FOMC and Powell Live: Fed Holds Rates, SEP Shows No Hikes

[00:04] Here we go. Here we go. Another day. Another day that we get Jerome Powell. We're only going to have two more of these days, which is crazy. This is the second-to-last time Jerome Powell will have a press conference

[00:18] for the Federal Open Market Committee. This is kind of a big deal and it's pretty crazy. The market has been waiting for this moment, which is exactly what we predicted in the Alpha report this morning that you don't do

[00:33] anything until the data comes out. The summary of economic projections right at 11:00, which is in 11 minutes. In 11 minutes, we'll get the summary of minutes, we'll get the summary of economic projections and of course, we

[00:48] will get uh the rate decision, which we're mostly expecting no movement on the rate decision. That's pretty obvious. We'll get to play Fed bingo as well. We'll be listening very closely to what Jerome Powell has to say for us.

[01:02] I'm watching the queues pretty stable here at 600 waiting holding their breath. You've got a firm falling even more down 6% now. I just actually posted a video on a firm and private credit and the consumer highly encourage

[01:17] you watch that video if you haven't seen it yet. And uh of course, now what we're ready on the FOMC page here so we can get uh all of our uh new information out we're going to be getting from them. We'll be

[01:32] projections here. We'll getting be getting the uh March data uh along with their statement here. Again, nobody's actually expecting a rate cut or hike today. Uh today is all about expectations. Is Powell just going to

[01:49] punt? Uh we do have Brent relaxing a little bit after some JD Vance comments that uh the uh the government's going to try to do something to uh uh to lower gas prices. Obviously, there's some concern that uh the

[02:04] consumer will start getting affected under uh higher uh gas prices and uh and and energy costs. Uh we'll see. Market obviously on standby here. I don't really think we can do anything until we get some green lights from Powell. Big

[02:18] thing from Powell really is that we do not want to see any hikes implied. Okay? So, um we're going to have to we'll we'll start prepping some of this. But, um uh mostly just with some of the things that we're expecting going into

[02:33] things that we're expecting going into this. So, we are expecting no no hike no cut. All right? Just uh stable. That's going to be the expectation. So, we'll throw that on our bingo board. Uh we'll

[02:48] obviously expect that uh Powell uh will be on time. Okay? Now, let's make a good news uh column here, okay? Uh so, we'll make this the good column. And what I'd like to see in the good

[03:04] And what I'd like to see in the good column is under 3.6 uh or e- or even equal to. Stable is fine. Under or equal to 3.6

[03:16] end 2026 Fed uh funds, all right? I think that would be pretty critical. We do not want the be pretty critical. We do not want the median to have moved. So, under or equal

[03:29] on median. Okay? We want the unemployment rate uh unemp rate to be under or equal to 4.6.

[03:44] economic projections. That's going to be the good column. Uh also, um no hikes. No hikes implied. All right? Uh implying hikes would be

[03:57] bad. So, uh and you know, then we can obviously make a a bad column over here. um well, certainly imply hikes, all right?

[04:12] hikes. the What's more likely I think what we're going to get out of Powell is commentary that it's too soon. You know?

[04:25] Too soon to determine impact. of uh Iran war. All right? So, too soon.

[04:41] Then we would expect uh some form of uh payrolls sort of discounting, all right? Uh

[04:55] labor market is weakening. Labor market uh is weakening. Uh but um

[05:08] um but downplays or, you know, whatever. Kaiser strikes

[05:20] etc. Some kind of downplaying, right? So, if Powell downplays, that could actually be a good thing for that that February data, right? Uh 3 to 6-month trend. 3 to 6-month

[05:41] uh unemployment trend slightly below. Obviously, we expect to hear some phrase like the balance of risks.

[06:01] um we will focus on whichever is further from our goal, right? We'll focus on whichever

[06:15] whichever is further from our goal. Okay? Uh you know, the the econ the Financial

[06:29] Times had a take that we might not actually see rate cuts until 2028, which isn't great. Uh you know, any kind of implication of a delay in rates uh you know, I I I I don't know that Powell

[06:42] will really imply. Honestly, I I I I don't even want I'm here. I'm going to kill the bad column. We're just going to we're going to be column. Balance of risks. We'll focus on

[06:54] whichever is further from the goal. We know he's going to say that. Um inflation. More work to do on

[07:09] inflation. And then about the the building renovations. I doubt that. I mean, he's not going to

[07:24] answer that. I mean, we could we could say that here. Um He won't talk about won't talk about court / renovation.

[07:40] / renovation. Won't talk about talk about staying on board.

[07:54] After his chair. On board after chair. Okay? So, he he'll just punt those things. Uh then we've got

[08:11] >> No, I don't think if Powell's going to come out and say that, "Oh, you know, the economy's a poop hole or or whatever." Because if if Jerome Powell did that, he would actually, just by virtue of his position, actually crash

[08:24] the market. Uh and that's exactly what you don't want. So, ironically, uh he he could he could basically induce to avoid having negative commentary. So, he has

[08:38] to be really balanced his commentary. He can't He can't just go tank the market. Uh that's uh that's going to defeat part of their dual mandate, which is maximum employment. And if Powell's

[08:51] going everything's going to crap, nobody's going to want to hire. nobody's going to want to hire. So, you know, I hope that today is mostly a nothingburger. You know, that we get estimates that are really

[09:03] reasonable. We're not going to hike, we're not going to cut. And we really give the market an opportunity to just focus on oil. We look oil hopefully comes down and uh this war comes to an

[09:16] end. And we're good. That would be great. 10 Mike says, "Coupon expires today. Lock it in." That is true. Uh we do have a large price increase coming to both the Meet Kevin courses

[09:28] coming to both the Meet Kevin courses and the Reinvest AI uh after tonight at 11:59 p.m. So, take a peek at that at meetkevin.com or househack.com. Okay, looks like we've got uh there we go. Okay.

[09:42] time. We've got about Oh, we only got about 90 seconds until we'll start getting the statements. I'll uh be covering the statements pretty closely. And uh we'll also watch the market's

[09:56] reaction. Mostly, the market's going to react off of what that statement says, do not want the implication of hikes. credit. I think he'll say we're monitoring.

[10:10] So, I'll write that down. Uh we'll say monitoring credit. Yeah, that's not uncommon.

[10:23] So, I think we'll see that. Uh purple tie, that's an easy freebie. He always wears that, but we'll take it. Purple tie. Uh are we going laptop today? Yeah, Windows Windows laptop.

[10:40] Windows laptop. laptop. Okay. you know, we'll do a little uh market recovers. I- if if above if those

[10:58] if all above all above market rallies. all above market rallies. Market rallies towards 607. All right.

[11:12] All right, here we go. Who's ready? Who's ready, boys and girls? Here we go. Who's ready, boys and girls? Here we go. And okay, uh we have da da da da And okay, uh we have da da da da 2.4% GDP growth forecast. Officials Fed

[11:25] funds rates at the end of '27 31 34. Let's go. 34 at the end of the year. They're still pricing in a cut. That's fantastic. Uh the vote in favor of policy was 11-1 with Myron dissenting in favor of a 25

[11:38] basis point cut. Attentive to risks on both sides of the dual mandate. Job gains have remained low and have been little changed in recent months. elevated. Job gains have remained low. Unemployment rate little changed.

[11:51] activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Federal Reserve leaves rates unchanged. That summary of economic projections at 3.4. Woo, that's good. Median Fed funds rate also 34.

[12:07] statement in just a moment here once it populates, but I'm just reading it off here. Uh Fed funds rate longer run 3.1. That's up a little bit from 3.0. That's fine. Still implying that 25 basis points of

[12:20] for uh your what's it called? Um for this year. So, FOMC March

[12:34] this year, which markets are still pricing into about 70%. I'm actually Uh let's go take a look at the projection material. It is out now. Okay, here we go. This is fantastic news. This is really good. This is

[12:47] rallyable, in my opinion. So, I've got uh 34. This is great news. You did not want this to be over uh 36. That's fantastic. Look at this, folks. None of fantastic. Look at this, folks. None of them changed. 36 36 36 35. Good. That's

[13:04] great. Change in the unemployment rate 44. Great. This is fantastic. So, let's go to the bingo board. The good column over here is very very happy. Uh so, we got that. We got that. We got that.

[13:20] okay, the rest we'll still have to work Okay, continuing here. Change in real GDP. Actually, they wrote up GDP over here. Wow. Uh GDP written up in each year. '26 up

[13:39] 0.1. '27 up 0.3. And 2028 up 0.2. So, a big GDP write up here. Well, I mean, a big suggestion of positivity by a GDP write

[13:53] up in each of these years. That is not a recession uh by any means here. The recession uh by any means here. The lowest we get here in 2028 is 1.8 on a range, but the central tendency tendency here is that we're going to be above 1.8

[14:07] to 2% here. This is actually very bullish uh projection material. Uh very good. I've got the unemployment rate uh staying stable per estimate. Yeah, here we go. PC inflation. They do write these up, but I

[14:22] these. So, obviously, we've seen those projections move up. And then, it does look like Okay, I just got a report that intercepted and destroyed a drone attempt that was attempting to reach a

[14:36] natural gas facility. No injuries reported. So, we can see we're pretty consolidated over here for 2026. This is going to be uh the no cut group right here. No cut. Uh then, we're going

[14:52] to have the one cut and then more cuts uh sort of uh dots, if you will. Uh you can see it looks like uh most people averaging to about uh

[15:05] yeah, actually, I think I might have to move this down a little bit. 36 is That's roughly where we are now. No, that's that's about accurate. One cut. Yeah, this this probably prices in about two cuts

[15:18] Uh that's at least where where this column over here is. So, one to two cuts over the next few years. Uh no indication of anything crazy here. This is a pretty benign report. Uh right on the money. I'd say very

[15:33] uh benign. I think this is going to echo what Jerome Powell says. Very benign. Uh let's see here. Very benign. let's see here. Very benign. Uh likely echoes what Jerome Powell

[15:47] says. Uh too soon to make any determinations. Uh oh, I do think he'll say we're in a good place. Yeah, we're in a good place. So, let's throw that onto the bingo

[16:00] board. So, we'll go with back to the red pen. And we're going to go we're in a good place. place. We're in a good

[16:15] Okay, good. Uh more work to do on inflation. Labor market weakening, but downplays with Kaiser strikes, blah blah blah. Mentions private credit. Uh obviously, we think um

[16:29] mandate. I do not think he will say the word Uh does Oops.

