B (5:26)

Yeah, I think that's a good call out. It's definitely gonna see what Powell's tone's gonna be like on this, this press conference. And I mean, he could. He could get kind of, you know, wild if he wanted and say some things on his way out the door that affect the markets.

A (5:39)

I don't.

B (5:40)

I don't think he is because he seems like he's held his composure and held it together, you know, up until this point. So I'm expecting kind of just like a nothing burger him. Kind of like a little farewell. And the market doesn't react. But we're tuning in for a reason because anything could happen and we want to be there first to react to it and see how the market reacts to it. And I know we got 15 minutes to kill. And a little inside joke for anybody that was here in the last show that we taped. Maybe Teva just wants to go off camera. Let me. Let me just ramble for 15 minutes alone. Lonely. How's the car, bud? Is everything okay?

A (6:18)

Yeah, we'll. We'll survive. We'll get the wheels spinning soon enough. But that was a great comment, by God. I can't remember.

B (6:27)

Holy whale, dude.

A (6:28)

Right? That was unbelievable, the fate. Like Brian's face. Uncle Brian, when T. Bo had to leave him with the solo show for 20 minutes. That was. That was a daunting task, but you did well, my friend. You guided everybody towards it. As we continue on for the brighter days are ahead. The wheels will be moving as we pull up coin Market cap down day across the board for both stocks. Crypto seems to be a little bit of a pullback going on. I'm working on my year end Thesis, you know, I don't, there's something, there's something to be said here about the macro environment. The Fed chair change. I'm gonna try and pull the statistics for this on Friday. I believe I've mention but we'll try and pull the chart. It was something about the 11 out of 13, 11 out of the last 13 fed chairs. The market has quote unquote tested and put the market into a correction during and at right after the Fed chair was, was put into place. So keeping an eye on that, keeping an eye on the macro again, I just believe what's going on in Iran as much as in the early days, we kind of just chalked it up to the fog of war and kind of knew that eventually the narrative will switch on it because the administration doesn't like, like the market going down. I do fear that there's so it's been too quiet over there and I feel like everybody's just gotten bored of these volleyball and pingpong headlines that we've called it recently. And, and I don't have any insight into the truth of the matter, but if there is an oil shortage that has continued to go on for, we're getting to the point where it's too long and so the supply, it takes time to catch up. So as you go into the summer and a lot of people want to start driving, they want to start boating, they want to start flying. If there's a, if there's a fuel shortage, especially like a jet fuel shortage, that's going to start showing up in the inflation numbers. So there's, there's a couple things that could get a little sticky here. Anything pumping out to or sticking out to you, Brian. I will say from a crypto specific perspective, bitcoin has been very, very strong, which we like to see and you can always go back and test the lows. But I, I do think that, you know, kind of bitcoin is that famous lead on the way down, lead on the way out. So I, I, I am, I am confident my bitcoin bags but your thoughts?

B (8:45)

Yeah, I, I don't think it's surprising that the market's peeling back a little bit here. You know, you nailed it. TiVo the Fed. The market likes to test the new Fed chair and we're gonna probably see that. And I just kind of, my gut, not a TA style thing, my gut is that we're gonna probably chop in the 70s range for a little while. We got close to 80 grand. We had some euphoric times there Just getting up to, you know, out of that lower range. And now we're, now we're kind of out of that range and we're establishing a new one. So I'm not surprised to kind of see that we're gonna peel back slightly here. Man. You, you're talking about jet fuel. True story. I'm booking a little trip for the family this summer. And you know, we're a family of six, so any dollar you can save on an airline ticket's huge. And I, I kid you not, you almost need a second mortgage right now to get on an airplane. And then I was like, my wife was like, oh, the prices are gonna go down. You know, they might go down. I'm like, I don't think so. If the prices of oil are still, you know, as volatile as they are, we should just buy them right now because who knows what's gonna happen. So like you said, there, there's some hidden volatility out there that we could probably hit into that are gonna probably affect the overall markets. That's, that's the stock market, that's the crypto market. Nothing to, you know, slam the alarm button for me. You know, we're the permeables here in the cryp. Good reason. There's a lot of catalysts also to get us into some awesome new ranges. But I, we, we've talked about, we, we, we see kind of like a slow grind up. We, we've all, we've said on these rundowns that we didn't think we're going to wake up one day at a hundred thousand dollar bitcoin. So this isn't surprising to me.

A (10:31)

Yeah, we're, we're hiring the short squeezes. We're always in for one and I think it's always for anybody that's new out there listening, we got a couple awesome. Some people seem to be tuning in some new viewers maybe from YouTube. Welcome. We've got Deb, we've got YOLO. Anybody else in the chat, let us know who's there, let us know where you're calling in or watching in from on this international show as we reach around the globe each and every live. I think what, what we haven't said this in a while is just to, you know, again, we're not financial advisors, we're friends talking about crypto in the markets. But also I know you and, I know me and Brendan and Bryce, we all have like long term portfolios and long term investing is, you know, you have two, five, maybe a ten year time Horizon for long term and then you have short term, you're trading momentum money makers, which Brian and Joe lead. These are trades. And so a lot of times, because we do this show a lot, we're talking about our trades, we're talking especially I think the most recent dip, we were really myself calling the IGV and saying, hey, these softwares are a little overdone. We liked bitcoin where it was at. We said the pain trade was higher. We went over that and those were great calls and we had a lot of momentum in the trades. I just feel where we are now from my perspective is like I'm a little, I'm a little hesitant to kind of get in some trades right now. Again, we, we think bitcoin grinds higher the rest of the year. But from a short term perspective, I can't tell you where the next 10% might be right now at these levels. And I feel that way for the market too. I like to bring market talking to this because I think crypto, AI technology is all converging into one. And when I look at the technology sector I just see like, yes, we're grinding into these all time highs for the S and P, the nasdaq, but it's like it's so lopsided. There's some of these, these, some of these technology stocks, Brian, are flying. Like the memory trade, the chips trade, they're up 150, 200% on the year. And that, that's helping the indices go higher. But it also feels like, it feels like a little bit of a blow off top. Kind of like we had that quote unquote, looking back, the blow off top at the top of the market last year for crypto, you know, does, when does the music stop on this chip chain? Maybe it doesn't, maybe it brings us the next, you know, to 7,8000 on the S and P, who knows? But something feels, it's starting to look like a hockey stick on some of these trades while the rest of the market, the softwares and the oil's pulling back a little bit where the rest of the market's struggling. So I think there's, there's some things to watch out here.

