, but then three
[38:10] others actually trying to eliminate the
[38:13] bias toward easing rates down the line.
[38:16] Got a we swapped out our panel a bit.
[38:18] David Kelly, we invited you into the
[38:20] chamber of doom here. Jeff Kilberg
[38:22] joining us as well of KKM Financial on
[38:24] set. Jeff, um markets not moving. I
[38:27] think they're waiting for Jerome Powell
[38:29] and he didn't drop a bomb. He may still
[38:31] yet, but the four descents, should the
[38:35] market react to this? I don't think they
[38:37] need to react. But what this is to use a
[38:39] football analogy, this is a new
[38:41] quarterback hitting the portal. When you
[38:43] see a new quarterback coming in and
[38:44] Kevin Walsh in the old quarterback and
[38:46] Jerome Powell leaving, this was the rest
[38:47] of the players kind of letting him know,
[38:49] hey, we're not going to let you lead us
[38:51] here. So
[38:51] Trump hints that the war in Ukraine
[38:53] could conclude before the conflict with
[38:55] Iran.
[38:57] That's not good. That means Trump is
[39:00] getting quite bearish on Iran. That is
[39:05] not good.
[39:07] Uh, let me see what oil's doing right
[39:10] now.
[39:12] Ah,
[39:14] 11850.
[39:18] Wow.
[39:20] Yeah. So, that's not good. Let's go uh
[39:22] write that onto the uh geopol.
[39:25] Uh, Iran Trump hints
[39:29] uh war in Ukraine could conclude before
[39:32] war in Iran. This is bearish.
[39:36] uh Brent rockets to 11850.
[39:42] My warning signal, my warning price
[39:45] target is 120. Uh that's what we've had
[39:49] in uh course member discussions and on
[39:52] yesterday's video.
[39:55] Uh we're up, you know, quite a bit since
[39:58] then already.
[40:00] Uh okay, that's Gio.
[40:05] That's crazy.
[40:07] That is not good.
[40:10] Not good at all.
[40:11] I think another message to him that
[40:13] look, you're really going to have to
[40:14] talk with everybody in the committee.
[40:15] You're going to have to find consensus.
[40:17] You can't just steamroll a people with
[40:18] with with your your own ideas.
[40:21] Somebody here says Trump has uh messed
[40:22] up the Iran situation so bad and
[40:24] embarrassed America and will likely
[40:26] begin losing the petro dollar over this.
[40:29] I definitely think there's been some
[40:31] embarrassment regarding this. I I think
[40:32] the dollar still has uh quite a bit of
[40:34] strength, but you're right, like it it
[40:36] push pushes us down a messy uh track.
[40:39] You know, it' be nice not to have to
[40:41] deal with this sort of nonsense.
[40:43] Uh so,
[40:47] let's see. Uh speaks of Yeah, white
[40:50] collar crime. No, all the inception. It
[40:52] is. It is. But, you know, you have an
[40:54] administration that's actively
[40:57] instructing
[40:58] the
[41:01] DOJ and SEC to not enforce certain
[41:05] insider training. You know, I think they
[41:07] recently made an example of like some
[41:10] military sergeant or whatever. But
[41:12] notice how, you know, by no means is it
[41:15] any of the politicians or political
[41:17] folks involved up at the top. So, I feel
[41:19] like that was just a little bit Oh,
[41:21] yeah. Yeah. See, see, we are working on
[41:23] it. We are we are persecuting insider
[41:25] trading. It's like, no, you're not.
[41:28] Maybe that's just being jaded.
[41:32] Be fair to him. I mean, he, you know,
[41:33] this is a this is a new job. It's going
[41:35] to be u you know, he he deserves
[41:37] everybody's support going into this very
[41:39] important job. But I think you do have
[41:41] to ask questions about, you know, when
[41:42] he was on the Fed before, he definitely
[41:44] was hawkish. uh and then he's now in
[41:48] sort of the leadup to this he's
[41:49] expressed almost the opposite set of
[41:51] views and you just wonder what are the
[41:53] true views or how deeply held are those
[41:55] particular views
[41:56] and what Jim almost was saying and a lot
[41:58] of people feel this way a lot of people
[41:59] don't buy it but the but the
[42:01] cutting rates in September of 2024
[42:05] drone pal cut rates
[42:07] cuz the labor market was poop and I
[42:10] still don't know why
[42:11] are you kidding me the labor market was
[42:13] falling off a cliff you jackass you're
[42:15] just going to ignore for all the data
[42:17] inflation. I think getting back to a
[42:19] normal.
[42:19] We also had the Japanese carry trade
[42:21] crisis at the same time the labor market
[42:23] was falling off a cliff and this CNBC
[42:26] clown wants to pretend that we don't
[42:29] know why because you weren't paying
[42:31] attention dumbass is we don't know what
[42:34] transitory is unless the boats transit
[42:35] out of the straight of
[42:36] Hormuz and to your point crude oil is at
[42:39] 107
[42:41] and the other thing to think about in
[42:42] this oil issue is we we went into this
[42:45] massive stockpile of inventory around
[42:46] the world. We're working through that.
[42:48] But while we're working through that
[42:49] stockpile, we're not seeing the price
[42:51] effects. If this goes on another month,
[42:52] two months, three months, four months,
[42:54] we've got a real problem.
[42:55] You're talking my world. Now, Dave, I
[42:56] will say this, the the paper market that
[42:58] we show on the screen.
[42:59] I I agree. Uh it's uh CNBC does is
[43:03] starting to get a little embarrassing
[43:05] these days. I I I I listen to them less
[43:08] and less. Like I was on uh my trip to uh
[43:12] on my trip to New York, which is a great
[43:14] trip, by the way. highly recommend take
[43:17] your spouse on a trip to New York and go
[43:19] to, you know, a Broadway show or
[43:20] whatever and just mess around in New
[43:22] York. It's kind of fun, but um
[43:27] yeah, thanks to real estate and uh and
[43:29] stock analysis for letting us do that.
[43:31] But um remember you can join at
[43:33] meetke.com, use that coupon code. But um
[43:36] what am I trying to say? Uh, oh yeah, I
[43:38] was wa I was using the Vision Pro on the
[43:40] flight over uh and I had Bloomberg TV up
[43:45] while at the same time, you know,
[43:47] working whatever documents I was working
[43:49] on, some research or whatever. And uh
[43:53] as much as I don't like the Doomers,
[43:55] feel like it's uh it's better than CNBC
[43:58] lately. I I don't know what's changed
[43:59] lately. Maybe that's just a vibe I'm
[44:01] getting. So uh anyway, let's see what
[44:04] else we have here. we're not going to
[44:05] bail you out because you know the
[44:06] administration's got to figure out a
[44:08] solution to the problem in the Middle
[44:10] East. They've got to figure out a
[44:11] solution and if they assume that somehow
[44:13] the Fed is going to cut rates and that's
[44:15] going to fix things or something else
[44:16] going to happen to fix things that
[44:17] that's just just very bad strategy. So
[44:20] in a way the Fed's saying you you you
[44:22] got to deal with the the problems
[44:23] because we're not going to bail you out
[44:25] here.
[44:25] But it's almost a reminder that we're
[44:26] independent. Right.
[44:27] Exactly.
[44:28] One other thing I think about Francis
[44:29] Donald used the term fiscal dominance
[44:31] and was talking about and we all know
[44:32] this is true. look at the deficits and
[44:34] look at the way that kind of the fiscal
[44:36] side is dominating the business cycle.
[44:38] Is the Fed going to push back on that,
[44:40] David Kelly? And would a Worsh Fed put
[44:42] push back on that?
[44:43] No, I I think War to the extent that he
[44:45] has expressed a philosophy, it's really
[44:47] the Fed shouldn't. And I I agree with
[44:49] that that the Fed needs to have a small
[44:51] it should deal with the things it can
[44:52] deal with. It shouldn't try and deal
[44:53] with things it can't deal with. And you
[44:55] know, when you talk about fiscal, it's
[44:56] not so much fiscal, you know, the size
[44:57] of the deficit. It's a lot of decisions
[44:59] we're making in Washington. The
[45:01] vision pro are they actually useful? um
[45:04] for very very specific purposes. Uh like
[45:08] a plane is a great example I think where
[45:10] the vision pro is very useful because
[45:12] you do get a much larger workspace.
[45:16] Uh I much prefer
[45:20] in an office just having like two
[45:23] laptops or you know a couple computers
[45:25] or whatever. That's my preference. Uh, I
[45:29] actually like that a lot because I, you
[45:31] know, I noticed that even with newer Mac
[45:34] computers or even Windows computers,
[45:37] I could just run things better if I have
[45:39] multiple of them. Like right now in
[45:41] front of me, I have four computers and
[45:43] these are all Windows computers
[45:44] actually. And uh, actually that's not
[45:46] true. One of them is a Mac and then
[45:48] three of them are Windows computers. But
[45:51] it it's just been a lot easier to run
[45:53] video processing or video editing or you
[45:56] know uh news feeds or whatever on
[45:58] different computers so they just don't
[45:59] bog down the main frame you're working
[46:01] on. Um that is like the opposite with
[46:06] the Vision Pro, right? Everything's kind
[46:07] of squeezed into one device. Uh and and
[46:11] there are some limitations like you
[46:12] could you can't stream this I think is
[46:14] stupid. You can't you can't mirror to
[46:16] your phone and your laptop at the same
[46:19] time. So, like if I have my laptop
[46:22] mirrored to the Vision Pro and then I
[46:23] have a bunch of other windows open,
[46:24] that's great. But then I want to check
[46:26] my phone, I have to take the damn
[46:27] goggles off and and that's annoying. Uh
[46:30] like you should be able to mirror both
[46:32] your laptop and your phone to the Vision
[46:34] Pro. I don't know, maybe there's a new
[46:35] update that'll fix that or something.
[46:37] But that was that's been my experience
[46:39] with uh with it. But I I mean like you
[46:42] know outside of flying and then an
[46:45] extended flight at that,
[46:49] you know, is it really worth spending
[46:51] four grand on or whatever? No. I do hope
[46:54] Apple comes out with a foldable phone
[46:56] because I do wish my phone were larger.
[46:59] Like I wish I had a device that could
[47:01] fit in my pocket that could be larger
[47:05] than the phone
[47:07] but isn't as large as an iPad, right?
[47:10] right? Cuz that iPad doesn't fit in my
[47:11] pocket just so I could like read more
[47:14] easily. Not that I'm like going blind. I
[47:17] could see the text to my phone just
[47:18] fine, but I think more screen real
[47:20] estate would be nice, even just for like
[47:22] annotating and researching when I do.
[47:24] That's why I like the iPad, but I don't
[47:26] want to carry an iPad around everywhere.
[47:28] So, they get heavy. Yeah, the Mini's
[47:31] okay.
[47:33] Uh the Mini's The Mini is pretty good.
[47:35] Like, if you're going to go travel
[47:36] somewhere, the Mini's good. It doesn't
[47:38] weigh that much. You start, you put a
[47:40] keyboard case on an iPad Pro, it's like
[47:42] 4 lb.
[47:44] It's crazy. Then you may as well have a
[47:47] whole freaking Mac Pro laptop.
[47:51] It's crazy. Uh so
[47:55] yeah, iPad Mini though is is good. My my
[47:58] iPad mini screen is cracked and they're
[48:00] like, "Oh, it'll cost you $499 to
[48:02] replace it." I'm like, "I could just buy
[48:03] a new mini." And they're like, "Yeah,
[48:05] you want to buy a new mini?" And I'm
[48:07] like, "No, I'll just leave it cracked."
[48:10] I because I just I use it so little that
[48:13] I really don't care and it doesn't
[48:14] really affect the performance where the
[48:15] crack is. So, you know, and it's not
[48:18] about the money. It's like the hassle of
[48:21] setting up yet another device.
[48:27] Trump on Hormuzade. It has been genius.