[16:42] Does not use word transitory. So, let's keep looking at the statement over here.

[16:56] Uh Powell will be up in about 25 minutes to talk, but overall, this is very much as expected. Uh very benign. No implication of hikes.

[17:08] Stable for now. And uh nothing burger so far. You know, obviously, it's going to depend on what Pow Wowee says. But, so far, this is pretty decent.

[17:22] let's go take a look at the market's reaction. Ah, market's not really moving off of this yet. Still waiting for JPow. It somewhat in. Uh

[17:37] Uh seems like this table is mostly as expected. Uh priced in. Uh let's see what other projection material we can get out of here. So,

[17:53] uncertainty about PC inflation has obviously risen. No surprise here. Weighted risks to the upside on inflation. So, we could say that here. Uh

[18:08] upside risks to inflation. And over here, we can put downside

[18:21] risks to employ- All right. Okay. Uh continuing here, we have

[18:33] PCE. That's PCE. Change in real GDP. I mean, they're really no you know, recession indication over you know, recession indication over here.

[18:49] uh recession is not base case. Recession is not base case. Okay, good.

[19:02] Then PCE inflation core, that's fine. What do that's fine. Let me see if we have a labor section over here. We should.

[19:15] rate unemployment rate unemployment rate also with risks weighted to the upside.

[19:30] to labor market. Would be another way to put that. risks to labor market. Okay, bingo board is complete. Want to

[19:44] screeny of that, I guess uh Can we give it to you a little larger here? Who doesn't like it larger? Uh uh I can't keep it up. I can't keep it up.

[20:00] It uh See it? It doesn't want to stay up. a cut off at the top or bottom there, but I think that's pretty obvious. There you go. And maybe even like that.

[20:12] All right. All right. So, back to the sheets over here. Participant assessment of risk from the only projections, fine. Uh let's see here. Okay, okay, okay, that's fine. Nothing new here. Nothing

[20:26] Let's I'm going to go see what the suits say in just a moment, but all this change in real GDP is really tight. You know, their forecasts are not very diffuse here. These are very tight uh

[20:39] diffuse here. These are very tight uh expectations for the unemployment rate as well as inflation. I mean, you do have some larger ranges here. have some larger ranges here. So, if I grab this here, let's try to

[20:52] get a line going. Okay, there we go. So, know, a range of inflation potentials here.

[21:08] Most uncertainty most uncertainty on inflation goes away after this year uh per entire committee. That's huge uh for signaling

[21:22] uh transitory inflation without saying it, right? They're basically saying, you know, tariffs, Iran, ETC, all transitory

[21:34] Iran, ETC, all transitory inflation hits without uh saying the word, right? That's that's really what you're finding here. And this would be a range uh well, I mean, we can see the specific

[21:47] range for 2026 on inflation right here, 2.2 to 3.0. Uh that's core. Sorry, 2.3 to 3.3.

[21:59] Uh that's core. Sorry, 2.3 to 3.3. 2.3 to 3.3. 2.3 to 3.3 range. And then 2.3 to 3.3. 2.3 to 3.3 range. And then over here, we have 2.0 to 3. 0 range on the inflation figures. Let me just

[22:13] on the inflation figures. Let me just verify that. That was core is actually 2.2. There we go. Double-checking myself. Always check your work. Check your work. Okay, good.

[22:26] Let's now go see uh take a peek here at what the suits have to say about it. Okay, so we have

[22:44] So, traders are betting that other central banks, ECB, will need to hike rates. That's true. They did that before the last recession, too. They hiked like embarrassment. Some signs of stabilization.

[22:59] They removed removes reference to the jobs market and the unemployment rate as having shown some signs of stabilization. Interesting. Now, that is not bullish.

[23:14] Uh so, I'm going to write that down. Bearish. Bearish. Bearish.

[23:26] Not ideal. Uh bearish on removal of some signs of stabilization in employment from statement. Okay. I'm not sure why it does this.

[23:38] bearish. Uh let's see here. inflation expectations. The removal of the stabilizing labor

[23:51] The removal of the stabilizing labor market changed to little changed. Uh changed to little changed. Okay. Why it does this, I don't know.

[24:14] Okay. Let's see here. Dual side of the mandate, side by side strike through the conversation here. So,

[24:28] shown shown some signs of stabilization. That part. Shown. Some signs of stabilization in

[24:40] It's been changed changed to little little changed. Implications of developments in the Middle East are uncertain. Right. Uh implications of developments in the Middle East for

[24:54] of developments in the Middle East for the US economy are uncertain. That was added obviously since the last statement.

[25:07] And Waller uh hold. Myron is the only one.

[25:22] Myron is the only one. Myron on 11/1 votes for 25 BP cut. Okay. So, you know, Warsh is going to have his So, you know, Warsh is going to have his work cut out for him, right? Uh Warsh

[25:36] doesn't have a lot of friends. Warsh has one friend so far. You know, that's that's not great because, you know, it it means they're probably not going to be able to do anything.

[25:53] they're talking about here. Iran. Okay, let's see here. Who is this? Chief economist at Annex Wealth. They're only guessing what will happen oil prices, but if inflation is projected to run 0.3% hotter without a

[26:05] material drag on growth, that could be optimistic on their part. Yeah, I I actually agree with that. Uh so, you know, this is not um

[26:17] you know, I expected a 3% an increase to 3%. a 3% an increase to 3%. I expected headline PCE to come in at a 3% uh Fed expectation as Annex Wealth puts

[26:34] uh Fed expectation as Annex Wealth puts it, only writing up from 2.4 to 2.7 is uh bullish uh or potentially optimistic

[26:46] uh by the Fed to not create inflation panic. Um some risk that if the Fed increased inflation uh expectations themselves,

[26:59] that market expectations could rise as they have been. Uh the 5-year Let me see if I can get a picture of it. 5-year break even

[27:13] on inflation. Pretty sure it's been straight up, but let me see here. 5-year 5-year 5-year. And then I'll see if I can get a screenshot of it, too. Uh oh, yeah, dude. Okay. 5-year over the last 5 years

[27:29] has kind of rocketed up. Okay. 1 second for that image. That'll cook that up for us.

[27:44] this. So, this is the 5-year break even. 5-year break even inflation chart indicates inflation expectations have

[27:58] indicates inflation expectations have now surpassed their end of right. We are now at the highest.

[28:15] Uh now sit at the highest level since March of 2023. I think that was during the banking crisis bailout.

[28:29] Uh you know, obviously, the longer this goes on, obviously, the longer this goes on, the more of a risk uh expectations de-anchor and self-fulfill higher,

[28:45] de-anchor and self-fulfill higher, right? not great, not terrible. We got about 12 minutes until Powell comes up. A reminder, if you have not yet, uh go check out meetkevin.com or

[28:58] househack.com. Those uh we do have an expiring coupon code over there. tonight. We are also considering removing the option for individuals to buy the House Hack Valuation AI as we're getting into

[29:12] actually creating our Valuation AI. Uh the uh you know, the next phase of the sell it to real estate brokers because we think we can sell it for a a really nice premium to real estate brokers uh who could then invite their clients to

[29:27] utilize it. So, if you want access to that before uh it potentially goes away, You'll be able to lock in access to it. It's a really cool tool. Really uh

[29:39] House Hack. With that said, take a brief listen to the Steve Liesman from inflation. I I would say this, though. Um I think that what the key to me is whether or not Fed officials are seeing this oil price impulse as a negative

[29:53] thing for growth or for inflation. And if it's on the growth side, um, then it importantly. If it's on the inflation side, it matters what happens to core and inflation expectations as well. >> Yeah, I mean, it it it's clear to me

[30:09] clear here that the Fed does not think Iran will affect GDP. Iran will affect GDP. Uh, they raised GDP expectations for Uh, they raised GDP expectations for each of the next 3 years, all right?

[30:24] each of the next 3 years, all right? Significant revaluation of certain types have seen a relative amount of revaluation has been in places like private credit, like places like high-yield debt, where we have seen

[30:38] prices come significantly lower over the course of the past 2 to 3 weeks vis-à-vis what happened in certain equity parts of the market. Should we be worried that maybe that high-yield collateralized loan obligation private

[30:50] that the equity markets just aren't caught up to yet? first of all, in the private credit markets, that industry has evolved from fewer players to a whole lot of new players coming in. So, this is part of

[31:04] time. As more players >> Yeah, whatever. Uh, also interesting that you've got Klarna now con- continuing its sell-off on the day after indicating that private equity is pulling some money out of

[31:20] these uh Klarna and Affirm uh funds, which uh isn't great for them, cuz it could mean some more pressure on the consumers' credit availability. Uh,

[31:32] Q still rejecting 600 here, not holding. Let's go listen to the doomers. And it was up from 12 and 13 members, respectively. So, that stagflation outcome still in the back minds of so many of these Fed

[31:45] >> There's no stagflation in their sheet. No stagflation at all. Uh, no stagflation here, just inflation and growth. Uh, they're writing up growth.

[32:05] uh, "Stagflation." Uh, and and may- maybe you're stagnating. Uh, Uh, you know, you're stagnating, but um

[32:19] you know, you're stagnating, but um uh, but not GDP at this point. you know, the the consideration here is as long as GDP, I mean, sure, look, in 90% of

[32:34] of 1H 2025 GDP growth was due to AI. So, that could flatline at some point, right? That would obviously be bad. And, you know, that's where the concern is if private

[32:50] credit and uh AI and consumer borrowing all get squeezed then Iran is just the nail in the

[33:05] coffin. But so far, we're just seeing early warning signs in private credit and consumer borrowing uh and and really not yet in AI. It's just more of a

[33:17] speculation in terms of where where we think we're going to end up going with uh with with artificial intelligence. Kevin, can you explain how Trump kept Court ruling? Well, the Supreme Court uh only invalidated the IEEPA tariffs. Uh,

[33:31] different avenues there he could go with, you know, like section 301 tariffs or basically he has these authorities to utilize temporary tariffs for about 150

[33:43] days through some measures. And then after the Commerce Department studies them for 150 days, they could potentially last longer. It's also possible Trump could just sort of like undo those temporary tariffs and then

[33:55] redo them like the same night, potentially resetting that 150-day So, I don't you know, while I was hoping Donald Trump would take the L in the best way possible and just say, "All right, you

[34:08] know we'll pass on tariffs. That would have been great for consumers. It would have been great for for Republicans for the midterms. Like if you want Republicans to win in the

[34:21] midterms, you should have wanted tariffs to go away. IEEPA tariffs went away, and Trump not to utilize the other sections. Obviously, utilizing other sections was a probability. I think I put it down as like, you know, a combined like 60%

[34:37] chance of happening that he would use some form of of the combined tariffs, would just walk away from them to get votes. Uh, he didn't. In a midterm year, it was actually somewhat shocking shocking.

[34:49] But um So, anyway, Somebody here in the chat says, "Jerome Powell goes out on top." top of the market or what? I mean, Jerome Powell is probably pretty

[35:03] think that the market is really going to, you know, I don't think we'll see a recession in the next 2 months. You know, a uh a larger risk factor is that the war in Iran goes on and we get a $150 per barrel oil. And then we

[35:20] the end of the year or the beginning of 2027, but uh you know, it doesn't seem in- you know, inducing some kind of crazy recession risk within the next few months. And certainly the Federal Reserve is not forecasting that either.

[35:35] So, Mikey, uh what else? Doomers, yeah, exactly. Nice calling on the QQQ, you're the man. Oh, thanks for saying that, Ed Edwards. Powell won't go dove or hawk. He's going to go eagle to us, America. Yeah, uh I

[35:50] mean, I I think Powell just needs to like gracefully get through these next and just disappear. And, you know he like that's probably best case scenario. Just stay neutral.

[36:05] you know, this summary of economic projections is is actually quite frankly bullish. Uh, even though Oman Oman right now is condemning a dangerous escalation of targeting energy infrastructure. Yeah, I mean, Iran's lashing out. And in

[36:18] infrastructure, and they said they would lash out if we hit their energy infrastructure. It's exactly what's happening, so you know, it's uh it's a it's a little hard to uh say we didn't see that one coming.

[36:30] say we didn't see that one coming. But uh all right, let's listen to this. for PCE for the month of February hotter, especially on core services.

[36:43] That's aside from what's going on in terms of tariff-based inflation. That is important right now, and I think that's getting lost in translation, but it does show up in the devil in the details of those dots and how the forecasts show

[36:57] up. You could have had one very strong forecast push up the GDP number within the group. There are people >> Okay, but let's see if that's true. Uh, cuz cuz this is the median. She's wrong, actually. No, I shouldn't say

[37:12] correct. She's totally wrong. This is median. No. So, you can't you know, la- lady says uh lady says one strong forecast could have moved this up. Wrong. It's median, not average. Uh,

[37:30] she's not even paying attention. Dude, she's the literal chief economist at KPMG and apparently doesn't understand the difference between median and uh and the difference between median and uh and average. Oh my gosh.

[37:46] uncertainty and wait and see. And that will just sort of be where they are right now, and that they they don't know where the next rate move is the right way to play it. Diane Swonk. Diane, always good to catch up with you.

[38:01] there breaking down the Fed's decision. If you are just joining us, welcome to about 4 minutes away. >> see if we got Sarah. I think Sarah's off >> chair. Do you think we're going to >> Yeah, she's not here, cuz she's using

[38:14] the coupon code. Do we will? I In the sense that I think he's going to pretty good. All the all the indicators, no matter how low confidence is." Oh, JP pretty good. But I'll be really interested to see what he says about the

[38:28] some assumption here. And I think as you to now some sort of replacement tariffs, it's not even clear how much they're they're being implemented, something else down the road, it does look like

[38:40] the tariff fever is is setting here. And if tariffs come down, that does improve the inflation outlook for next year. You know, Tim, what do you see from your regard to investor sentiment, where people are actually investing their

[38:52] money, that tells you the market's either have it pretty right or pretty wrong? Well, now, we had prior to the war, we had this big capital rotation that was taking place. You had a shift into small caps, the S&P 500 equal

[39:05] areas that were doing very well, and I think a lot of that had to do with the growth backdrop we saw and the idea that we were going to get Fed cuts in the those have been priced out. >> That trade has been put on hold. We need

[39:18] those those cuts to be priced back in to to see that trade start working and be >> You ain't pricing the cuts back in, bro. You got to see inflation go down for like 3 months in a row first price it back in. That trade ain't coming back.

[39:33] uh or or you know, PCE well, and PPI and CPI start coming down. Once they start coming down again, then some more of that because the reality of it is, if this conflict does wrap up and

[39:47] >> Since when did they have a bouncer at Jerome Powell's door? it's still very, market. >> how did Trump put it? They'll drop like yesterday? From Yeah, from the White House.

[40:00] Governor Miron and David Heath has talked a lot about how this just to use Like he talks about the portfolio management fees. That's right, but there's nothing wrong with an interest rate of, you know, three 350 to 375. I

[40:15] mean, it's Retro in the chat says, "Legend has it Cleopatra also used the coupon code before the price increase." actually at an appropriate level. Leave them there rather than try to then then

[40:31] home prices by pushing rates down to zero again. can't cut rates cuz it's just going to push up home prices. But what if the economy What if What if we are losing 92,000 jobs a month like we are now?

[40:43] 20,000 And then guess what? Real estate will go up. just because of demographics. So, that you know, if you if we change the you know, millions of more It's one of the reasons I've been loading up on real

[40:56] estate. You know, our valuation AI tool just found us like a 600 or $700,000 deal. Well, it's a $2 million deal, but we think we're going to be up on it like five, six, $700,000 when we're done with it. Pretty excited.

[41:09] It's part of the bingo board. price back in. And I think it is going to be a little. >> Nah, man, he's going to be neutral. He's >> July and the tone's going to be much different. All right, here we go.

[41:22] taking the Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yes. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American

[41:36] The US economy has been expanding at a >> gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months and inflation remains somewhat elevated.

[41:49] Let's go. Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged. We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment and 2% inflation goals. Pretty good.

[42:03] The implications of developments in the Middle East for the US economy are uncertain. We will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate. Uh-oh. And I'll have more to say about monetary

[42:16] policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Consumer spending has been resilient and

[42:29] business fixed investment has continued to expand. In contrast, activity in the housing sector has remained weak. In our summary of economic projections, the median participant projects that

[42:41] real GDP will rise 2.4% this year and 2.3% next year, somewhat stronger than projected in December. In the labor market, the unemployment rate was 4.4% in February and has

[42:55] rate was 4.4% in February and has changed little since late last summer. Job have been low. A good part of the slowing in the pace of job growth over the past year reflects a decline in the growth of the

[43:07] labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation. It's clearly softened as well. Other indicators, including job openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal

[43:21] wage growth generally show little change in recent months. In our SEP, the median projection of the unemployment rate is 4.4% at the end of unemployment rate is 4.4% at the end of this year and edges down thereafter.

[43:35] Inflation has eased significantly from its highs in mid-2022 [clears throat] to our 2% longer-run goal. Estimates based on the consumer price index and other data indicate that total

[43:49] PCE prices rose 2.8% over the 12 months ending in February and that excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 3.0%. These elevated readings largely reflect

[44:04] inflation in the goods sector, which has been boosted by the effects of tariffs. Near-term measures of inflation expectations have risen in recent weeks, likely reflecting the substantial rise in oil prices caused by the supply

[44:18] disruptions in the Middle East. Most measures of longer-term expectations remain consistent with our 2% inflation goal. The median projection in the SEP for total PCE inflation this year is 2.7%

[44:34] and 2.2% next year, a bit higher than projected in December. >> Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people.

[44:48] decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3 1/2 to 3 and 3/4%. From last September through December, we lowered our policy rate 3/4 of a percentage point, bringing it within a

[45:02] range of plausible estimates of neutral. This normalization of our policy stance should continue to help stabilize the labor market while allowing inflation to labor market while allowing inflation to resume its downward trend toward 2%.