[48:30] Uh-huh. Iran just has to say he give up.
[48:34] Yeah. Yeah. or perhaps his last ever
[48:35] press conference as Fed chair.
[48:40] Good afternoon.
[48:41] Yes.
[48:42] Uh my colleagues and I remain squarely
[48:44] focused on achieving our dual mandate
[48:46] goals of maximum employment and stable
[48:48] prices for the benefits benefit of the
[48:50] American people. The US economy has been
[48:53] expanding at a solid pace. While job
[48:55] gains have remained low, the
[48:57] unemployment rate has been little
[48:58] changed in recent months. Inflation has
[49:01] moved up and is elevated in part
[49:03] reflecting the recent increase in global
[49:05] energy prices.
[49:07] Today, the FOMC decided to leave our
[49:10] policy rate unchanged.
[49:12] We see the current stance of monetary
[49:14] policy as appropriate to promote
[49:16] progress toward our maximum employment
[49:18] and 2% inflation goals.
[49:21] Developments in the Middle East are
[49:23] contributing to a high level of
[49:24] uncertainty about the economic outlook
[49:26] and we will remain attentive to risks to
[49:28] both sides of our dual mandate. I'll
[49:31] have more to say about monetary policy
[49:33] after briefly reviewing economic
[49:35] developments.
[49:37] Recent indicators suggest that economic
[49:39] activity has been expanding at a solid
[49:41] pace. Consumer spending has been
[49:44] resilient and business fixed investment
[49:46] has continued to expand at a brisk pace.
[49:49] In contrast, activity in the housing
[49:51] sector has remained weak.
[49:54] In the labor market, the unemployment
[49:56] rate was 4.3% in March and has changed
[49:59] little in recent months. Job gains have
[50:02] remained low. A good part of the slowing
[50:05] in the pace of the job growth over the
[50:07] past year reflects a decline in the
[50:08] growth of the labor force due to lower
[50:11] immigration and labor force
[50:12] participation, though labor demand has
[50:15] clearly softened as well.
[50:17] Other indicators, including job
[50:19] openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal
[50:21] wage growth, generally show little
[50:23] change in recent months.
[50:27] Inflation has moved up recently and is
[50:29] elevated relative to our 2% longer run
[50:32] goal. Estimates based on the consumer
[50:34] price index and other data indicate that
[50:37] total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12
[50:40] months ending in March, boosted by the
[50:43] significant rise in global oil prices
[50:45] that has resulted from the conflict in
[50:47] the Middle East.
[50:49] Excluding the volatile food and energy
[50:51] categories, core PCE prices rose 3.2%
[50:54] over the 12 months ending in March. This
[50:57] relatively high rate largely reflects
[50:59] the effects of tariffs on prices in the
[51:01] goods sector.
[51:03] Near-term measures of inflation
[51:04] expectations have risen this year,
[51:06] likely because of the substantial rise
[51:08] in oil prices.
[51:11] Most measures of longerterm expectations
[51:13] remain consistent with our 2% inflation
[51:15] goal.
[51:17] Our monetary policy actions are guided
[51:19] by our dual mandate to promote maximum
[51:21] employment and stable prices for the
[51:23] American people. At today's meeting, the
[51:26] committee decided to maintain the target
[51:27] range for the federal funds rate at 3
[51:29] and a half to 3 and 3/4%.
[51:32] The economic outlook remains highly
[51:34] uncertain and the conflict in the Middle
[51:36] East has added to this uncertainty.
[51:39] In the near term, higher energy prices
[51:41] will push up overall inflation. Beyond
[51:44] that, the scope and duration of
[51:46] potential effects on the economy remain
[51:48] unclear, as does the future course of
[51:50] the conflict itself.
[51:52] We will continue to monitor the risks to
[51:54] both sides of our dual mandate. We are
[51:57] well positioned to determine the extent
[51:58] and timing of additional adjustments to
[52:00] our policy rate based on the incoming
[52:02] data, the evolving outlook, and the
[52:05] balance of risks.
[52:07] Monetary policy is not on a preset
[52:09] course, and we will make our decisions
[52:11] on a meeting by meeting basis.
[52:14] There we go.
[52:15] This is my last press conference as
[52:17] chair, and I will close with a few
[52:19] thoughts. First, I want to congratulate
[52:21] Kevin Walsh on his advancement out of
[52:23] the Senate Banking Committee this
[52:25] morning. This is an important step
[52:27] forward and I wish him well as that
[52:29] process continues.
[52:32] The Federal Reserve exists for one
[52:34] fundamental purpose to foster the
[52:36] economic conditions in which American
[52:38] families and businesses can thrive.
[52:40] Stable prices, a strong job market, and
[52:43] a financial system they can depend on.
[52:46] Every decision we make, whether about
[52:48] interest rates or regulatory and
[52:49] supervisory matters or other issues, is
[52:52] made in service of that purpose.
[52:55] Our decisions reflect the collective
[52:56] judgment of the board of governors and
[52:58] the federal open market committee.
[52:59] Colleagues who demonstrate analytical
[53:01] rigor, principled judgment, and a
[53:03] genuine commitment to the public
[53:05] interest. Our collaborative and
[53:07] deliberative process has long reflected
[53:09] a shared commitment to finding common
[53:11] ground in service to our mission.
[53:15] This institution is resilient, capable,
[53:17] and staffed by professionals of
[53:19] extraordinary talent and exceptional
[53:21] dedication. It has been a privilege to
[53:23] serve alongside so many great public
[53:26] servants at the board of governors and
[53:28] around the Federal Reserve system.
[53:31] The Fed's work is only as effective as
[53:33] the public's understanding of it. And
[53:35] you, the press, are essential to keeping
[53:37] the public informed about we about what
[53:39] we do and why. The people we serve,
[53:41] benefit from your careful reporting.
[53:46] I welcomed the announcement last Friday
[53:48] by the US attorney for the District of
[53:50] Columbia that she had closed the
[53:52] criminal investigation. She also noted,
[53:54] however, that she would not hesitate to
[53:56] restart the investigation.
[53:57] Uh-oh. Over the weekend, the Department
[54:00] of Justice provided assurances that they
[54:02] will not reopen the investigation unless
[54:04] there's a criminal referral from the
[54:06] Fed's inspector general. And absent such
[54:09] a referral, if they do appeal the recent
[54:11] court decision, they would not seek, as
[54:13] part of that appeal, to restart the
[54:15] investigation or send new subpoenas.
[54:20] I said that I will not leave the board
[54:22] until this investigation is well and
[54:24] truly over with transparency and
[54:26] finality, and I stand by that.
[54:28] I'm encouraged by recent developments,
[54:30] and I'm watching the remaining steps in
[54:33] this process carefully.
[54:36] My decisions on these matters will
[54:37] continue to be guided entirely by what I
[54:39] believe is in the best interest of the
[54:41] institution and the people we serve.
[54:44] After my term as chair ends on May 15, I
[54:46] will continue to serve as a governor for
[54:48] a period of time to be determined. Wow.
[54:51] I plan to keep a low profile as a
[54:53] governor. There's only ever one chair of
[54:56] the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin
[54:58] Worsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will
[55:01] be that chair. Once sworn in as board
[55:03] chair, his new colleagues will elect him
[55:05] to chair the FOMC as well.
[55:07] Wow.
[55:09] As I regularly point out from this
[55:11] podium, our success in delivering our
[55:13] goals matters for all Americans. I'm
[55:16] confident that that the Fed will
[55:17] continue to do its work with
[55:18] objectivity, integrity, and a deep
[55:21] commitment to serve the American people.
[55:24] Thank you, and I look forward to your
[55:25] questions. A
[55:33] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the
[55:34] kind words about the press. Often
[55:35] doesn't come from the podium in
[55:37] different places, but appreciate that.
[55:39] Um, can you talk about what is gone into
[55:41] your decision to remain on the board?
[55:43] What kind of criteria are you weighing
[55:45] and uh how long might you stay? Thank
[55:47] you.
[55:48] Sure. So, you know, my my concern is
[55:51] really about the series of legal attacks
[55:53] on the Fed, right,
[55:54] which threaten our ability to conduct
[55:56] monetary policy without considering
[55:57] political factors. And I I want to note
[56:00] here, this has nothing whatever to do
[56:02] with verbal criticism by elected
[56:03] officials. Uh I I've never suggested
[56:06] that such ver verbal criticism is a
[56:08] problem and neither has anyone else
[56:09] here. But these legal actions by the
[56:12] administration are unprecedented in our
[56:14] 113year history and there are ongoing
[56:16] threats uh of additional such actions. I
[56:19] I worry that these attacks are battering
[56:21] the institution and putting at risk the
[56:23] thing that really matters to the public,
[56:25] which is the ability to conduct monetary
[56:27] policy without taking into consideration
[56:29] political factors.
[56:30] Right?
[56:31] It is so important for our economy, for
[56:33] the people that we serve, that they can
[56:35] depend over time on a central bank that
[56:37] operates that way free of political
[56:39] influence.
[56:40] Good for you.
[56:40] It's part of the absolute foundation of
[56:42] this amazing economy that we have. It's
[56:44] just one of the many reasons why the US
[56:47] economy is the env en envy of the world.
[56:49] Hell yeah.
[56:49] That piece of institutional architecture
[56:52] separates successful countries from
[56:53] unsuccessful countries.
[56:55] Yep.
[56:55] It is extremely important not for the
[56:57] people who work at the Fed at any given
[56:59] time, but for the people that we serve
[57:01] that the Fed remain able to conduct
[57:02] monetary policy in a way that doesn't
[57:04] get pulled into politics trying to help
[57:06] or hurt any particular politician or
[57:08] political party. It's critical for the
[57:10] people that we serve. In terms of when I
[57:13] would leave, I I will leave when I when
[57:15] I think it's appropriate to do so. Was
[57:17] that all your questions or was that
[57:18] Well, I just have a followup, which is
[57:20] what would you say to the criticism that
[57:22] by remaining on the board, you're
[57:23] actually taking a political act and
[57:25] denying uh President Trump the majority
[57:28] of the board, which as president he
[57:29] would have if you left.
[57:31] I I don't see that at all. As I
[57:33] mentioned, uh you know, I'm literally
[57:35] staying because of the actions that have
[57:37] been taken. I I had long planned to be
[57:39] retiring. Uh and uh you know the things
[57:42] that have happened in really in the last
[57:43] three months have have I think left me
[57:45] no choice but to stay until till I see
[57:47] them through at least that long. Um you
[57:50] know in addition uh I don't see how this
[57:54] will interfere. My intention is not to
[57:56] interfere. You know, I was a governor
[57:57] for almost six years, and the tradition
[58:00] is at the Fed that governors uh who
[58:03] understand how difficult the role of
[58:05] chair is, and as a as a soontobe former
[58:07] chair, I do understand how hard it is to
[58:09] get consensus with 19 strong-minded
[58:12] people, you work with the chair. You you
[58:14] try to you try to uh be heard, but also
[58:19] collaborate with the chair and try to
[58:21] support the chair when you can. When you
[58:22] can't, you can't. And I think that's the
[58:24] attitude that people generally take. And
[58:26] that's the attitude that I'll take.
[58:27] Good for him. You know what? What a
[58:30] badass to actually stand up to these
[58:31] attacks, though. He's actually fighting
[58:34] for like what political institutions
[58:36] should be. In March, you described the
[58:41] standard practice of looking through
[58:42] energy shocks as conditional on
[58:45] inflation expectations staying anchored.
[58:48] Since that meeting, there has been very
[58:50] little progress reopening uh key energy
[58:52] trade corridors. Can you help us
[58:54] understand how the inflation outlook has
[58:57] changed in the intermedating period
[58:59] beginning with the prospects for tariff
[59:01] pass through resolving on the timeline
[59:02] that you had outlined in March before
[59:05] getting to the energy shock that is now
[59:07] on top?