[45:15] Middle East for the US economy are uncertain. In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation, but it is too soon to know the scope and duration of the potential effects on the

[45:28] economy. We will continue to monitor the risks to We are well positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments to our policy rate based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook,

[45:42] and the balance of risks. Let's go. >> SEP, FOMC participants wrote down their individual assessments of an appropriate path of the federal funds rate under what each participant judges to be the

[45:54] what each participant judges to be the most likely scenario for the economy. The median participant projects that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate will be 3.4% at the end of this year and 3.1% at the end of next year,

[46:07] unchanged from December. As is always the case, these individual forecasts are subject to uncertainty and they are not a committee plan or decision. Monetary policy is not on a preset

[46:20] course and we'll make our decisions on a meeting-by-meeting basis. the Fed has been assigned two goals for monetary policy, maximum employment and stable prices. We remain committed to supporting

[46:34] maximum employment, bringing inflation sustainably to our 2% goal, and keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Our success in delivering on these goals matters to all Americans.

[46:47] We at the Fed will continue to do our to do our jobs with objectivity, integrity, American people. Thank you and I look forward to your Thank you and I look forward to your questions. All right, Q&A.

[47:02] There's been some debate about whether the Fed should look through the inflation that will come from higher oil prices stemming from the Middle East conflict. Is that the right approach at this juncture? And to what extent does

[47:14] the fact that inflation has been above target for roughly 5 years now influence the committee's thinking around this? So, uh So, uh first let me say we're well aware of um

[47:28] last few years and how a series of that we've made over time. And that happened most recently with tariffs and then and now there will be some effects on inflation coming

[47:41] forward. Um the the thing that's really important the the thing that's really important that we see this year is progress uh on inflation through a reduction in goods inflation as It's going up, though. the

[47:55] through the system, go through the economy. That's the main thing we're looking for going into this exercise. And we need to be seeing that uh to, you actually are making progress because on that we didn't make progress. And if you

[48:11] look at total inflation, sorry, total core inflation, it's about 3% and some big chunk of that between a half and 3/4 is actually on that. The question of whether we look through

[48:24] uh the energy inflation doesn't really arise until we have kind of checked that box. It of course is kind of standard learning that you look through energy shocks, but that's always been dependent on on uh

[48:37] anchored and I think Yep. Now, it's also dependent on on what you mentioned, which is that broader context of of 5 years now of inflation above target. We and the question of looking through when it does arise will be one to approach

[48:53] not lightly, but, you know, in in the context that you mentioned. Yeah, this >> the SEP, [clears throat] can you help us make sense of the headline and core inflation and the essentially unchanged forecast for growth and unemployment?

[49:05] Just curious kind of what what's the genesis behind the need What's the need for the cut? Yeah, so you know, there are 19

[49:18] and so 19 reasons, 19 individual submissions. You know, but but it and if you notice um the median didn't change, but there was actually some movement a meaningful amount of movement toward toward fewer cuts by by people. So, four

[49:33] or five people went from two to one, let's say, two cuts to one cut. Um and each person has individual uh stories behind behind what they want to do. But, essentially, it is that, you

[49:47] know, the the the the forecast is that we will be making progress on but some progress on inflation. It should come as we start to see in the middle of the year uh progress on on tariffs, you know,

[50:00] inflation coming down. That's we should be seeing that. And, you know, the the rate forecast is conditional on the performance of the economy. So, if we don't see that progress, then you won't see the rate cut.

[50:13] see the rate cut. Uh won't see the rate cut. That was a big [clears throat] line right there. follow up a little bit and to be clear, um

[50:25] is the higher inflation's penciled in here for 2026 solely the result of the oil shock or or or something else?

[50:38] core, right? So, the oil shock for sure shows up here. But, yes, but no, there there's also just just the the the feeling that we haven't seen um you know, the progress that we had hoped for on on core goods.

[50:52] >> and on on tariffs and on the rest of it, you know, we've we've So, for whatever reason, people did write up their inflation forecast. That will certainly uh events in the Middle East and the price of oil, but it's also, I think, a

[51:06] reflection of of um the slow progress we've seen on on see. It's just a question of how long it takes economy. And it takes it just takes some time. Right. And is the is the lack of

[51:20] again, just to explicate this a little bit, more due to the expectation that through or more out of concern that there is a potential blow uh to consumption and

[51:35] effects with the stock market down, in the form of gas prices, you know, uh uh diverting spending from other parts of the economy. Um So, I I on the I

[51:47] >> Well, the Well, the the consumers going to be potentially diverting money to gasoline from other parts of the economy. There could be a growth shock uh or a redistribution of spending there that connect consumption, wealth effects

[51:59] as well. I guess I'm wondering, are you not Is the rate forecast not changing because you think the oil shock is going to be temporary or because you want to starts to slow? >> the the thing I really want to emphasize

[52:11] economics effect could be bigger, they smaller or much bigger. We just don't know. So, people are writing down them, but have no conviction that's that you know, to your point, if we have high

[52:26] you know, if we have a long period of much higher gas prices, that's going to weigh on consumption, not to weigh on disposable personal income, and it'll if that's going to happen. It it it could be something quite different than

[52:38] that. We might have much lower than expected pass-through. So, people write those SEPs where a number of people a an SEP, this would be a good one because

[52:50] we just don't know. So, I I wouldn't say there's a a conviction that this is going to go through quickly or not >> was a pretty good SEP, and he's basically saying, well, we almost skipped it. that people wrote down. Uh

[53:04] So, and you know, we don't debate how long How do you do that? We wouldn't be able to debate what the length of or or size of these effects would be. We just have to kind of make an individual statement. And and you also, you know,

[53:16] what you've written down before will be you'll be reluctant to move too far away from that just because you don't know. It's so unclear what the direction from the economy has the growth has been solid. Um and inflation the the

[53:31] overshoot is mainly from from the the goods and tariffs. And, you know, the labor market uh is um the unemployment rate, of course, is little changed since September. Um you have very, very low break-even

[53:44] rate, apparently, for new jobs with little growth in either demand or supply. But, the US economy is is doing, you know, pretty well. It's just we don't know what the effects of this will be, and really no one does.

[53:58] be, and really no one does. Steve. staff has suggested that higher oil prices um Howard was talking about, but that's somewhat offset by increased to domestic

[54:14] about that dynamic, especially to the extent that how much US production is is happening right now. So, the first thing is, there is you know, the original thinking the the the the

[54:28] is that you do look through energy shocks. But, as I mentioned, that's and that kind of thing. So, you Sorry, your question was the said in the past, you know. So, there'll be an offset. Offset, yeah. So, that's

[54:42] that's true. Uh you know, we have um we're a net exporter of energy, right? So, any any effects on employment and economic activity and spending would be our our oil companies will be more profitable, and they may even do more

[54:57] drilling. If you ask oil companies about doing more drilling, though, they're going to want to see, you know, an a a consistent rate rise in oil prices from where they were before the build-up for the war.

[55:11] going to want to believe that that's going to be persistent for a fairly not sitting there waiting for oil to go over $70 a you know, a barrel, and then whatever. They're going to they're going to make a a a reasoned, careful judgment

[55:27] prices for an extended period, that meaningfully higher. So, you don't I wouldn't say there's much of that happening. Not Not much would would be happen over time if you see that. But, um so, there you know, the net of the

[55:41] net of it would the net of of the oil shock will still be some downward pressure on spending and and upward pressure on inflation, of on Colby's [clears throat] question, the how much do you worry that having looked

[55:54] inflation running above target, and looking through the oil price shock commitment to the 2% target? You know, we we have to do our analysis and and you know, think these things through

[56:08] everyone's mind. You know, we're we're well aware of of the history and uh but know, you want to make the best judgment you can based on on the facts. We're not I don't think we're going to let it color our decision-making more than is

[56:23] thought that it's been 5 years, and we've actually had, you know, we had the we've actually had, you know, we had the tariff shock, we had the pandemic uh and some size and duration. We don't know what that's going to be, actually. And,

[56:36] you know, it's one of those things where it's it's it's a repeated set of things, and you you worry that that's the kind of thing that can um you know, can cause trouble for inflation expectations. And and and you

[56:49] you know, we are very strongly committed to uh to doing what it takes to to keep inflation expectations anchored at 2%. that we uh that we do that. Very important.

[57:04] Nick. Nick Timiraos. you described monetary policy as modestly restrictive. If the unemployment rate is roughly stable, inflation moving sideways in the high

[57:19] twos, with an ongoing overshoot in services and non-housing services, not just goods, and the economy doing fairly well, as you as you just what gives you confidence that inflation returns to target over the next couple

[57:33] of years? Okay. So, I I would say the the rate is you can characterize it as in the high end of neutral, or you can characterize characterize it as perhaps restrictive. No one knows for sure, but

[57:46] around the borderline between restrictive and not. Um remember that that a big part of the disinflation we're looking for is just the run-off of when when tariffs are put into place, of

[58:00] course, what they do is they raise prices to some extent, to the extent consumers uh in a on a one-time basis. And we're waiting for that that process. It takes 8, 9, 10, 11 months, a year to go to go

[58:16] through the system. And we're waiting for the tariffs, which were put in place over the course of the middle part and later uh later last year, we're waiting for that to go through the system so that goods inflation will return closer

[58:29] to what it's always been. I mean, it used to be for many, many years it was negative. And then, uh you know, the year before tariffs came in, it was zero. And it's running at like 2% now. So, I and and so, that's kind of goods

[58:42] inflation is running at 2%. So, that's not coming from standard Phillips curve restrictive uh um you know, restrictive policy. It's coming from the one run-off of a one-time thing. We also think it's

[58:56] important, though, to keep policy either mildly restrictive or, you know, close to that, but not too restrictive because of the weakness in the in the the downside risk in the labor market. We are balancing these two goals in a

[59:08] market are to the downside, which would call for are to the upside, which would call for higher rates, or not cutting, anyway. So, we're in a difficult situation, and we feel like we're