[59:08] So, you know,
[59:10] I would look at it this way. Um, for a
[59:14] long time, we've been working on on the
[59:17] hypothesis really that tariff uh tariffs
[59:21] would would lead to a one-time price
[59:22] increase and that that would go away
[59:24] over time. In other words, that there
[59:25] would be no further change. So, measured
[59:27] inflation wouldn't reflect that higher
[59:29] level going up more and more. And it's
[59:32] time for that to happen. You know, we
[59:34] really do expect that to be happening in
[59:36] the next two quarters. So, we'll be
[59:38] watching very carefully to see that what
[59:40] we've thought all along would happen.
[59:41] That's the kind of critical part of the
[59:43] forecast. We we need to really see that
[59:46] with with energy. It's it's so hard to
[59:48] say. Um I I mentioned you know in you
[59:51] know sort of the textbook you you would
[59:53] look through it an oil shock because
[59:55] they tend to be shortlived and they tend
[59:56] to revert and monetary policy works with
[59:59] long and variable lags. So you you know
[60:01] you wouldn't necessarily re react right
[60:03] away. I think that is all the more true
[60:05] given that we're several years above 2%
[60:08] inflation and that we're already looking
[60:10] through the tariff shock.
[60:12] Yeah, you're right, Teddy. Good comments
[60:13] in the chat. I agree with you.
[60:14] But the the question about about looking
[60:16] through energy really is not not in
[60:18] front of us right now. We it hasn't even
[60:20] peaked yet. And I think we'd want to see
[60:22] the backside of that and progress on
[60:24] tariffs before we even thought about uh
[60:27] about reducing rates. So, if I could
[60:29] follow up, the the statement today
[60:31] preserves language that has taken on
[60:33] some meaning uh as it was socialized
[60:35] when the committee was actively lowering
[60:37] rates. Why is that easing bias still uh
[60:42] ripe given how different the inflation
[60:44] outlook is now versus a meeting or two
[60:47] ago? And what more would have to happen
[60:50] for it to get evicted? So um that was uh
[60:54] as you will recall we we had a
[60:55] discussion about that at the last
[60:57] meeting and we talked about it in in the
[60:59] press conference after the March
[61:00] meeting. We had the same today. We had
[61:02] quite a vigorous discussion about that
[61:03] that very issue and the guidance and is
[61:06] it still appropriate and that kind of
[61:07] thing. And I would say that the you know
[61:09] number of people on the committee who
[61:11] either could support that ch language
[61:13] change changing to a more neutral stance
[61:16] so that a hike is as likely as as a cut.
[61:20] that number has increased over the
[61:21] intermedating period and it's easy to
[61:23] see why. I mean, it's it's a it's it's a
[61:26] good question, right? You see inflation
[61:27] has moved up over the interim a bit.
[61:30] Core inflation's 3.2 now, moving albeit
[61:33] just a little bit, in the wrong
[61:34] direction. And we we know that there
[61:37] will be, you know, that there's uh
[61:39] headline inflation coming out of the
[61:41] Gulf. And we don't know how much that
[61:42] will be. We just we're going to need to
[61:45] see. So, it makes all the sense in the
[61:47] world that people would look at that and
[61:48] and we'd have a vigorous discussion
[61:50] about that. You saw that three people
[61:52] desented over the language. I think all
[61:54] of those people agreed with the with the
[61:56] rate decision. Um, so the majority of
[61:59] the committee did not want to do that
[62:01] and and and I I was I didn't think we
[62:03] needed to do it at this meeting. It
[62:04] really was just a question of what's why
[62:07] do we need to do that now? You know, we
[62:09] have so much to learn. There's so much
[62:10] uncertainty about the path ahead. There
[62:12] doesn't need to be any rush to make that
[62:14] decision now.
[62:15] No rush is a big thing that we've been
[62:17] talking about. And Teddy in the comments
[62:18] here, you're right on. I mean, really,
[62:20] these shocks after shock keep inflation
[62:22] elevated for the shorter period of time.
[62:24] Hopefully by uh 2032. My goal, you know,
[62:27] rates are way down again. Probably will
[62:29] be, but like Jerome Pal says, no cuts
[62:31] basically until we get through this oil
[62:32] and tariff shock.
[62:34] Claire,
[62:37] Claire Jones, Financial Times. Um just
[62:40] just going back to this issue of the the
[62:43] easing bias. Um we've now got oil
[62:46] approaching $120 a barrel when it comes
[62:49] to benchmark.
[62:50] That's the number.
[62:51] Bren crude. Um if it stays around those
[62:55] levels 6 weeks from now, what would be
[62:57] your guess best guess as to whether the
[62:59] easing bias will still be in the
[63:01] statement? Thank you.
[63:02] Hold. I wouldn't want to guess. you
[63:04] know, well, first of all, we're going to
[63:05] have new leadership in all likelihood by
[63:07] then and and new leadership is going to
[63:09] have a very important role to play in
[63:10] that. So, uh, I won't be standing here
[63:12] at this podium to answer your question.
[63:14] So, um, I don't know. As I mentioned,
[63:17] that's all I can really say is that we
[63:19] had we had a great discussion about that
[63:20] today. It's a, you know, it's it got
[63:22] it's gotten to be a better question than
[63:24] the interim period. We had the
[63:25] discussion a majority are still on the
[63:27] page of of not feeling the need to move
[63:30] to that level. And I I that's where I
[63:31] am.
[63:32] Yeah. Uh I I get it though, you know, at
[63:34] a certain point you would move and that
[63:36] that conceivably could come as soon as
[63:38] the next meeting.
[63:39] Thank you. Just to follow up on um the
[63:42] new leadership also seem
[63:43] conceivably move as soon as next
[63:45] meeting. I don't think they're going to
[63:47] move. I think they're going to hold. You
[63:49] know, you don't want to pull a 1970s and
[63:51] really screw with people's expectations,
[63:53] which really affects inflation as well
[63:54] today here. But I've you know uh I I
[63:57] think communications generally is uh I
[63:59] think every incoming chair takes a look
[64:01] at communications and it's a very
[64:03] healthy thing. I mean communications
[64:05] it's very complex and uh you know you
[64:08] can always be uh be looking at new
[64:10] things and and I if that happens feels
[64:13] like it's going to happen that's
[64:14] completely appropriate thing.
[64:19] Hi chair chair pow with Axios. Um can
[64:22] you tell us if you've been uh in touch
[64:24] with with incoming chairman Worsh uh any
[64:27] uh to what extent is this a normal
[64:29] transition process versus all the things
[64:31] swirling around uh something unusual and
[64:33] and what can we expect when when he
[64:35] takes uh takes that podium in a few
[64:37] weeks?
[64:37] I I haven't seen him since uh seeing him
[64:39] at a dinner in January where I
[64:41] congratulated him and had a nice nice
[64:43] chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't
[64:44] know what a normal process is. you know,
[64:46] the the last process was with uh Janet
[64:48] Yellen, who with whom I had worked for 6
[64:50] years, and so it was a you know, we were
[64:52] sitting down the hall from each other,
[64:53] so it was a very different thing. I
[64:55] think I think this is and will be a very
[64:57] normal standard kind of a kind of a
[64:59] transition process. So that's that's
[65:01] what I expect. I have every reason to
[65:02] think it will be.
[65:03] Quick followup. Is the Supreme Court
[65:04] ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when
[65:06] you may leave as a governor?
[65:08] I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no,
[65:11] not really. I mean, I'm thinking more of
[65:13] the other things I mentioned.
[65:16] Chris.
[65:19] Hi. Uh, thanks for taking our question.
[65:21] I wanted to ask a question about your
[65:23] tenure and Chris Rugverber at Associated
[65:25] Press.
[65:26] Who's the blogging?
[65:26] Um, during your tenure as chair, you
[65:28] often spoke about how disadvantaged
[65:30] Americans benefited from extended
[65:32] periods of low unemployment. Uh, and the
[65:35] new framework the Fed adopted in 2020,
[65:37] some economists say elevated the Fed's
[65:39] employment mandate. Uh, are you worried
[65:41] that the the pandemic inflation spike
[65:44] that followed will make future Fed
[65:46] chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot
[65:48] jobs market and should they be?
[65:52] No. Um, I don't know the answer to that.
[65:56] I mean what we so what we experienced
[65:59] um
[66:00] in in uh the in the teens, the mid-
[66:03] teens was uh really low low levels of
[66:07] unemployment
[66:08] for a long period of time and no
[66:10] reaction from inflation and we all took
[66:12] very much took notice of that. We also
[66:15] noticed that the biggest wage gains were
[66:18] going to people at the bottom end of the
[66:20] income spectrum. And we had many many
[66:22] reports of uh I mean it felt like a
[66:25] fairly stable equilibrium and a lot of
[66:27] benefits were flowing to people at the
[66:29] bottom end of the uh income spectrum
[66:31] including companies were you know
[66:33] setting up in um in you know people who
[66:37] were confined and and like training them
[66:40] before they got out and it was it was a
[66:42] very healthy sort of set of societal
[66:43] dynamics.
[66:44] So, of course, I think anybody would
[66:46] love to get back to that. Um, I I don't
[66:49] think that anything that happened to
[66:53] create the the global pandemic inflation
[66:55] was in any any way related to
[66:58] overweighting the employment market. I
[66:59] mean, it was it was a global shock that
[67:01] happened essentially very very similarly
[67:03] all over the world that had to do with
[67:05] closing, reopening, stimulus, and all
[67:08] that. And I mean you could you could
[67:09] look at a graph of 10 big economies on
[67:12] the page and not know which was the US
[67:14] and which was Germany, France and things
[67:15] like that. So I don't think that that
[67:18] that insight was in any way responsible
[67:21] for the high inflation that we
[67:23] experienced. So I mean I think it's
[67:25] always been a balance. uh uh you you've
[67:29] got to you've got to be strong on both
[67:32] of our dual mandates and we we just for
[67:35] example now we we don't feel that the uh
[67:37] labor market is at all a source of
[67:39] inflation so we don't need to be
[67:40] worrying about that. It's been a long
[67:41] time since we have had to worry about
[67:42] that. Well actually during the during
[67:44] the pandemic recovery the labor market
[67:46] was super overheated and tight and
[67:48] that's when we had to worry about it but
[67:50] but not now. And just on the other
[67:52] issue, um are you would you need do you
[67:55] need more assurance from the Justice
[67:57] Department before stepping down? Is that
[67:59] what you're waiting for or what else?
[68:02] You know, for the for the investigation
[68:03] to be well and truly over with finality
[68:06] and transparency
[68:08] and I'm waiting for that and I will
[68:11] leave when I think it's appropriate to
[68:12] do so.
[68:13] Yeah. Fair. A quick reminder since it's
[68:16] his last meeting as Fed chair, coupon
[68:18] code goodbye Powell is live both at meet
[68:21] Kevin.com and househ.com if you want
[68:23] that real estate AI valuation AI comes
[68:25] out at the uh end of June.
[68:27] View and interest rates because there
[68:30] were some members of the open market
[68:31] committee who've been suggesting that we
[68:33] may need to raise interest rates even
[68:36] absent the war because inflation was not
[68:38] coming down fast enough. Uh is there any
[68:42] sense that interest rates might have to
[68:44] go up or was this just a setup to sort
[68:47] of uh warn people that you're worried
[68:51] about the war impacts?
[68:53] So nobody the three denters and and
[68:56] others who could have supported that and
[68:58] others who were you know who were voters
[69:00] and prefer non- voters who preferred it
[69:02] they all supported the right decision.
[69:04] Right? So people are not saying we need
[69:06] to hike now. It's more a question of you
[69:09] know don't we kind of feel that we
[69:11] should be neutral and markets are
[69:13] markets what are markets doing people
[69:15] argue that's this is consistent what
[69:17] markets are doing and again it's a it's
[69:20] a very fair question but you know these
[69:21] these changes there is you know it's a
[69:23] form of forward guidance and you want to
[69:26] make you don't want to make them you
[69:28] want to make them in a way that that
[69:30] will be sustained and continue to make
[69:31] sense and not something you need to take
[69:33] back uh you know fairly quickly. So I I
[69:36] think we just a group of us including me
[69:39] didn't feel like we needed to be in a
[69:41] hurry on that that that markets are not
[69:43] confused about our reaction function. We
[69:45] don't have a problem to solve on that.
[69:46] But the other side of the argument is a
[69:48] good argument too. As I as I mentioned
[69:49] it's a perfectly good argument to be
[69:52] having good discussion to be having. So
[69:54] and it came out the way it came out.
[69:55] Well you've got uh three descents uh in
[69:58] favor of uh two-sided uh warning. Uh
[70:02] you've got yourself staying on the
[70:04] board. You've got the criticism that
[70:06] does come from elected officials uh and
[70:09] you've got a lot of uh critics who have
[70:11] faulted the Fed for being too slow 2021
[70:15] with inflation. Are you worried about
[70:18] Fed credibility under all of this? Is
[70:20] that one reason that you want to stay
[70:22] on?
[70:24] Not not driving my my thinking now. I
[70:26] mean, monetary policy is going to get
[70:28] made by, you know, 19 people. There's a
[70:32] lot of stability there. Uh I mean if you
[70:35] think about it any every new fair Fed
[70:38] chair has the same situation which is
[70:41] you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC 11
[70:44] of them vote during any year and you
[70:46] have to your job is to create consensus
[70:50] is it's to talk to them understand them
[70:52] you know be inside their thinking and be
[70:55] able to pull them together and and get
[70:57] consensus and move. And that's that's
[70:59] what every Fed chair has to do. And I I
[71:02] think Kevin Wars is actually quite well.
[71:04] He has the capabilities, skills to be to
[71:07] be very good at that, I would think. So
[71:09] I think I I'm not so worried about that
[71:11] process, you know. Uh I think that'll
[71:14] that'll work itself out.
[71:17] Howard,
[71:19] uh thank you, Chair. Howard Schneider
[71:21] with Reuters. You you mentioned that uh
[71:23] staying on as a governor, you intend to
[71:25] keep a low profile. I'm just wondering
[71:27] if you could give us a little more
[71:28] detail on what that looks like and how
[71:30] you can
[71:32] touch Touche
[71:35] um what that Yeah. walk down the steps.
[71:37] Uh what that looks like and particularly
[71:39] around the policy discussion, how you're
[71:41] able to uh to have your intervention and
[71:44] not be a shadowed chair and not have
[71:47] kind of an outsized influence over the
[71:49] process.
[71:49] Yeah. You know, that's just something I
[71:51] would never do. You know, the shadow
[71:52] chair thing. you know, you know, it's
[71:53] it's I I don't know what the exact
[71:55] specifics of it will be, but I'm going
[71:58] back to being a governor. I respect the
[72:00] role of chair. I you know, I was a
[72:02] chair. I was a governor for 6 years, and
[72:04] I know what that's like. I know and I I
[72:06] had a, you know, pretty front row seat
[72:09] with particularly with with Chair Yellen
[72:10] to whom I I was close when I when I I
[72:12] was worked with Chairman Bernani for two
[72:14] years. But, um, you know, I I I was
[72:17] brand new at that time. So I got a sense
[72:19] of what it was and I had real sympathy
[72:20] for how hard it is to get that group to
[72:24] consensus and I always felt like I you
[72:26] know I don't want to add to that
[72:27] unnecessarily and that means try to
[72:29] support the chairs where the chair the
[72:31] direction the chair wants to go in if
[72:32] you can. If you can't you can't but and
[72:34] I think that's that's the way it's
[72:36] always worked there because the chair
[72:37] only has one vote plus the ability to
[72:39] develop consensus and if people won't be
[72:42] you know they they won't if they're not
[72:44] flexible at all then how do you ever do
[72:46] that? And so that's why the chair has
[72:48] the authority the chair has really is to
[72:51] develop relationships with people and
[72:52] work with them and then and then put
[72:54] something forward that has consensus and
[72:56] I you know I I prop I propose to be a
[72:58] very constructive participant in that
[73:01] process uh really out of respect for for
[73:04] the office of the chair
[73:05] and uh in your view as a a soontobe
[73:09] governor how do you see the risks of oil
[73:12] prices bleeding into core inflation in
[73:14] coming weeks because that was it seems
[73:17] like the commentary that was coming from
[73:19] particularly some of the Reserve Bank
[73:20] presidents there were elevated concerns
[73:21] about the bleed into core and you know
[73:24] here we are with three descents now what
[73:25] do you see as the prospect of of of a
[73:27] core inflation
[73:28] you know they're those prospects are
[73:30] real remember though our are u and
[73:32] they're real and the real thing is we're
[73:34] going to have to wait and see we're
[73:36] going to need to see and the good news
[73:37] is we think our policy stance is just is
[73:39] in a very good place for us to wait and
[73:41] see we you know we're right kind of at
[73:44] the high end of neutral or perhaps
[73:46] mildly restrictive. U the labor market
[73:49] shows more and more signs of stability
[73:52] whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving
[73:54] and so maybe a little bit of uh of
[73:57] restriction or the high end of neutral
[73:58] is just the right place to be. So we can
[74:00] wait here and see uh and see how things
[74:03] work out before we act and we'll see how
[74:06] much that you know how much does come
[74:08] through into core. You see it already in
[74:09] air airfares of course but you may see
[74:11] it in many other places. Uh you know uh
[74:15] we just don't know yet and it's it's so
[74:17] unknowable because how how long will the
[74:18] straight be closed? You can develop any
[74:21] number of scenarios that you want but we
[74:23] really won't know till we know. So
[74:25] fortunately we're in a good place to to
[74:27] wait and let things develop.
[74:34] Uh thanks Mr. Chairman. um you started
[74:36] holding post uh post meeting press
[74:38] conferences for every meeting as opposed
[74:39] to the ones with just uh with SCPs. Can
[74:42] you talk about why you see that as a net
[74:44] positive? So we um we always said when
[74:48] we were doing quarterly press
[74:49] conferences, we always said we can move
[74:51] at any meeting, but we only ever moved
[74:52] at the quarterly SCP meetings where we
[74:54] had the press conference. So if you
[74:56] think about it, you know, we during the
[74:58] pandemic, we were moving like a lot at
[75:00] every meeting and sometimes between
[75:02] meetings and and doing that with our
[75:04] press conference, I think would have
[75:05] been quite challenging. It's become the
[75:06] industry norm.
[75:08] It's the standard.
[75:09] I don't know whether that has to remain
[75:11] that way. I don't know. I mean I it's
[75:12] it's just something people have become
[75:14] used to and I I do think it's quite
[75:15] helpful to you know to uh I mean I I I
[75:19] try to deliver a message on behalf of
[75:21] the committee rather than 18 people 18
[75:24] other people going out and delivering
[75:25] their message and it's you know it's
[75:26] going to be all over the place because
[75:28] we do thankfully have widely disperate
[75:30] views.
[75:32] Um okay thanks. The other thing I wanted
[75:34] to ask about was the communications
[75:36] review from last year. Um uh could you
[75:39] describe the debate last year? what
[75:41] changes were considered, what you
[75:42] wanted, and what prevented action um any
[75:45] action uh on the on on those changes.
[75:48] So, I'm not going to go into the the
[75:50] real small specifics, but what we found
[75:54] very quickly was that
[75:57] um making making changes making really
[76:01] large changes, for example, to the DOT
[76:03] plot or the SCP
[76:05] um it it didn't have we couldn't come up
[76:09] with anything that had really broad
[76:10] support on the committee and and so we
[76:13] just didn't we we didn't really do as
[76:14] much on on that as we might have. And uh
[76:18] you know I was never the world's biggest
[76:19] fan of the dot plot but you you can't
[76:21] can't beat something with nothing. And
[76:23] you know there's a that we've looked at
[76:25] a bunch of things and uh you know it's
[76:28] something I like I said I think every
[76:30] new chair is going to look at our suite
[76:32] of communications and and think about
[76:35] what would be changes. We we are the
[76:38] only major central bank that doesn't
[76:40] publish a forecast and that's because we
[76:43] have a 19 person committee and you know
[76:45] you try to do it you try to do that on
[76:46] the at the board that's hard or the at
[76:48] the committee that's hard uh it's hard
[76:50] if you do it at the staff so it's you
[76:52] know it's been it works I think our
[76:54] communications are fine but looking at
[76:56] doing it in a different and better way
[76:58] is the most natural thing in the world
[77:06] thank you Um, Colobby Smith with the New
[77:08] York Times. If I could follow up on
[77:09] Mike's question about hikes, are we
[77:11] right to assume that the hawkish outcome
[77:13] for the Fed is still one in which the
[77:15] committee just extends the pause in rate
[77:18] cuts? Yeah.
[77:18] And to what extent is there a growing
[77:20] sense within the committee that monetary
[77:22] policy really isn't just restrictive at
[77:25] all right now? Um, the economy is
[77:27] holding up relatively well despite this
[77:29] major energy shock. The unemployment
[77:31] rate has ticked lower. inflation was
[77:33] moving sideways even before the war and
[77:36] is now moving higher. Um so so where is
[77:38] the committee at on that debate?
[77:39] Yeah, you know where we're at is we
[77:41] think our really we think our policy
[77:43] rate is in a good place. Um if we need
[77:46] to hike we will we will certainly signal
[77:47] that and we will and we will certainly
[77:49] do it and if we need to to cut then if
[77:52] it's appropriate to cut then we'll we'll
[77:53] signal the opposite. I think we because
[77:56] we feel like we're we're in a good place
[77:58] to move in either direction. Um,
[78:02] nobody's calling for a hike right now.
[78:05] Um, so it really is going to depend on
[78:08] how things how things evolve. Uh, and
[78:10] you know that that's really where it is
[78:12] and as I mentioned clo you know much
[78:14] closer question this cycle on changing
[78:17] the guidance but but ultimately we
[78:19] didn't.
[78:20] And as it relates to the war at what
[78:22] point do you think the risk to growth
[78:24] will be larger than the risk to
[78:26] inflation as this conflict drags on?
[78:30] you know, you just have to find that out
[78:32] empirically, you know, with given our um
[78:35] the fact that we're, you know, a big
[78:37] exporter of energy and that our economy
[78:40] is far less energy intensive, oil
[78:42] intensive than it was during the 70s.
[78:45] Um, you know, the the effects on the
[78:47] United States are really substantially
[78:49] less than those of Western Europe or or
[78:53] Asia. We're feeling much greater effects
[78:55] from from these things. the effects
[78:57] we're feeling in, you know, in the
[78:59] current situation currently and in in
[79:02] sort of what's priced in which is, you
[79:04] know, a relatively quick outcome. If if
[79:08] this goes on for much longer and prices
[79:09] go much higher, then we'll feel that
[79:11] much more. And of course, I'm talking
[79:14] about aggregate inflation numbers. We
[79:15] know, we're very well aware that people
[79:18] are experiencing higher gas prices all
[79:20] over the country now, and that hurts
[79:23] that and these are those those hikes may
[79:25] continue to happen.
[79:26] and other other things are going to
[79:28] start to reflect air airline fairs I
[79:29] mentioned and and other other products
[79:31] and services that are dependent upon
[79:34] petroleum and derivatives of of
[79:35] petroleum people are going to start to
[79:37] feel that
[79:39] Edward
[79:42] thank you thank you chair Edward
[79:43] Lawrence with uh Fox Business so I guess
[79:45] I'll just ask you directly on this
[79:47] markets don't see a rate cut at all this
[79:50] year is what they're predicting do you
[79:52] think that we are at the neutral rate
[79:54] why or why not,
[79:56] you know, the the neutral rate is a we
[79:58] cannot know it with uh with certainty. I
[80:01] think pretty close to the neutral rate.