[59:21] our framework calls on us to balance the risks, and we feel like where we are now is just kind of on that borderline, the the higher borderline of of restrictive versus uh uh not restrictive. We feel like that's

[59:34] the right place to be. Can I ask about core non-housing services, though? that it hasn't come down very much, if at all, over the past year. If If wage growth has come down, if the labor market has loosened, why has non-housing

[59:47] services inflation maybe been slower to follow? That's a good question. Uh It's you know, it's it's frustrating. Labor non-housing services have They basically moved sideways for a year. They're at the same level. We do expect

[1:00:01] know, it it's it's a bunch of idiosyncratic things, but at the same time, that that is one of the things we should be seeing, because to your point, you know, the labor market is clearly not a source of inflationary pressures,

[1:00:13] and that should really matter for non-housing services, but we're not seeing progress there. So, we do you know, the what we expect for next year is continued what we want to see for this year, rather, is continued progress

[1:00:25] on housing services, finally seeing that you know, the goods one-time effects of tariffs are through, and then also get some help from like to see. But it's you know, it's a good question why we didn't see much of

[1:00:40] that last year. Edward. >> Thanks, Chair Powell. Edward Lawrence with Fox Business. So, in December, we saw employment numbers revised down to -17,000. January revised down. February

[1:00:54] posted a loss of 92,000. Is that Is Is the employment side at far greater risk than the inflation side? Because we are seeing inflation, CPI's close to 2%. PCE has ticked down overall. You know, it's really I wouldn't say

[1:01:07] that. I wouldn't say that that's clear at all, that one is more at risk than the other. So, you can you can point to the unemployment rate being stable, and you know, in a world where both supply and demand for workers have come down

[1:01:20] very, very sharply over the course of the past year due to immigration policy, Um you know, a ratio is going to be a better thing to look at than job creation, for example. So, and the ratio is the unemployment rate, and it's been

[1:01:33] stable since September. So, that that that tells you that. Um inflation I you know, you you can uh we're we're we're at we're at 3.0% core inflation, 2.8% headline. So, we've been well above the

[1:01:48] 2% uh that that amount, whatever it is. Uh 0.7, 0.8, or a full percentage point above 2% for some time, and that's a concern. You know, we need to get back down to 2%, and uh we need to keep

[1:02:01] focused on that, even though we do now face some some new inflation from I'd be hard-pressed to say that one of them is obviously more at risk than the other. And if I may, what happens uh if there's

[1:02:14] no Federal Reserve chairman confirmed on May 15th? Would you stay on? So, if my successor is not confirmed by the end of my term as chair, I would serve as chair pro tem until he is confirmed. Um That is what the law calls

[1:02:29] for. Uh that's what we've done on several occasions, including involving me, and it's what we're going to do in this situation. Uh and while I'm at it, on the question whether I will leave while the investigation is ongoing, I

[1:02:42] have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality, and I would refer you to the statement that was in the Fed's brief that you will all have seen. And I won't

[1:02:54] On the question of whether I will then continue to serve as a governor after my term ends and after the investigation is over, I have not made that decision yet, and I will make that decision based on what I think is best for the institution

[1:03:08] Figuring you probably were going to set the dominoes off there, Edward. And I'm I'm not going to have any more to say on those issues, by the way. Wow. [clears throat]

[1:03:23] the Financial Times. Um People have drawn quite a few historical parallels with the current situation. We've seen oil price shocks in the past. Um Some people have said the First Gulf War and the Fed's response to that,

[1:03:36] where there was a focus on the growth risks, um is the right parallel to what what extent do you think we're in a different place today? Thank you.

[1:03:48] You know, we It's It's really hard to say until we see the situation, the In some circumstances, that might be the right uh case. In fact, for example, if we do see the kinds of of disinflationary progress that we

[1:04:02] expect to see with due due to tariffs that I mentioned. Um I think it's hard to say, and it will depend to some extent on on the size and duration of the effects we're seeing on prices, and and it will depend a lot on uh what we

[1:04:15] can see in inflation expectations. And just one follow-up, if I may, just on the BLS report that was mentioned briefly there. It doesn't seem from the projections, or from the comments you've made today about the unemployment rate

[1:04:28] and focusing on that, that your view on the labor market story to a large part being a supply side story has changed, um despite the quite negative number in February. Would that be the right take, and was there anyone else in the room

[1:04:42] who thought differently in that the February jobs report was cause for So, I think you have to take the take the two together. You know, the you know, in a way, the uh January report was a positive surprise, and the

[1:04:57] February report was a negative surprise. Um if you put them together, think you have to really as you do, I'm sure realize there were there was a strike, and there was weather, and that's about 80,000 of the negative

[1:05:11] effect total on the February report. Notwithstanding that, so so what do you overall? There are a number of indicators that suggest a degree of stability, but the thing that I I think um

[1:05:24] good number of people on the committee are concerned about is just the very, very low level of job creation. If you If you adjust what has been the trend job creation over the past, let's say, 6 months, if you adjust that for what we

[1:05:37] think our staff thinks is the the overstatement due to overcounting, effectively, there's zero net job creation in the private sector. But actually, that looks like that's about what the economy needs in terms of of

[1:05:51] dealing with very, very low nonexistent, really, growth in the labor force, which of course we've never had in our in our history. So, you've got a a sort of a a zero employment growth equilibrium.

[1:06:04] Now, that's that's balance, okay? But uh you know, I would say it it does have a feel of downside risk, and uh it's not kind of a really comfortable balance. um you know, we look at that, we see it, we get it, and I mean everybody

[1:06:18] that's you you can say the break-even is is zero, but nonetheless, it's um it's something we're watching carefully, and so and and ultimately, though, you can argue that it's the consequence

[1:06:32] of deliberate deliberate policy, which is really the changes to immigration. Is that's the biggest factor there, and uh but nonetheless, something we watch carefully. Andrew.

[1:06:44] Deliberate policy. Thanks, Chair Powell. Um the economy's experienced a series of supply shocks in the last few years. Covid, tariffs, two oil price shocks. Do you think that is bad luck, or is

[1:06:56] makes supply shocks more common, and does the central bank need to take start taking account of the risk of supply shocks as more as a more common You know, we we did go through a long period where where the the shocks were

[1:07:10] all demand shocks, and you know, so we've had a lot of practice thinking about supply shocks in the last four or five years, for sure. and a very much more difficult thing, because it does immediately raise the

[1:07:22] question of uh tension between the two parts of our mandate. But you know, it has the world changed? I mean, Covid Covid is a one-time thing, right? Um uh this energy supply shock is a

[1:07:36] because of some broad tendency or anything, I don't think. And and you know, the the oil shock under with Ukraine was also a consequence of uh of military action. So, I don't know that I don't know that the uh uh

[1:07:51] there'll be more supply shocks, but you know, there's people have written that times. A number of people have tried to make the case that that is the case. And in fact, we have seen more supply shocks in the last 5 years than we've seen in

[1:08:06] Okay. Um [clears throat] reviewing its communication strategies, including the SEP, as part of its framework review. Um whatever happened to that, and uh I

[1:08:20] you know, I guess you know, what what would you change about Fed communications if you had the time? What happened about that was not >> [clears throat] >> you know, we we we we looked carefully

[1:08:35] at many aspects of the SEP and of our communications, and there just [snorts] weren't There weren't any ideas that had very broad support on the committee. And change to your communications unless you have you know, have the committee behind

[1:08:49] that. So, we didn't really make any changes on that. I you know, I I had wanted to do, but they just they didn't attract broad support, and we'd already framework. That was That was a critical thing. So, we didn't. And you know, I

[1:09:03] you know, I I wish we had been able to do some things, but you know, we didn't. So, maybe the next chair will will take a look. I'm I'm sure he will. >> [clears throat] >> McKee.

[1:09:20] and Radio. The minutes show in January some members of the committee wanted to include a two-sided guidance on policy. Was that discussed today and given the rise in the inflation expectations, how much support for

[1:09:34] much support for two-sided policy warning would there be? So, it did come up today. The policy that are the possibility, rather, that come up at the meeting as it did at the last meeting.

[1:09:46] The vast majority of participants don't see that as their base case. off the table. But you you correctly characterized you several participants indicated in something very much like that

[1:10:00] second question now? Oh, that was just one one question there, but follow-up there are a lot of goods besides oil that are [clears throat] trapped in the straight right now and a lot of supply chains getting snarled.

[1:10:13] how much concern do you have about whether if this becomes an inflation problem beyond just oil, whether there's anything you can do about it or would do about it given the efficacies of monetary policy?

[1:10:29] You know, we you can you can worry about other commodities, you can worry about all of the ways that oil commodities oil-related commodities thing. The truth is it's completely out of our hands and we just like everybody

[1:10:43] of our hands and we just like everybody else we have to just wait and and see down to how long uh you know, the current situation lasts and then what

[1:10:55] are the effects on on prices and then how do consumers react and that kind of thing. Really, we we I wouldn't speculate in any way and >> Somebody's asking what happened. They they talked about hikes potentially for

[1:11:08] brought it up, not a majority, but definitely talked about hikes for the >> Mr. Powell, Maria Luisa Capurro with Bloomberg News. majority. >> Some measures of But it definitely came

[1:11:20] >> expectations reflect confidence that the Fed will get back to its 2% goal, but have pointed to higher dispersion household service and business service as well. So, I am not they take as a signal that inflation expectations may

[1:11:36] be less sticky than in the past. I'm wondering if there was a discussion committee and what were the views of what is the state of inflation expectations and the

[1:11:48] risks of for from higher oil and gas prices. So, at this meeting I mean a number of people mentioned and and staff briefed on short-term expectations having moved up quite a lot for reasons

[1:12:02] expectations, you know, you you can always find one that's troubling or some ultimately right through this whole ultimately right through this whole period the overwhelming majority of the

[1:12:16] things we look to including markets, including surveys of you know, of the public and also of of forecasters, they they've all been pretty solid on longer-term inflation expectations being

[1:12:29] right where they need to be, consistent with 2%. So, that continues to be the of conversation about that. I think everyone does agree that you know, we'll be watching those extremely carefully as we see the

[1:12:43] effects of the of the price increases come through from the from the conflict. And still on how the discussion went across the committee, before coming to this meeting there were some members who were like discussing

[1:12:56] the risks of a a slowdown in growth at a time at a time of where inflation remains high. It really doesn't seem that most members are penciling in a slowdown in growth. No. But has there been any discussion of the

[1:13:10] has there been any discussion of the risks of stagflation at this point? So, people actually wrote up their their growth forecast by by a tenth and then I think that's probably to do with just growing confidence in

[1:13:22] productivity. And uh question was just um If there had been any discussions about the risk of stagflation scenario.