[80:03] Yeah. I I always had it, you know,
[80:04] between 3 and 4%. We're a little north
[80:06] of 3 and a half. So, that's well in the
[80:09] range of what I would consider a
[80:10] reasonable reasonable, but at the higher
[80:12] end of the range of what I would
[80:13] consider reasonable neutral rate. Um,
[80:16] you know, I think you're the labor
[80:17] market is still probably cooling off
[80:20] just a little bit. Um, and I I I don't
[80:24] think there's a much of a case for any
[80:27] case really for the for uh policy
[80:30] looking, you know, meaningfully
[80:32] restrictive, maybe mildly restrictive or
[80:34] neutral, I would say.
[80:35] Um, and I want to follow up on some of
[80:37] the other questions about uh your future
[80:38] a little bit. The the first time we've
[80:40] seen four descents now since October of
[80:43] 1992, are you handing off a divided Fed?
[80:47] You know, the thing to remember is uh uh
[80:51] we have always had vigorous debates and
[80:54] and uh they're excellent debates. I have
[80:56] to say they're they've been really good.
[80:58] Uh and uh we're in an unusually
[81:01] difficult situation. So we we've really
[81:03] had four supply shocks. You can actually
[81:06] you can say more than four, but at a
[81:08] minimum we've we had the pandemic, we
[81:11] had the invasion of the of Ukraine, we
[81:14] had tariffs, and now we have of Iran and
[81:16] the oil um you know the oil spike. So
[81:20] those every every supply shock has the
[81:23] capability of right driving inflation up
[81:25] and unemployment up and and what do you
[81:28] do? You know, you're it's central bank
[81:30] has a really hard time knowing what to
[81:31] do. So the right thing to do is to try
[81:34] to balance the achievement of those two
[81:35] goals. And that's what our framework
[81:37] calls for us to do. But these are really
[81:39] tough, difficult judgments. You've got
[81:41] to have a forecast for each variable.
[81:43] You've got to think how long it's going
[81:45] to take to get back to target. You got
[81:47] to think how how restrictive or not
[81:49] policy. So it's only natural that you
[81:51] have a range of views on the committee.
[81:53] You know, people are going to see it
[81:54] different ways. They're going to have
[81:55] different risk tolerances and that kind
[81:56] of thing. I mean, if everybody agreed,
[81:58] that would be that would be surprising.
[82:01] Uh and I I think it's only it's partly a
[82:04] function of the extraordinarily
[82:06] challenging set of supply shocks that
[82:09] we've been dealing with now for five six
[82:11] years.
[82:17] Thank you so much, Chair Powell. Selena
[82:18] Wayne with ABC News. Are you confident
[82:20] that Kevin Worsh will stand up to
[82:22] political pressure from President Trump?
[82:25] So, he he testified very strongly to
[82:27] that effect in his hearing, and I and I
[82:29] I'll take him at his word.
[82:30] And when it comes to gas, right now it's
[82:32] over $4 a gallon. Inflation just hit a
[82:35] 2-year high. Should Americans expect to
[82:37] be paying higher gas prices for the rest
[82:40] of this year? And in your view, does
[82:42] that take a rate cut off of the table?
[82:44] And secondly, by staying on as uh Fed
[82:47] Governor, what message do you think
[82:49] you're sending to the president? I I
[82:51] don't know what gas prices are going to
[82:53] do for the rest of the year and um it
[82:56] will depend on how long the straight
[82:57] remains closed and how quick quickly it
[82:59] can be reopened and that kind of thing.
[83:00] But remember when gas prices go up um
[83:04] that's disposable income coming out of
[83:06] people's pockets. So they're going to
[83:07] spend less on other things. So there
[83:09] will be a hit to GDP. So it's a you know
[83:12] it's a it's a question whether spending
[83:15] you know goes down uh to offset the
[83:18] inflationary effects. So it's not the
[83:21] answer isn't obvious uh exanti whether
[83:24] you whether you should move your rate o
[83:27] over because of that we'll have to see
[83:29] how it evolves
[83:30] message
[83:32] by staying on
[83:33] I'll stand on what I said earlier
[83:37] Victoria
[83:41] hi Victoria Aguido with Politico um
[83:43] during your tenure fed independence has
[83:45] come under pressure in a lot of
[83:47] different ways and I was just wondering
[83:49] ing practically speaking, where do you
[83:51] see Fed independence as coming from? Is
[83:54] it the law? Is it political support from
[83:56] Congress? Is it the actions of the Fed?
[83:59] What what sustains Fed Fed independence?
[84:02] Well, it's, you know, it's it's to to a
[84:04] significant extent it is the law. And,
[84:06] you know, we've had to go to court to
[84:09] successfully so far to defend it. But
[84:12] you know the the law does create a
[84:15] setting in which the Fed can and is
[84:19] directed to uh make monetary policy
[84:22] without consideration of political
[84:23] factors. And so so part of it is law.
[84:27] But but it goes beyond that though.
[84:29] There's a set of customs. There's
[84:30] there's a boundary line between the Fed
[84:33] and the administration between the Fed
[84:35] and the Treasury Department. And we need
[84:37] to respect those, continue to respect
[84:38] those boundaries about what the Feds are
[84:41] responsible for and what the Treasury is
[84:42] responsible for and what the the rest of
[84:45] the administration's respons
[84:46] responsible. So, some some of it is
[84:47] legal. Um, in fact, it's all legal at
[84:50] the end of the day. But there it's it's
[84:51] more than just monetary policy. We, you
[84:53] know, we don't we don't want to use our
[84:56] tools to we haven't wanted to use our
[84:58] tools to achieve goals that are really
[85:01] clearly outside our mandate. Every
[85:02] administration looks at our tools and
[85:04] thinks that would be good to repurpose
[85:06] those to serve other purposes, but that
[85:09] gets drag that's dragging us into
[85:11] politics and into fiscal policy. So,
[85:13] we've resisted that.
[85:15] Well, and maybe another way of asking it
[85:17] too is do you think that Fed
[85:18] independence is as strong now as when
[85:20] you became chair? And if so,
[85:23] why stronger?
[85:24] Look, I think it's at risk. I mean, I
[85:26] think these these,
[85:28] you know, these legal assaults, if you
[85:31] will,
[85:31] as I mentioned, you know, we're the
[85:33] institution is being battered over these
[85:35] things. We're having to resort to, you
[85:37] know, the courts to to enforce our
[85:40] legal, you know, in not even it's not so
[85:43] much independence. It's it's really the
[85:45] ability to do monetary to make monetary
[85:48] policy without political considerations.
[85:50] That's what we're talking about. And uh
[85:53] we've had to do that and we've been
[85:55] successful. so far. But that's not over.
[85:57] None of that is concluded yet. And it's,
[85:59] you know, it's really important. It's
[86:00] not about it's not about people who work
[86:02] at the Fed or the institution. It's
[86:04] about the benefits of a central bank
[86:06] that makes decisions based on analysis
[86:10] and our best thinking. Uh rather than,
[86:14] you know, trying to help or hurt
[86:15] politicians. It's, you know, that
[86:17] there's there's a bright line between
[86:19] central banks who do one and do the
[86:21] other and successful countries have
[86:23] uniformly successful advanced economy
[86:26] countries have a really strong set of
[86:29] protections around their central bank
[86:30] just for that reason. So that's what
[86:32] it's all about. I you know I I think I
[86:35] am confident as I said in my remarks
[86:37] that the Fed will continue to make its
[86:39] decision based on analysis, rigorous
[86:41] analysis and not on political
[86:43] considerations. But we've had to fight
[86:45] for it. And I I' you know, I'd like to
[86:47] think that, you know, I'd like to think
[86:48] we can get out of that era and go back
[86:51] to respecting, you know, what the law
[86:53] says and what custom has been, which is
[86:55] to, you know, let the Fed do our thing.
[86:58] We're, you know, we're we're not we're
[86:59] it's a it's an institution full of human
[87:02] beings who work super hard to get things
[87:04] right for the benefit of the public.
[87:05] We're all human. Don't expect for
[87:07] perfection, but do expect us to make,
[87:10] you know, decisions without political
[87:11] considerations. Standing ovation,
[87:13] please.
[87:13] And the very best analysis we can bring.
[87:16] Good, dude. End it on that.
[87:18] Katarina.
[87:19] Damn, that was good.
[87:21] Katarina Sariva, Bloomberg News.
[87:23] Damn.
[87:23] Um, how would you characterize um what
[87:26] you've heard from your colleagues on
[87:28] your decision to stay? Um, do you have
[87:30] their support? And then have you heard
[87:32] concern from your colleagues um about
[87:36] continued legal attacks from um the
[87:38] executive branch? Is this something that
[87:41] others have uh you know talked to you
[87:43] about?
[87:43] So I think that
[87:46] um I I don't want to report on what my
[87:49] colleagues think. They can they can
[87:50] speak for themselves but you know yeah
[87:52] there are there widespread concerns that
[87:54] these things may continue. That's all
[87:56] that's all I'll say. And uh you know and
[87:58] that would be a problem. And um
[88:00] no Scott
[88:03] didn't mark it. Um and then I just also
[88:05] wanted to ask about um Governor Waller's
[88:07] speech on the reserve banks. um what you
[88:11] know do you have any thoughts on on
[88:13] centralizing some of those functions in
[88:15] the way he described and then um have
[88:18] you know do are you concerned that
[88:20] something like that could potentially be
[88:22] a slippery slope to um you know to
[88:25] consolidate reserve bank functions even
[88:27] more in such a way where you you know
[88:30] the central bank ultimately loses some
[88:32] of that important regional information.
[88:36] So
[88:37] we try to be good stewards of the
[88:39] public's money and efficient and Chris
[88:42] in particular Chris Waller is
[88:44] particularly passionate about that of
[88:46] course so are the reserve so are the
[88:47] presidents and you know it's a question
[88:50] of how do you accomplish it uh we we of
[88:53] course and and Chris said this in his
[88:55] speech we you know we want 12 strong
[88:58] independent central banks with their own
[88:59] staffs and their own monetary policy
[89:01] views and all that but you know there
[89:04] are things that are done in all 12 which
[89:05] could well be done at one much more
[89:07] efficiently and with cost savings. And
[89:08] so there's a back and forth going on on
[89:10] that, but everybody everybody's on the
[89:12] same page. The other thing he touched on
[89:14] was was uh the idea of removing Reserve
[89:18] Bank presidents from office over
[89:20] different views on monetary policy. And
[89:23] I would I would just agree with him so
[89:25] strongly that that would be the
[89:27] beginning of the end of of the Fed's
[89:29] ability to to make monetary policy
[89:32] independently if every administration
[89:33] could come in and do that. you're you're
[89:35] just another cabinet agency at that
[89:37] point. So that's not something that I
[89:39] would support. Chris said the same
[89:40] thing.
[89:41] Yeah.
[89:42] Christine,
[89:46] thanks Chair Pal. Christine Romans, NBC
[89:48] News. I want to ask about legacy when
[89:50] the history books are written. How do
[89:52] you think your stewardship at the Fed
[89:55] will be remembered for the past eight
[89:57] years?
[89:58] You know, I'm going to just say that uh
[90:01] that's for that's for someone else to
[90:02] say. I'll give you a mulligan on that
[90:04] half.
[90:05] All right. I'm gonna ask you about uh
[90:07] misbehaving inflation then. You talked
[90:10] about those four big shocks, supply
[90:11] shocks over the past 5 years and in
[90:14] inflation still misbehaving. What's your
[90:15] message to American families who feel
[90:17] like inflation has not been under
[90:19] control for them really since since the
[90:21] co reopening.
[90:22] Job isn't done.
[90:23] You know, we're we're committed to bring
[90:24] inflation back down to 2% and and
[90:28] sustainably. That's that's our goal and
[90:31] we will we'll stick at it until that
[90:32] happens. We keep getting these events
[90:34] keep happening which keep driving up
[90:36] costs and you know the best thing we can
[90:40] do is to use our tools to guide
[90:42] inflation back down to 2%. I think
[90:45] trying to get there really quickly could
[90:47] be very costly in terms of of uh of job
[90:50] loss and things like that but we try to
[90:53] get there over time in a way that does
[90:55] the least damage possible. And you know,
[90:56] our commitment to that is never ending
[90:59] and unshakable.
[91:00] How would you describe the economy
[91:02] outside of the misbehaving inflation? I
[91:04] mean, um, it's still awfully resilient
[91:07] given all of the blows.
[91:10] I don't know that you can be awfully
[91:11] resilient. So, it's actually quite
[91:13] resilient, I would say, cuz it's a
[91:14] positive thing if I can if I can have
[91:16] that amendment. Yeah. That the, you
[91:18] know, growth is really solid across our
[91:21] economy. Some of that is um that
[91:23] consumer spending is hanging in pretty
[91:25] well. The the most recent data are good
[91:28] and some of it is just the apparently
[91:30] insatiable demand for data centers all
[91:32] over the United States. So a lot of uh
[91:35] business investment going into building
[91:37] data centers and every reason to think
[91:38] that that continues. So you've got an
[91:40] economy that's growing at 2% or better.
[91:43] PDFP which is private domestic final
[91:45] purchases that which is really a better
[91:48] signal of of uh of a momentum in the
[91:50] economy is actually higher than that. So
[91:52] that's you know that's a positive thing.
[91:54] The if you look at the unemployment rate
[91:57] it's 4.3%. So that's a low rate that's
[92:00] pretty close to mainstream estimates of
[92:02] the natural rate. We've been there for a
[92:03] long time. So, it's it's it doesn't feel
[92:06] like a good labor market to some who who
[92:08] don't have jobs because quits are really
[92:10] low, hires are really low, and there's
[92:13] effectively no new net job uh creation.
[92:16] So, that's a that's you know, in a
[92:19] sense, the labor market is in balance,
[92:21] but it's an unusual and uncomfortable
[92:24] kind of a balance where people who don't
[92:26] have jobs will have a hard time breaking
[92:27] in unless somebody quits their job. Y
[92:30] So, um so that's pretty good. You know,
[92:32] inflation is the thing we need to work
[92:33] on, and it's partly tariffs, which we
[92:36] think we think that that inflation
[92:38] should subside over the course of this
[92:39] year because it's it's kind of a
[92:41] one-time increase. It shouldn't be
[92:43] repeated, and that should start
[92:44] happening pretty soon. The energy in
[92:47] inflation that we're getting should go
[92:48] through fairly quickly. Uh, and we'll
[92:52] we'll just have to see how that works
[92:53] out. In the meantime, you know, we think
[92:55] our policy stance is in a good place for
[92:56] us to hold and and wait developments.
[93:00] Jennifer
[93:03] Thank you, Chair Pal. Jennifer
[93:04] Shawnberger with Yahoo Finance. At the
[93:06] risk of beating the dead horse here,
[93:08] clearly three members objected to
[93:10] keeping that easing bias in the
[93:12] statement. And you said that the
[93:14] majority still didn't need
[93:17] still didn't need to uh move to new
[93:19] language at this point. So does the
[93:22] majority of the committee still have a
[93:24] bias towards cuts at this point or has
[93:27] the bias on the committee shifted away
[93:30] from cuts towards holding or hikes if
[93:32] that was needed?
[93:33] I so I think that you know the the
[93:35] center is moving
[93:38] toward a more neutral place and that's
[93:41] sort of what markets are saying too. I
[93:43] just think, you know, uh there's a lot
[93:46] of signaling going on when you change
[93:48] guidance like that. And so we we just I
[93:51] guess the major a majority of us didn't
[93:54] feel like we needed to send a signal on
[93:56] that right now. Uh and but maybe it'll
[93:59] come to that. And and the reason is
[94:00] because, you know, we're kind of waiting
[94:02] to see what happens with with events in
[94:05] the Middle East and what are the
[94:06] implications of those events for the US
[94:09] economy. So it was just a there's a
[94:11] group who feels like we don't need to be
[94:12] in a hurry to do that. We we get it and
[94:14] of course we will move to a hiking bias
[94:17] if we want to hike and we'll move to a
[94:19] new a neutral bias before that. But
[94:21] there was a difference over whether to
[94:22] do it at this meeting at a at a meeting
[94:24] at which all but one of us agreed that
[94:26] that the that the rate decision was
[94:28] correct which was not to move.
[94:30] And you just said moments ago that you
[94:32] believe Fed independence is at risk. Is
[94:35] it safe to say that you want to stay on
[94:37] as a governor to serve as a check and
[94:39] balance on that?
[94:42] I I want to stay until I I will stay
[94:44] until it's I feel it's appropriate for
[94:46] me to leave and and yes, that is that is
[94:48] really what is driving this. Uh
[94:49] that's fair.
[94:50] I'm not uh I'm not looking to be, you
[94:54] know, a high-profile uh dissident or
[94:57] anything like that. I I'm I'm more
[94:59] looking at the other aspects of this and
[95:02] wanting to see that things have calmed
[95:03] down and and we're returning to a
[95:06] traditional model of working with the
[95:09] people that you have and bringing them
[95:11] to consensus and respecting that
[95:13] consensus. That's what that's what I'm
[95:15] I'm hoping to see.
[95:19] Matt Eaggan,
[95:23] thanks Towel. Matt Eaggan with CNN. Um,
[95:25] you've made many tough decisions in your
[95:28] time at the Fed and as your time as
[95:31] chair comes to a close and you think
[95:33] about your tenure and perhaps your
[95:35] legacy, are there any decisions that
[95:37] stand out as ones that you're
[95:38] particularly proud of? And are there any
[95:41] that with the benefit of hindsight you
[95:43] would take a mulligan on?
[95:46] Yeah, I it's hard I wouldn't want to
[95:48] signal single out individual things at
[95:50] this point. You know, I'll just say uh
[95:53] you know, we all of us together have
[95:56] consistently tried to do what we think
[95:59] is best for the American people based on
[96:01] our tools and our objectives that that
[96:03] Congress has given us. It's been very
[96:05] challenging because we've been in a
[96:07] situation of supply shock, supply shocks
[96:10] really for 6 years. And that's just a
[96:14] very different situation than for a very
[96:16] long time what the Fed and other central
[96:19] banks were doing all the time was demand
[96:21] management and you know and there was
[96:24] always the inflation mandate but
[96:25] inflation was low for 25 years. So this
[96:28] is a very different world and a much
[96:31] more challenging one where you have to
[96:32] balance the two objectives and by the
[96:34] way central banks that have a an
[96:36] inflation mandate have to do exactly the
[96:38] same thing because they're balancing
[96:39] economic activity. So that's been
[96:41] challenging and we've, you know, we've
[96:43] tried to do our very best through these
[96:45] really challenging uh times and I'm
[96:47] really proud of of uh the work that I've
[96:50] done that my that my colleagues and I
[96:52] have done during these uh these years.
[96:55] Now to follow up on some of the the
[96:56] discussion around Fed independence, can
[96:59] you explain to the public why this
[97:02] notion of Fed independence, which might
[97:03] sound kind of wonky to some, is so
[97:06] critical? I mean, what are the
[97:07] consequences if either the Supreme Court
[97:09] rules against such unanchored inflation
[97:12] expectations blah blah blah blah blah
[97:13] make decisions more
[97:15] end it and give them a standing ovation.
[97:18] So every major advanced economy in the
[97:22] world has made the same decision the
[97:24] United States has made and that is that
[97:27] they want to take the making of monetary
[97:29] policy the setting of interest rates to
[97:31] support the economy to achieve maximum
[97:33] employment and price stability. They
[97:35] want to take that out of the direct
[97:37] control of elected politicians and the
[97:40] reason is elected politicians are always
[97:42] running for election and they'll always
[97:44] want low rates and that will re lead to
[97:46] inflation over time. So after you know
[97:49] literally centuries of experience with
[97:51] that the whole world moved to the
[97:53] different model and it's it's worked
[97:54] great. I mean this is this is the era in
[97:56] which inflation was under control for 40
[97:59] years. Then we had the pandemic
[98:00] inflation everywhere on in the world and
[98:02] now we have inflation that had gone
[98:04] pretty much all the way back to target
[98:06] really close to all the way back to
[98:07] target and now is being buffeted by the
[98:10] energy shock in the US buffeted by the
[98:12] by the tariff shock as well. So but what
[98:14] I would say to the general public is
[98:16] that's that's the backstory is that um
[98:19] stop the count.
[98:20] Don't think about an institution being
[98:22] independent. Think about it this way
[98:23] that you want people to make monetary
[98:26] policy and set interest rates to benefit
[98:28] the general public and to try to achieve
[98:30] economic goals which are maximum
[98:32] employment and price stability and focus
[98:34] only on that and ignore political
[98:37] considerations completely ignore them.
[98:39] It's this isn't bipartisan. This is
[98:41] nonpartisan. So we we we want to just we
[98:44] just work directly for the American
[98:46] people doing these things. We don't
[98:48] think, "Oh, this I want to do this
[98:49] because the president says it's a good
[98:51] idea or because there's an election
[98:52] coming up and I want to I want to speed
[98:54] up or slow down the economy." I mean,
[98:57] that think about that. If that's if that
[98:59] that's what we were doing, we'd have no
[99:01] credibility. Markets would lose faith in
[99:03] us and our ability to control inflation
[99:06] and and and have any respect would be,
[99:09] you know, would be gone. And let me say,
[99:10] whatever people say, the markets believe
[99:13] in that we will produce 2% inflation. If
[99:15] you look at longer run expectations,
[99:17] markets believe that they there's
[99:19] there's no sense in which our
[99:21] credibility in the markets has weakened.
[99:23] It's just not the case. It's it's people
[99:25] do get it that this is our commitment
[99:27] and that we will achieve it and it's
[99:29] priced in. If you disagree with that,
[99:31] then you can go ahead and bet against
[99:32] the markets, but the markets are pricing
[99:34] in Fed credibility.
[99:36] Yeah.
[99:38] Okay, we'll go to Richard for the last
[99:39] question.
[99:40] Last question. Thank you.
[99:42] Thank you, Chair Pal. uh Richard
[99:44] Escobido with CBS News. Uh we've talked
[99:46] a lot about gasoline prices and and even
[99:48] you mentioned airline ticket prices,
[99:50] both of which are up dramatically
[99:51] because of the war in Iran. And so I
[99:54] wonder, are you seeing that weigh down
[99:56] consumer spending in other parts of the
[99:58] economy? Um and if so, how worried are
[100:00] you that that will be a drag on growth?
[100:02] You don't see you don't see it in
[100:04] spending yet. You really don't. I mean,
[100:06] as one of your colleagues said, the
[100:08] economy has been resilient. It really
[100:10] has. Not just this time, but it's been
[100:13] remarkably resilient for some years now.
[100:14] The US economy has just powered through
[100:17] shock after shock. And consumers are
[100:19] still spending. And that's what that's
[100:20] what the banks will tell you, credit
[100:22] card companies will tell you, the retail
[100:23] sales numbers that we got most recently.
[100:26] People are still spending. And um you
[100:28] know, how long can that go on in a world
[100:30] where if gas prices were to go up a
[100:32] bunch more, that's taking otherwise
[100:35] spendable money out of people's pockets.