[1:13:34] as I mentioned, there there is tension between the two goals, right? The up upward upward risk for inflation and downward risk for employment. So, and that puts us in a different situation. You know, when we use the term

[1:13:47] stagflation, I always have to point out that that that was a 1970s term at a figures and inflation was really high and the misery index was super high. Add them together, you get the misery index and that's not the case right now. We

[1:14:01] actually have unemployment really close to longer run normal and we have inflation that's, you know, one percentage point above that. So, calling that stagflation, it's not you know, I would reserve the term

[1:14:13] stagflation for you know, a much more serious set of circumstances. That is not the situation we're in. What we have is some tension between the goals and we're trying to manage our way through it. It's a very

[1:14:25] difficult situation, but it's nothing like what they faced in in the 1970s and that's I reserve stagflation for that, the word for that period. Maybe that's the word for that period. Maybe that's just me.

[1:14:40] ABC News. President Trump says that oil prices and overall inflation will go down very rapidly as soon as the war ends. Do you agree with that? I don't have a forecast on that. When we're thinking about the impact on American

[1:14:55] been facing these higher prices for years. They've seen an almost $1 increase in gas. How worried are you about households, especially lower income families being able to afford those price hikes and should people be

[1:15:07] bracing for higher costs including for food now? effects are going to be and I don't I don't want to characterize them in any way. Of course, people are already seeing gas prices. Gas prices are up

[1:15:20] almost a dollar a gallon. We do we we hope that isn't for a long period of time and of course, people will feel that, but I I don't want to speculate about what that might mean because honestly, that would sound like I have

[1:15:32] happen and I don't think anybody really does. We're going to see how this works does. We're going to see how this works out and I just would leave it at that. Victoria. She wasted her questions, man.

[1:15:46] Hi, Victoria Guida with Politico. Um I just wanted to ask for purposes of the next meeting, you know, how the Middle East war develops between what might guide action at your next meeting? I mean, if if we have oil

[1:16:00] prices, you know, above $100 a barrel This is something he can actually >> is that going to change your wait-and-see stance? Like what wait-and-see stance? Like what what would lead you all to move or is

[1:16:14] are you on hold pretty indefinitely? We'll have to wait and see. we always say we're going to learn more by the next meeting we're going to learn a lot because we're going to learn six weeks to the day till

[1:16:29] the next meeting and you know, we're going to see whether the what happens is it's going to be very important for the way the economy looks and the way the outlook the way the outlook evolves

[1:16:41] going to be a big factor and we'll know that then. I don't know how it's going and we did we did talk about alternative wouldn't bring that in here. It's it's very uncertain and I I just want to

[1:16:56] just remember that we don't know and we shouldn't assume it's going to be one thing or another. We're going to see. So, is it is it a matter of you don't know how the situation itself is going to evolve or even if things remain as

[1:17:09] they are, the economy could still remain relatively durable in in face of them? Yeah, that's true, too. No, I mean, the US economy has has just through a whole bunch of challenges. I mean, if

[1:17:24] you go back go back to 2023 when we raised rates a lot in '22 and '23 and close to 100% of economists called for a recession which didn't happen. In fact,

[1:17:36] 2023 was a really strong year. So, uh I uh I the US economy has has really been just doing pretty well through a lot of significant challenges over the past few

[1:17:49] years. It's been amazing to see. And I again, I I don't I don't know what's going to happen in the next intermeeting cycle and I don't know East. I wouldn't want to speculate. >> [clears throat]

[1:18:01] >> [clears throat] >> Courtney. questions. What makes you so certain that tariff-related price increases will be a one-time effect? I don't think we've

[1:18:15] seen you since the Supreme Court tariff decision. And it's pretty clear that tariff shock will be as the administration moves to replace some of the tariffs that were overturned. So, I suppose I'm curious what would make you

[1:18:31] question this certainty that tariffs are going to be a one-time price effect? I I I would not at all use the word certain about my my views on that. I'm not I'm But just [clears throat] if you think about what it is, you're it's a it's a

[1:18:46] one-time increase in the price of a good, right? And what inflation is is you know, ongoing increases in prices this year, next year, the year after. That's what inflation is. It's not a one-time price increase. There's a very

[1:19:00] really focus on that, but that's what that's the difference and tariffs should be a you know, in theory, unless they cause people to start expecting still more tariffs the next year and still more tariffs the next year,

[1:19:14] they should be a classic one-time thing. People say the same thing traditionally traditionally prices go up and they come back down. And by the time monetary uh it would it would be over. So, I don't

[1:19:28] mean, I think the the theory is probably right. Um but, as usual, the the time it economy is just very uncertain. And we you know, we found that coming out of

[1:19:40] COVID that the inflation did go away and largely for the reasons we thought it would, but it took 2 years longer than we thought. You know, and um so, I I think we have to be humble about knowing how long it will take for

[1:19:54] tariffs to go all the way through the economy. And so, what we've been doing is our our staff's been doing uh it's very interesting. They you know, they started off with just an estimate because there wasn't a real history. And

[1:20:06] that they're seeing of tariffs coming through into prices. Um they've now they can now have an arc. And for all the tariffs, they can say, well, you know, so we have I think a slight slightly more confidence that we

[1:20:21] will see tariff inflation coming down, not prices, but you won't see further that uh more and more in the middle parts of the year. We do expect that. Um now, you're also right though that the the

[1:20:34] level of um of tariffs came down fairly meaningfully in the wake of the uh But but the administration said they're going to they're going to move the they're going to get that rate right back up to where it was. So, and we we

[1:20:48] you know, we we assume that they'll do that over time. So, um that's how we >> [clears throat] >> Chris Rugaber Hi, uh thank you. Uh Chris Rugaber Associated Press. I wanted You talked

[1:21:03] about the shortcomings of the SEP in this environment. I additional thing, which is the fact that it's happening before transition. Is there still some value perhaps in the

[1:21:15] public knowing what other Fed officials are thinking, uh the ones who will stay And does that even handicap your successor in any way? Well, just in terms of having a whole

[1:21:29] Well, just in terms of having a whole committee expressing its views, is that something that locks them in for the rest of the year? No. No. No. We did never The SEP is never uh people are more than happy to change

[1:21:41] their their SEP dots. They're no way bound by them. You know, it's it's it's your opinion at a moment in time, which can change based on events, you know, sometimes very quickly. Um So, uh it doesn't it never locks people

[1:21:55] in. You know, people are more than happy to be proven wrong in either direction. And uh so, I I I just think we do it. And you know, we this was I mentioned this was a time when it's very hard to do it. We during

[1:22:07] the pandemic, we actually took one meeting off, I think. And but, you know, just because it's hard to do. We should just keep doing it. And but I just would say for this one though, I think it's it's more than even more

[1:22:21] forecast with a grain of salt because subject to just very high levels of uncertainty. It was a good forecast. Brian

[1:22:33] beginning of this conversation that you're well aware of the history of inflation running above target. It seems like that might be what's underpinning hearing a lot about uh on Main Street. Are there any signs to you that that's

[1:22:48] impacting the psychology of the consumer, especially given that they're activity? I you know, I'm not sure what's what you what I think and what we see in surveys. And that is

[1:23:02] you know, people there were big price increases um all around the world, by the way, everywhere in in countries like the kind of thing. It was a global inflation coming out of the pandemic. And

[1:23:15] everywhere people are feeling like they you know, real wages have been going up in the United States now for 3 years, roughly. Um but people are not feeling like they're not feeling good about it yet. And it will take some years of

[1:23:28] positive real real earning gains for people to feel good again, we think. But you're right. We uh but we when you talk to people, they're they they do feel squeezed. And You know, our last meeting is April 29th. Uh

[1:23:41] insurance, various different kinds of insurance are getting more more and more expensive. And that's just catching up really from inflationary pressures that take a while to get to the price into the price. So, we take it very

[1:23:55] It's a very real thing from the standpoint of what um of what people are experiencing. And And you know, it what you know, uh makes us even more committed, if

[1:24:08] that's possible, to getting inflation back to 2% on a sustained basis. How does the Fed's independence play into the ability to address affordability? Well, independence is what allows us to do our jobs. And um you know, stable

[1:24:21] prices is half of our mandate. It's one of our two mandates. Maximum employment being employment being the other. I mean, every look at every uh advanced economy that looks anything like the United States anywhere in the world in a

[1:24:33] market economy in a democracy, and you'll see you know, pretty much Fed central bank independence that looks a lot like in some cases stronger than what we have. But it's critical that that we have that so that we can do the