[100:36] But right now we we don't actually see
[100:39] much slowdown in yet from certainly none
[100:42] from from this. But you think logically
[100:44] you will because people have a certain
[100:46] amount of money to spend. If they're
[100:47] spending 25% more on gas or something
[100:50] like that then you know that's going to
[100:52] come out of other spending. But we again
[100:53] we don't see it yet. Um one last thing
[100:56] you mentioned those economies in
[100:57] Southeast Asia that are particularly
[100:58] dependent on petroleum. Um they make a
[101:01] lot of the stuff that American consumers
[101:03] buy. So, was there any discussion today
[101:06] about whether or not those costs getting
[101:09] passed along to consumers is a real
[101:12] concern and whether or not that might
[101:13] push up inflation?
[101:14] So, all of those things are in are in
[101:18] the models that that we use to calculate
[101:22] inflation. So, we, you know, they're
[101:23] they're just parts. You can ask about
[101:26] anything like that and they are they
[101:27] have a place the staff has a place where
[101:29] they're looking at that and pricing in
[101:31] what will happen with higher prices and
[101:33] that kind of thing. Uh so it's there the
[101:36] effects are not that big yet. Uh you
[101:38] know we're a huge economy. The import
[101:40] sector is only 10% of the economy. So
[101:44] we're not like a European country where
[101:45] 50% of the uh external of GDP is in the
[101:49] external sector. We're also you know as
[101:51] I mentioned we're an oil exporter. So,
[101:54] we're not feeling the same kind of pain
[101:55] and we're not likely to feel the same
[101:57] kind of pain that economies in in
[102:00] Western Europe and and certainly in Asia
[102:02] are feeling. Anyway, thank you very much
[102:04] everyone. Standing ovation,
[102:07] I won't see you next time.
[102:10] A
[102:12] well, following his final Fed's meeting
[102:14] as chair.
[102:15] Well, that was it. Jerome Powell's final
[102:20] press conference as Fed chair. Just
[102:22] close the [ __ ] door.
[102:24] Man, he's going to be missed. But
[102:27] there's good news. We have a lot to talk
[102:29] about about what Jerome Powell just said
[102:32] and a special coupon code called Goodbye
[102:35] Powell before we raise prices with some
[102:37] amazing new updates coming out in May
[102:40] for the Meet Kevin course and then in
[102:42] June for Househack.com. But for now,
[102:44] let's focus on the Federal Reserve. It
[102:46] is over and we are going to cover uh at
[102:47] the end of this segment a report card on
[102:50] drum Powell. We'll talk about his
[102:52] bullishness on the economy. We'll talk
[102:53] about rate cuts and a bar that he sets
[102:56] for rate hikes, which is also bullish
[102:58] and kind of important. We'll talk about
[103:00] Powell leaving versus not leaving,
[103:02] transitory inflation, all the good
[103:03] stuff. We're going to try to keep it
[103:04] short and just stick to what was
[103:06] different this time. Uh so, one thing
[103:08] that was different this time is we had
[103:10] an 8 to4 vote, which was the least
[103:13] amount of consensus that we have seen
[103:14] since October of 1992. Myin voted for a
[103:18] a cut of 25 basis points. that's the
[103:20] only reason he seems to exist anyway. uh
[103:22] although you know he does have some
[103:24] sound logical arguments for continuing
[103:25] to cut and ensure that labor market
[103:27] doesn't break through as it sort of has
[103:29] been trending down though recently
[103:31] stabilizing and hammock Qashqari and
[103:33] Logan really voted for a decline because
[103:36] they wanted to remove the easing bias
[103:38] from the statement which it's almost you
[103:40] really have to kind of read between the
[103:42] lines to get it but basically in their
[103:44] statement the implication is hey we're
[103:46] going to wait on the extent and timing
[103:49] of additional adjustments as as we
[103:51] assess incoming data. And so they wanted
[103:54] a little bit more of a clear, hey, we're
[103:56] just not going to do anything until the
[103:59] oil shock clears, which in fairness is
[104:01] probably one of the worst or most
[104:03] complicated issues we face. Now, I have
[104:06] sort of a warning bell that starts
[104:07] ringing that I've been paying attention
[104:09] to since, you know, Brent was $95 with
[104:12] course members. I'm like, look, we start
[104:13] getting to 120 on Brent crude and
[104:17] markets are going to slowly start
[104:18] reacting to that. That's why this Monday
[104:21] I went into markets. I'm like, you know,
[104:23] we're at 665 on the cues. Probably not
[104:27] the week for calls. You know, markets on
[104:29] the cues right now are slightly green,
[104:31] but we're at 661. So, we're we're still
[104:33] down from where we were Monday. Let
[104:35] earnings happen. Let's get through some
[104:37] of this volatility right now. Donald
[104:39] Trump is prepping us. And this was wild.
[104:41] This was happening during the uh Fed
[104:43] statement release. Donald Trump
[104:45] apparently telling us that he thinks the
[104:47] war in Ukraine might end before the war
[104:51] in Iran, which is literally the last
[104:53] thing you want to hear. We saw oil move
[104:55] up another 3 or 4 percentage points uh
[104:58] after those comments, which now push us
[105:00] at 119, which is just $1 away from my
[105:04] alarm bell. And practically, just to
[105:06] give it to you straight, uh the reason I
[105:07] call 120 the alarm bell is not because
[105:09] it's some recessionary threshold. It's
[105:11] not. It's just that's when everybody
[105:13] starts talking about it again. And the
[105:15] more people start talking about it, the
[105:16] institutions start complaining about it.
[105:19] Oh my gosh, if we get to 130 or 150 or
[105:21] this, that's usually when you start
[105:23] getting more of that hedging and
[105:24] selling. So, it's sort of like an early
[105:26] alarm bell to where you get institutions
[105:29] getting a little bit more nervous, which
[105:31] could lead to less of that rush to
[105:33] buying stocks, especially when the CNN
[105:36] greed and fear. I really hate even using
[105:38] the name CNN, but the greed and fear
[105:41] index right now is at greed. I like I it
[105:45] wouldn't be unreasonable for you to have
[105:47] a miss at a certain company in earnings
[105:49] over the next two or three weeks, see a
[105:51] little bit of a pullback. Uh and this is
[105:54] despite the fact that I've broadly
[105:56] become more bullish on economic data
[105:58] since the war has begun. Our bull bear
[106:00] scale is almost at 7 and a half right
[106:02] now. And a lot of that is based on
[106:03] underlying economic data. What whether
[106:05] it was the capital goods spending that
[106:07] we saw this morning, xair, ex-military
[106:09] spending, obviously a lot of that
[106:11] artificial intelligence or uh just the
[106:13] stabilization and growth that we're
[106:15] seeing in the labor market even on
[106:16] private payroll surveys. Now Jerome
[106:19] Powell did pick up on th that as well.
[106:21] In fact, he said uh PDFP, which is, you
[106:24] know, one of his favorite measures, uh
[106:26] is actually growing faster uh than uh
[106:29] than what we're seeing on um uh some of
[106:32] the GDP numbers or even uh you know, the
[106:35] numbers that we got this morning. Uh
[106:37] commercial purchases, that stands for
[106:39] private domestic final purchases. It's
[106:41] sort of the Fed's preferred measure for
[106:42] how the economy is growing. And he
[106:44] argues that PDFB P indicates that the
[106:47] economy is actually growing better than
[106:49] a 2% rate. And he actually acknowledges
[106:51] the pain that people have, which is if
[106:54] you don't have a job right now or you've
[106:56] just lost your job or you've been
[106:58] unemployed or you know people who are
[107:00] are unemployed, you don't feel like the
[107:03] economy is good. You feel like a crappy
[107:05] place or a crappy situation, which is
[107:07] totally reasonable and fair because it's
[107:09] so much harder to get a job now and
[107:12] you're sort of waiting for somebody else
[107:13] to lose a job to hopefully fill that
[107:15] seat. And so that has made the labor
[107:18] market less desirable for people, but
[107:21] it's also created less labor market
[107:23] inflation, which is ironically good for
[107:27] the Federal Reserve and reducing some of
[107:28] those inflationary pressures, especially
[107:30] since, as Powell put it, we've been
[107:32] dealing with shock after shock after
[107:34] shock. You know, whether it was Ukraine
[107:36] following COVID or now recently the Iran
[107:39] shock or what we saw in 24 or three, you
[107:42] know, we had a banking crisis for a
[107:43] period of time, right? uh there's been a
[107:45] lot. So anyway, this disscent though
[107:49] where there's this talk about r like
[107:52] removing the easing bias in my opinion
[107:54] does set up a little bit of a harder
[107:56] time for Kevin Worsh who will be coming
[107:58] in May 15th as the Fed chair and then of
[108:00] course we have our midJune I think it's
[108:02] the 19th mid June will be the next FOMC
[108:05] presser and I'm a little sad because
[108:07] I've been covering Jerome Powell
[108:09] honestly for eight years it's it's weird
[108:11] you know I said if he sticks this soft
[108:13] landing I got to put a u a statue in my
[108:16] yard of of drum Powell, you know, with
[108:18] some kind of like smug arms crossed
[108:19] face, maybe with like a hard hat on, you
[108:22] know, for the Jerome Powell Trump
[108:23] meeting. Uh, somebody apparently is
[108:25] going to email me their info on making a
[108:27] a bronze bust. You know, I'll go for
[108:29] bronze or stone or whatever. You know,
[108:31] we need like, you know, we need Federal
[108:33] Reserve marble. Anyway, you could email
[108:36] me if you ever have questions on the
[108:37] courses or or you ever have questions,
[108:39] whatever, just email us.
[108:40] Email staff meetke.com.
[108:44] data dependent,
[108:46] right? Anyway, um you know, so I do
[108:48] think that it is getting a little bit
[108:50] harder for the Federal Reserve to create
[108:52] consensus because there's a lot of talk
[108:54] about, hey, like we don't know how long
[108:56] this oil shock is going to last, the
[108:57] direction of uh the straight of horm uh
[109:00] the direction of um you know the consu
[109:02] of consumer spending. Consumer spending
[109:04] is holding up. Jerome Powell echoed what
[109:06] we heard from bank earnings JP Morgan
[109:08] Wells we've covered that on the channel
[109:10] that broadly the consumer spend is
[109:12] holding up as it has been really since
[109:15] co uh and and so the question is you
[109:17] know how much longer can consumers keep
[109:20] spending through these higher oil and
[109:21] air prices or whatever and so far it's
[109:24] been resilient. Now, of course, part of
[109:27] that is probably because the biggest
[109:28] spenders are higher net worth or even
[109:30] middle net worth individuals who have
[109:32] exposure to the stock market, which has
[109:34] been very bullish over the last few
[109:36] weeks. We called on buying calls and
[109:39] going bullish literally the day of the
[109:42] ceasefire. And I think I had this
[109:44] mountain of people complaining saying,
[109:45] "Kevin, you're an idiot. Stocks are
[109:47] going to go down even more." And I'm
[109:50] like, God, the more the more these
[109:52] comments complain, the more I think I'm
[109:53] right about this call that we're going
[109:55] straight up. And we did. You know, the
[109:57] call is straight up on hardware. It went
[109:59] straight up. AMD is up like 50%. Soxel
[110:02] was up like, you know, 126%. And and I
[110:05] think the next move after hardware, even
[110:08] though we might have a little bit of a
[110:09] dip here in the near future with these
[110:11] oil prices, will be software, but that
[110:13] could still be 6 months out. You got to
[110:14] get that SpaceX IPO. But anyway, I do
[110:17] think that when Walsh comes in June,
[110:18] it's going to be a little harder for him
[110:20] to try to bias towards cuts because
[110:22] people at the Fed, you know, these these
[110:23] voting members, they they don't want to
[110:25] cut right now. They want to hold.