[1:24:47] when we need to do them to preserve price stability. And it just it's it's an accepted standard practice and I think has a lot of support certainly in >> Yes, that's correct. If the

[1:25:01] the energy shock, households will get pushed more. And unemployment will go >> [clears throat] >> Escobedo News. Thanks for doing this. Um I two questions. One, how high would

[1:25:17] oil prices and broader inflation have to go and for how long for the committee to consider hiking rates? Uh and then secondly, diesel prices are rising faster than gas prices. How concerned are you that the increase in

[1:25:31] diesel might drive up food and goods prices and lead to broader inflation? Yeah, I I I'm not going to give you an example example or specific answer on we're prepared to do what needs to be done, but I wouldn't want to

[1:25:45] might be. You know, in terms of diesel prices prices are we concerned about it? I mean, How concerned and and whether or not it will drive up, you know, the cost of food and and other goods that really rely on it

[1:26:00] more general concern than that. It's transportation of food and things like that. There are just lots of ways that that oil and derivatives of oil get into the production and transportation of

[1:26:14] many many things. So, and those you know, they're big effects on in headline inflation, but things like that leak into core as well. And the effects may not be as big, but they're quite real and they're they're

[1:26:27] and we're watching it. But you know, we're already at the beginning of this. we don't know how big it just don't know how big this will be and how long it lasts. You know, it may or may not be something that really makes a big

[1:26:39] imprint on the US economy. We're just going to have to wait and see. Arthi for the last question. Last question. And that's summary. Thanks very much. Could you sort of stare into

[1:26:51] looking at the longer run bits of the SEP. I noticed that the growth estimate had been revised up a good chunk from from 1.8 to 2. And the other kind of be great just to hear is that is that AI productivity or or what's going on there

[1:27:06] exactly? Yeah, I Well, I think it's it's just productivity, you know. We actually meaningfully higher productivity some years ago, 4 4 years ago, 5 years ago. And And uh and that's not because of, you know, generative AI. It's It may We

[1:27:21] years what it's really due to. But it could be due to the kind of things that people did during the pandemic to economize and and somehow become more productive because there was a you know, an incredible labor shortage. But um and

[1:27:35] I think economic forecasters are very skeptical of of uh periods of high productivity cuz they're so rare. And they're often revised away. And for many of us, too, I never thought

[1:27:50] I'd see this many years of really high productivity. And by the way, expected And we haven't really started to see the the effects of of generative AI. And contribute to that. So, it's quite unusual. And uh and it's you

[1:28:05] know, this is the higher productivity is the thing that allows incomes to rise And so, it's a great thing. Was that your question? Yeah, no, I was just just briefly to [clears throat] on on that as well to finish up.

[1:28:18] You hear the argument a lot this is all disinflationary story. If you believe also weigh down inflation over time. Maybe then kind of pull down where where agree with that line of thinking or what do you think? You know, that's not how

[1:28:30] I think you have to be cautious about that, in particular if you're talking about AI about generative AI. So, remember in the short term, what's happening is we're building data centers everywhere. And that's actually putting

[1:28:43] on um all kinds of goods and services that go actually probably pushing inflation up at the margin. Um in addition, uh

[1:28:55] um it it probably raises the neutral rate. So, in in the in the near term, something that would immediately call for lower rates or that would be lowering inflation. Over time though, sure, it's a it can be a if it's extend

[1:29:10] it's expanding potential output, which is what productivity higher productivity does, then then it can be. I I think it's an empirical question because it's really what is the demand demand growing faster or slower than the supply side.

[1:29:23] And I I think it it we just don't know that that answer ex ante going in. Uh we'll just have to wait and see. Thank you very much. coupon code expiring tonight over at meetkevin.com and a house hack. Let's

[1:29:39] get into doing a full summary of what we just heard and boy oh boy we heard a lot of information. Uh it looks like the queues are now down at 597

[1:29:52] lows of the day after uh this presser. So let's break down what just happened.

[1:30:05] Well, Jerome Powell just gave us his press conference. Rates remain unchanged and he gave us a beautiful, delicious summary of economic projections that didn't imply rate hikes, that implied GDP growth, and that implied a stable

[1:30:19] unemployment rate. And then Jerome Powell had to come out during the meeting and say, "Uh never mind that. We actually almost skipped doing a summary of economic projections because we literally have no idea. And instead we

[1:30:34] literally have no idea. And instead we talked about rate hikes." Yeah. Boy oh boy, we got a lot to break down in this one because our expectations got turned on their head of what we thought. First, let's start

[1:30:47] with that summary of economic projections. What we were looking for in the summary of economic projections was a projection of under 3.6 for the Fed funds rate. We got that. We got no movement here in the median. 3.6 3.6 3.6

[1:31:02] movement here in the median. 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 Perfect. Great. Then they even wrote 3.5 Perfect. Great. Then they even wrote up GDP. They brought GDP up 1/10 this year, up 3/10 next year, up 2/10 next year. This was a beautiful summary of

[1:31:16] economic projections. Everything about the summary was great. The uh no stagflation here, a little bit of inflation, not a lot though. They only moved up the projection from 2.5 to 2.7 over here on core or 2.4 to 2.7 on PCE.

[1:31:34] with going all the way up to 3% here because of the Iran shock. Uh so overall the summary of economic projection seemed fantastic. This was really good. Now, one thing that was bearish was in the actual

[1:31:50] statement they did mention that we uh well, they removed the employment and the labor market has shown some signs of stabilization and they changed that to the labor market is little changed. That was a little bit disappointing to see.

[1:32:04] economic projections, but it was part of their statement. Uh Waller ended up moving from cut to hold and so we got 11 votes to hold and one vote uh that was Stephen Byron for a 25 basis point cut. So so far Kevin Warsh only has one

[1:32:20] friend. If of course he takes over it, you know, because there's always the chance that Jerome Powell stays, which he also implied that he might stay. More on that and the mechanics of that in just a moment, which means we would

[1:32:34] probably delay rate cuts even more. Okay, a lot to break down here. I just have to get it out of the way. Yes, we're doing a large price increase on your taxes, almost certainly, talk to your CPA. But you get all nine courses,

[1:32:49] stream, every trade alert, short-term trades, day trades, medium trades, on building your wealth. You'd use that coupon code too big to rig. And the because of the employment report, which Jerome Powell told us about as well.

[1:33:06] yesterday, would end up trying to average the January and February unemployment reports. If you go back 24 hours ago to my video, prepare for the Fed's rug pull, I said that we're not going to get a change in rates.

[1:33:20] But Jerome Powell is probably going to average the January and February jobs reports and then say the focus right now is on inflation, potentially even implying rate hikes in the future. And unfortunately exactly that

[1:33:33] prediction is what happened. Jerome Powell bluntly said, "Well, January was a positive surprise. February was a downside disappointment. But if you average them out, you're relatively close to zero, which is likely as a

[1:33:47] result of deliberate immigration policy. And since the unemployment rate isn't moving, maybe that's okay." Now, that totally ignores the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics just happened in January and February, but only in the

[1:34:01] revision, revised down the labor force participation rate by 4/10 of a percent in January, which they revised that in And then they revised down February by another 1/10 of a percent. So that way

[1:34:15] guys, uh labor force participation has barely changed." Sure, from your revision. But if you add you made for February, it actually changed a lot. Labor force participation

[1:34:29] plummeted half a percent. So if labor force participation stayed stable or if it goes back up again, the unemployment rate's going to skyrocket past 5%. Boom, like that. Jerome Powell didn't mention any of that. He just simply said, "Uh

[1:34:43] maybe break evens right around zero and uh maybe that's just what is keeping the unemployment rate stable. And as a result we need to focus on inflation." And that's where unfortunately the bad poopy doopy words came up.

[1:34:58] The bad poopy doopy words were evaluated through what Powell calls the dual risk. Now, you don't want to hear dual risk when it comes to Powwy Wowwy.

[1:35:10] The part about dual risk is when Jerome Powell was asked, "Hey, you know, what about the chance for rate hike?" And Jerome Powell says, "We definitely And Jerome Powell says, "We definitely did have a conversation about rate hikes

[1:35:25] for the next meeting." He says that there is a two-sided risk to the rates possibility and even though the majority of members did not see a hike as a base of members did not see a hike as a base case, several members did see a hike as

[1:35:39] a base case and it definitely did come up. So unfortunately, even though we got bingo, uh you know, it's usually not uh toss as to whether or not we get bingo. But we did end up getting bingo this

[1:35:53] time, which I'm excited about. Um we got bingo. I'm trying to get it to load up me. But anyway, uh there we go. We got bingo right down the middle uh is where

[1:36:05] I got bingo right here. Uh I had to erase no hikes implied because he ended up implying rate hikes were a possibility later in the meeting. through that, but we got Windows laptop,

[1:36:17] Uh oh wait. got. And then downside risk to employment is what we got here. No mention of private credit. Obviously some basics over here, but um

[1:36:30] no mention on the renovation either, some of those things. And did not use the word transitory. Uh worth mentioning that. He used the word one time. Like if you took a shot every single time he used the word one time price effect,

[1:36:43] you'd be massively you'd probably be in a hospital today. But anyway, rate hike talk did come up, which wasn't great. We didn't want to hear that and that contributed to the market selling down. So the the case the play today was

[1:36:57] down. So the the case the play today was if we got a good SEP and Powell didn't talk hikes, we could go up. But we got a good SEP, but Powell talked it down and we got talk of hikes, which was bad. Now, some of the other things

[1:37:12] that we got. We got the Middle East creates uncertainty and even though the economy is expanding right now and consumer spending remains resilient, fixed uh fixed business business fixed investment is up and uh activity in the

[1:37:24] housing market is leap uh weak. We do see lower immigration and lower labor force participation. So far though, job openings and layoffs are little changed. softened, I should say. They did not use

[1:37:38] three Fed meetings they've talked about a stabilizing labor market. Did not mention that at all this time. Longer-term inflation expectations consistent with goal, but there has been a rise in shorter-term inflation

[1:37:51] doopy that you should be paying attention to. This chart right here is the five-year break-even inflation chart. It's what we think inflation will be via the bond market in five years from now. And what we could see is we

[1:38:05] from now. And what we could see is we just broke the high of the end of 2024 here. Uh this was sort of as we were prepping for tariffs and getting prepping for tariffs and getting liberated. We just broke the high of uh

[1:38:18] those inflation expectations. We now have the highest five-year break-even since the banking crisis of 2023 when we issued the uh banking bailout uh to uh you know, essentially the unlimited bailout of FDIC,

[1:38:32] Valley Bank and a lot of people like Gavin Newsom and David Sachs basically begging the Biden administration to bail out Silicon Valley Bank, which of course did end up happen. But anyway, these inflation expectations created a problem

[1:38:46] for Jerome Powell because he recognizes there's a risk that as much as we want to look through Middle East inflation because it should be a one-time effect, we have had now a series of shocks that have interrupted progress on inflation.

[1:39:01] Obviously first COVID, but then Russia-Ukraine, the supply chain effects that happened after that. Then of course we got uh the Iran shock now. And of course even last summer we had Operation Midnight Hammer in the shorter term Iran

[1:39:15] shocks. So, we've been through quite a series of repeated reasons to see inflation rising leading a lot of people to start doubting that inflation's ever target. Now, of course, Jerome Powell believes that the world hasn't changed

[1:39:30] and inflation is going to trend down, but we need to start seeing progress. Jerome Powell admits we didn't make progress over the last year. 1/2 to 3/4 of a percent of our inflation right now is due to tariffs,

[1:39:44] and you can only really look through the energy price we're seeing now if you start seeing core goods inflation come down from inflation. And so far, we are not yet seeing that, which means in order for us to get a rate cut, we need

[1:39:59] to see progress on core goods inflation, which we pulled up just the other day here. I'll pull it up again right now. Nick T told us that core goods inflation is actually rising. Jerome Powell says, "The longer we do not see progress on

[1:40:13] core goods inflation, the longer we will not see a rate cut." And this is why Jerome Powell sticking around, some people say, might actually be a sign that, "Uh-oh, he really is going to keep rates higher for longer and not cut

[1:40:28] anytime soon." See, here we have Nick T pointing out core PCE currently on a pointing out core PCE currently on a 1-month annualized basis at 4.5%, 3.7% 3-month annualized. Much of this unfortunately due to a rise in core

[1:40:42] goods pricing. In fact, here's the chart on the 12-month goods inflation index on a core level, and you can see a rise in core goods inflation, not a decline. core goods inflation, not a decline. This is bad news. It's not good news.

[1:40:56] way we could get a rate cut is if we start seeing that line come down, and we're not seeing that. Uh so, that's not good. Now, slow progress on inflation, how long? He has no idea. He says, "We have

[1:41:12] no conviction on the forecasts we're making. We're going to have to wait and see what happens with Iran because the energy shock that we're experiencing could end up being worse, or it could be better." He refused to give any kind of

[1:41:24] outlook on like a price per barrel that would be a problem or whatever, but he higher end of neutral or slightly restrictive. tariffs to show up in core goods, and until then, we're not going to cut

[1:41:37] rates. So, basically, you're expecting, you know, no rate cuts anytime soon. He also mentioned that non-housing services has been moving sideways in terms of inflation. He says, "This is frustrating because the labor market is not showing

[1:41:50] any signs of inflationary pressure, but usually labor market pressure increases inflation in non-housing services. So, if there's no inflation in the labor market for real wages, which is what UBS talked about this morning being a

[1:42:03] that, you should watch it if you haven't yet. Uh but non-housing services should then be coming down, but they're not. So, in other words, Jerome Powell's like, "This is a problem. This is very frustrating. We're not seeing progress

[1:42:18] on inflation." He's kind of a little bit giving up. Well, I shouldn't say he's towel a little bit going, "Yeah, man, we don't know what's going on, but we're see." Now, in terms of staying at the Federal

[1:42:31] Reserve, he said that he will stay at the Federal Reserve until Kevin Warsh is confirmed. This means that if Congress does not confirm Kevin Warsh, then Jerome Powell could remain Fed

[1:42:45] then Jerome Powell could remain Fed chair for a while longer. Currently, the last meeting Jerome Powell is expected to be present for is on April 29th. That chair. That is supposed to be Jerome Powell's last meeting as Fed chair.

[1:42:59] However, if Warsh doesn't get confirmed because the DOJ extends the investigation into Powell through appeals, then Powell is going to stay uh basically until Warsh is confirmed, which if Warsh doesn't get confirmed

[1:43:13] over, then Powell could end up staying Fed chair for potentially another year So, he could be here for an absolute while. Now, markets started selling down that Kevin Warsh is going to come in and cut rates, even though Kevin Warsh

[1:43:29] basically has no friends at the Fed right now except for Stephen Myron, and about rate hikes. Several, I should say. Now, the other thing is Jerome Powell tells

[1:43:41] us that whether or not he's going to stay on the board after he is no longer chair. His answer is he is going to stay on the board until the investigation is over. So, even if Kevin Warsh gets confirmed and the

[1:43:57] is going to stay at the Fed. So, he'll be a vote at the Fed, a voting member at Now, if Warsh gets confirmed and the investigation is over, it's unclear what Powell's decision is going to be. He

[1:44:13] the institution, which is probably staying and sandbagging Kevin Warsh. Anyway, uh so, if you take all of this together, it none of this was very

[1:44:25] bullish. It makes sense that the market was not happy on this. I was looking for Powell to tell us no implications for rate hikes and a positive SEP, and then the market could move. That's not what we got. We got a

[1:44:39] positive SEP, but then they killed the credibility of the SEP saying they wanted to skip this SEP, that they have no confidence in it at all essentially. And on top of that, this idea that they were removing stability in the labor

[1:44:53] market from their commentary, and Powell might actually stay a lot longer than that's going on, Powell is basically sticking it to Trump going, "You want to investigate me? I guess you're stuck with me longer then. Fine, bring it.

[1:45:07] I'll stay here for as long as you investigate me." It's like a double middle finger to Trump. And markets didn't want to hear any of that. So, uh ultimately, this leaves the board probably on hold for at least the next 6

[1:45:22] relatively strong, and one of the reasons they wrote up GDP uh in the SEP they're expecting to come from artificial intelligence and think artificial intelligence. Now, Kevin Warsh thinks he can cut rates

[1:45:37] because of deflation coming from artificial intelligence, and Powell even slammed this. He said that you have to be cautious about assuming there's going to be deflation from AI in the short term because right now capex buildouts,

[1:45:49] just look at memory prices for example, are actually pushing up inflation on not just energy costs, labor costs for construction or electricians or whatever, memory chips, whatever. You're actually seeing AI cause inflation right

[1:46:03] productivity in the neutral rate as a result. Short-term inflation plus productivity raises the neutral rate, which means higher rates, not lower And maybe in the long term you'll see deflation or disinflation, but not now

[1:46:18] from artificial intelligence. And that's why Jerome Powell is basically anchoring higher for longer. It's not what markets wanted to see, but it is what we got. Now, unfortunately, if you go look at the bond market, you could see the

[1:46:34] 10-year yield has shot up after this meeting to 4.255 again. We were down to 4.2 before the meeting, which does indicate a three basis point rise. Uh if we look at the 2-year Treasury,

[1:46:47] it's actually up 8.1 basis points, quite a quite a bit more than the 10-year here. And then if you look at oil, uh we do now also have an indication of a fire at one of the oil fields in the UAE, which uh I'm

[1:47:04] sorry, Qatar says fire at Ras Laffan area has been brought under control, no area has been brought under control, no injuries uh reported. However, that was a destination that Iran suggested they would attack in retaliation for the

[1:47:17] uh gas fields uh South Pars attack by uh Israel and the United States in coordination this morning. So, all of coordination this morning. So, all of this quite not good uh unfortunately.

[1:47:30] And so, it is unsurprising that we lost the uh 600 line, which is nowhere near as strong as 607 or 595. But there was no trade to make here, and after we got the information from Powell, and the information we got from

[1:47:45] Powell was bearish. At the same time, you see that uh there are uh there there is talk that uh who was it? There's another crypto firm that is uh Kraken. Kraken is shelving their

[1:47:57] plans to go public, probably because of the performance of Gemini. Gemini is down 15% on the day, down uh what are we at now? $6 divided by their IPO high. Uh

[1:48:09] we're now down about 87% on Gemini, the crypto firm. And Kraken says, "You know what? Maybe we won't go public in the face of that." Tough time to go public uh unless, of course, you're a low-float stock like Swarmer.

[1:48:22] We did a big analysis on them uh this morning. But uh broadly, if you want sure you're part of that Alpha membership. We're having a big price increase tonight at 11:59 p.m. Look forward to seeing you there. Make sure

[1:48:34] you join. Go to meetkevin.com or househack.com. A coupon works on both price a lot. And eventually, we might be getting rid of the individual option to use the House Hack AI as an individual. We might just be selling that to brokers

[1:48:47] in the future uh who could then assign it to their agents. Uh might be a lot of So, we're really excited about that. But anyway, uh all that for a different video. Appreciate y'all being here, folks. Uh in the meantime, I wish you

[1:49:01] the best out there. Goodbye and uh good luck.