[110:27] Holding is really the bias. And so
[110:29] Jerome Powell argues that he's likely
[110:31] going to stay at the Federal Reserve
[110:33] until the battering of the Federal
[110:35] Reserve is completely science, sealed,
[110:38] delivered, and over. He says over the
[110:40] weekend there was some optimism that
[110:43] they, you know, they gave him some
[110:44] comments that they won't reopen the case
[110:46] against him unless there's a criminal
[110:47] referral from the Federal Reserve's
[110:49] Inspector General, which there won't be
[110:51] since the Federal Reserve's Inspector
[110:52] General has already cleared Powell. Uh,
[110:55] but he wants confirmation that there's
[110:57] no intention that they're going to
[110:58] restart investigations. Uh, and Powell
[111:01] won't leave until he's assured that it's
[111:02] over. So, he's going to stay. This is
[111:05] not a surprise because if he left the
[111:07] day after he leaves, I my anticipation
[111:09] was that Trump would just refile a
[111:10] lawsuit against Powell and then he'd
[111:12] have to defend that personally and it'd
[111:14] kind of be like dirty. So Powell
[111:16] mentions he's staying as a check and
[111:17] balance. He doesn't want to be a
[111:19] shadowfed chair. He wants to keep a low
[111:21] profile and uh you know he wants to be
[111:24] part of maintaining what he believes is
[111:26] an independent political institution.
[111:28] And you might not like Powell. He's
[111:29] certainly not been perfect. No person
[111:31] is. But I have to say if if you call him
[111:33] a politician, I don't know if you call
[111:35] him a politician or or you know a
[111:37] bureaucrat might be the better word,
[111:39] he's probably my favorite bureaucrat.
[111:41] And it's kind of sad to sort of see him
[111:42] kind of like retire and fade out into
[111:44] the distance because I actually think he
[111:46] has the balls to stand up for what he
[111:48] believes in. Whether or not you believe
[111:50] he's right or wrong, I think he has the
[111:51] balls to stand up for it and I really
[111:53] respect that. I think he's transparent.
[111:55] uh you know, I don't think he's like an
[111:58] insider trader slime ball or corrupt or
[112:00] a fraud. Like, I think those are all uh
[112:03] slanders against him. And and you know,
[112:05] maybe my judgment is wrong, but I I
[112:07] think uh I I personally think he's a
[112:09] great person and I'm sad to see him
[112:10] leave. Maybe it's just because I've been
[112:13] covering him for eight years. Uh but uh
[112:15] anyway, so uh Powell's going to stay uh
[112:18] he does get to stay until at least uh if
[112:20] he wants until maximally, I should say,
[112:22] January 31st of 2028. Uh Donald Trump
[112:26] will still be in office for another year
[112:28] after that. So he can't wait out all of
[112:30] Trump's term, but he can certainly get
[112:32] through midterms. And that's probably
[112:35] where Powell, you know, maybe before the
[112:36] holidays he checks out or, you know,
[112:38] whatever. Uh but overall, Powell
[112:40] reiterates uh really that we shouldn't
[112:43] expect cuts until probably 2027. We have
[112:46] to get through these shocks and we need
[112:48] to start seeing those onetime effects
[112:49] from the tariffs roll over over the next
[112:51] 6 months because they were applied in
[112:54] April May June July August
[112:56] September, all the way through November.
[112:58] We should start seeing some of those
[112:59] year-over-year effects roll over May,
[113:01] June, July, all the way through
[113:03] November. You know, we had our Chinese
[113:04] tariff deal late in November of 2025.
[113:09] So, you got to get all those numbers to
[113:11] roll over year-over-year. That's why
[113:13] Powell says over the next 6 months,
[113:14] you're going to be paying attention to
[113:16] those numbers rolling over. If those
[113:18] numbers roll over at the same time oil
[113:19] prices come down, then we can
[113:20] potentially start hinting about, you
[113:23] know, rate cuts again. Uh but
[113:25] potentially as soon as the next meeting,
[113:26] we're actually going to remove the
[113:28] easing bias and just go towards a
[113:30] neutral. We're holding until we get more
[113:32] data. we're go meeting by meeting, you
[113:34] know, all that good stuff. So,
[113:36] basically, don't expect any movement
[113:37] from the Fed anytime soon. Now, as far
[113:40] as rate hikes, Powell actually kind of
[113:42] put a bar on this a little bit. Uh he he
[113:45] said, "We're trying to get inflation
[113:47] down with the least amount of damage. We
[113:49] don't want to do it quickly, and so
[113:51] we're willing to be patient because we
[113:53] don't want to essentially crash the
[113:54] labor market." To me, that was actually
[113:56] a very solid sign that the Federal
[113:59] Reserve isn't rushing to repeat the
[114:01] 1970s where they like rapidly raise
[114:04] rates and and you know, this causes
[114:06] other problems. You know, some argue
[114:08] that actually induces inflation itself
[114:10] by higher interest rates, which
[114:12] increases cost of goods sold, which
[114:13] therefore increases the prices that
[114:15] people are charged, which is entirely
[114:17] possible. Uh, and and in fact even
[114:19] likely. you know, how much that
[114:20] contributes relative to demand is
[114:21] obviously a question for economists to
[114:23] debate. But, you know, to me, Powell
[114:27] implied that the bar to hike is very
[114:29] high. And with WSH, it's probably also
[114:32] very high. So, I don't think you're
[114:33] going to get hikes. As much as people
[114:35] are going to clamor for that, I think
[114:37] you're going to get patience, especially
[114:38] since Powell says we're probably a
[114:40] little above neutral. Neutral rates
[114:42] probably 3 and 1/2 and we're slightly
[114:44] above 3 and 1/2 right now, sitting at
[114:46] about to be exact 3.62. 625 is is where
[114:50] rates sit right now, right? That's
[114:52] between three and a half and 3.75. That
[114:54] midpoint, that's roughly where we sit
[114:56] right now, which is like an eighth above
[114:59] neutral. And Powell thinks that's
[115:00] roughly the right place. Uh now, Pal's
[115:03] not going to be the chair anymore, but
[115:04] it's likely that others agree based on
[115:06] the voting that we're seeing and the
[115:07] commentary that we're seeing from
[115:08] others. So, I I actually agree with this
[115:10] strategy. I don't think there's a reason
[115:12] to rush uh for rate uh cuts at this
[115:14] point, especially because of what we're
[115:15] seeing with ADP. Now, a lot of people
[115:17] haven't been paying attention to ADP,
[115:19] but last couple weeks of ADP, we've been
[115:21] averaging on a weekly basis through
[115:23] April 11th, 160,000 jobs created on the
[115:27] private ADP perils report. It's
[115:29] fantastic. Take that freaking jobs money
[115:32] and go join us using coupon code goodbye
[115:34] Powell. Expiring that tomorrow night.
[115:36] We're just doing a quick one for Powell
[115:37] here and then we'll raise the prices
[115:39] again because we've got some really cool
[115:40] new things coming out for course members
[115:42] uh in the Meet Kevin app, the desktop
[115:44] version. I I mean we are we are
[115:46] developing this stuff like crazy. It's
[115:47] it's fascinating what we're building in
[115:49] the background. I can't wait to share it
[115:50] all. But but anyway, this is u uh you
[115:54] know this is broadly good the the data
[115:55] that we're seeing. This is why the bull
[115:57] bear scale moves up. Now one thing that
[115:59] I've been speculating on is that I
[116:01] almost feel like when the bull bear
[116:03] scale is my bull bear scale is high but
[116:06] at the same time like the greed and fear
[116:09] index is also high. It's not a time to
[116:12] buy. Like in my opinion, a good time to
[116:14] buy is when this needle is at fear or
[116:18] obviously extreme fear, fear or below.
[116:20] When this needle is at fear or below and
[116:22] Kevin is above like a six or seven,
[116:25] right? Because that gives you sort of a
[116:28] wedge if you will because it means the
[116:29] broader market doesn't sort of align
[116:31] with Kevin's bullishness. I actually
[116:34] agree with Powell though where where
[116:36] Powell argues, look, the economy is
[116:37] doing great. I mean, he didn't declare
[116:39] victory here, but he's pretty optimistic
[116:42] about what we're seeing, not only on
[116:43] spending, of course, in part driven by
[116:45] artificial intelligence, uh, in large
[116:47] part, frankly, uh, but also what's going
[116:49] on with the stabilization of the labor
[116:51] market. I would even go as far as
[116:52] calling it rebounding at this point with
[116:54] what we're seeing. And hopefully that
[116:56] continues. Obviously, things could
[116:58] change depending on how uh long the
[117:00] straight of horses is closed. But
[117:02] overall, this all felt very stable. I
[117:04] think he ended it on a high here. Very
[117:06] respectable. I think he had a few mic
[117:08] drop moments. Uh and um you know he
[117:11] argues that typically we're going to
[117:13] look through an oil shock. We've heard
[117:14] that before. Uh but um you know it's
[117:18] just a matter of time how long this oil
[117:19] shock continues. He's indicated that
[117:21] near-term inflation expectations have
[117:22] started to rise. That's probably due to
[117:25] oil prices literally skyrocketing. You
[117:27] know we're we're over double where we
[117:29] were in January. Uh we're about double
[117:32] where we were in January. We were about
[117:33] 60 bucks on Brent in January and we're
[117:35] at about 120 bucks now just for the sake
[117:38] of exactness. Uh so you know economyy's
[117:41] holding up resilient Powell's happy and
[117:44] I think he's leaving on a high note. I
[117:45] think he's done very well and if I you
[117:48] know I mean that's a problem obviously
[117:49] that the 10ear is 4.41. It's not great.
[117:52] Mortgage rates going up again but that's
[117:54] all right. We'll probably see higher for
[117:55] longer as we've said. And um anyway, if
[117:59] I had to give Powell a report card,
[118:01] honestly, I mean, he wasn't perfect. Uh
[118:05] but I'd still probably give him like a
[118:06] 96 out of 100. You know, it'd still be
[118:09] an A+. You know, it's not 100. You know,
[118:12] we know we had the little transitory
[118:14] oops dupes. It just lasted too long,
[118:16] right? It led the Fed to be too late in
[118:18] 2022. uh but they acknowledge that uh
[118:21] that slow reaction function. Uh but
[118:24] other otherwise broadly they've they've
[118:26] sailed this economy and directed this
[118:28] economy very well. I think there's um
[118:30] there are still underlying issues to
[118:32] deal with. Uh and Wars will have to deal
[118:34] with that. His reputation doesn't make
[118:36] me very excited about the grade that
[118:38] he's going to get, but who knows? Maybe
[118:39] he's a changed man. So we'll see and
[118:41] we'll be covering it. That's obviously
[118:42] my opinion. And if you want more of my
[118:45] opinion in terms of uh trades,
[118:46] short-term trades, medium-term trades,
[118:49] which would be like 6 months to a year
[118:50] or long-term trades like 10-year trades
[118:53] uh or really investments uh and even if
[118:55] you have questions about investing in
[118:57] real estate or uh you know the stock
[118:59] companies you want analyzed or whatever,
[119:01] make sure to join us in the uh live
[119:03] streams we do almost every morning when
[119:05] the market is open and right before the
[119:07] market is open, we do our alpha report.
[119:08] You go to meet me.com, you can join that
[119:11] and uh we'll look forward to seeing you
[119:12] there. A lot of people write that off on
[119:14] their taxes as well as education. And
[119:16] folks, we'll see you in the next time.
[119:18] Uh oh yeah, and then a quick note since
[119:21] I see somebody leaving a comment here.
[119:22] Uh I made some delicious bread
[119:24] yesterday.
[119:26] If you want a good bread recipe, I put
[119:28] it on my Instagram at me Kevin as a
[119:30] story. I'm actually going to go eat some
[119:32] of it right now cuz I'm really excited
[119:33] about it and then we'll see what happens
[119:34] with earnings.
[119:36] But anyway, uh, delicious molasses
[119:39] honeybread, whole wheat protein, like
[119:42] heavy on protein. Oh, it's great.
[119:44] Anyway, we'll see you soon. Thanks for
[119:46] being here. Good luck on earnings if
[119:47] you're playing