B (12:58)

Getting a little frothy, frothy out there, that is for sure. We'll have to see. It's, it's, that's, it feels like the hockey stick, you know, you never want to buy the top of that hockey stick. You know, we've talked about the top of the chart. I hope things go higher. I hope I hope global liquidity, you know, fires through the roof and all the markets start going higher. But there's certainly, there's certain, there's certainly some metrics to keep our eyes on and again, to just double down on what we're saying about the crypto market. I'm not trading much right now. Like, like weird short term money momentum, money maker calls, like, you know, these like ones that like, are, could go viral in like weeks. I'm, I still love that there's still a lot of opportunity, but just from like the overall macro perspective of crypto, I'm not trading a lot. I'm not, I'm not opening any longs, not opening any shorts. I'm just kind of like, like chilling in this range. But hey, if I, if I can't find a couple bucks that I'm looking to just kind of put away long term, which I always am, I'm not, I'm not apprehensive to buy a lot of the top cryptos here either. You know, I think there's a path for them to continue to go up through the rest of the year. So it, when we zoom out, we look back, this will probably feel like bitcoin's on sale. But you're right, we don't know where that next 10, 15% move. It could go up, it could go down. And I'm not trying to fight it either. I'm not trying to figure that out. No, we're just trying to chill, have

A (14:29)

a good time and we're trying to be honest because I think, you know, again, three weeks ago, two weeks ago, we were kind of pounding the table. The pain trades higher. The pain trades higher. So it's good for everybody who kind of comes in and listens and then doesn't come back for a couple weeks. Like, hey, stay in tune with us. Go through the motions, go through the work. Have some fun along the way, of course, by listening to the Crypto1One podcast. But we're just trying to, you know, just trying to help the people gauge, gauge. Because here's, here's, before we move on to the Fed meeting here, here's what actually, there's reports and I don't like the politicization of the war, and I'm not trying to play the next trade because of politics, but when I start to see headlines like this with jet fuel bidding wars starting to break out as airlines confront global stress tests, and obviously Europe's probably facing this more than the U.S. but again, the travel industry, especially airplanes, is a global Business. And they're not. It's not like your car, like, oh, I gotta go on this drive I'm on, you know, my fuel tank's empty. Let's hit the gas station. These type of companies are looking months and months and months in advance for their, for their oil needs. And so that's why these type of headlines that don't have politics tied to them. These are little breadcrumbs that are making me think like, man, is there something going on over there that's gonna kind of linger a little bit longer and possibly raise inflation? Which again, I don't think a cut's warranted, but it's definitely going to keep the Fed in a hold pattern as we transition to the Fed. We got a couple minutes here. Let's go over our bets. We like to make these. We like to make these Fed meetings, Brian and I, fun. We put a little action on it. Nothing much. Again, this isn't financial advice. This is just fun. A little gambling. I'm gonna pull up mine on the screen for everybody. What is pal gonna say? He's going on in two minutes. I have him in the mentions market. Everything that I bought, folks, is under 30 cents. So I'm going for trying to more than double my money. As you can see here. Not a ton of dollars into this. Just sprinkling, having some fun for the show. But I said yes. The balance sheet, I think that was about 30%. So like 25 to win. You know what? 60 dot plot was about 15%, so that's good. That could be $10 to win. I don't know, maybe like 60. Another one was Iran. That's at. Well, do you remember what Iran was? I know Brian took Iran $0.30.

B (16:42)

34 now. So leaks, leaks. He's not saying I ran.

A (16:49)

It's all about the Q A. It's all about the Q A. This is my long shot president. It was like 9 cents, so 10 to win, about 80 or 90 there. And then replace, replaces, replace or replacement was about 30 because I think, you know, hey, I wish my replacement. Well, I think we set up, you know, the new incoming Fed that's going to replace me. I think that's in play. I think that's in play. Brian, do you want to talk about yours? And I'll start to monitor the live video feed from the Fed.

B (17:18)

Yeah, for sure. Actually, interesting enough, while you were talking there, I had to throw one more little wager on the comment. No comment. And it's at 28 cents is a yes that he says no comment.

A (17:31)

I just kind of. That on mine. I need a little action on that.

B (17:34)

Well, you said something about it's all about the Q A. Like, who knows? But Powell's last press conference, maybe one of those reporters feels a little frisky. They want to get one in on him, ask him a question they haven't wanted to ask him all year, and he, he fires back with a no comment. I, I, I don't hate that.

A (17:53)

No, I think that I like that. I didn't see that on mine.

B (17:57)

It's on Poly Market. I don't know if you're on polymarket or Koshi, but I'm on the under, and I'm hating this side of it right now. I'm on the under. Inflation 40 times. And I, I feel even worse about it because during our talk, we said inflation four times, because I'm programmed to count them right now. So that's probably not a good look. Few other ones here. I have Iran that. He says Iran. We'll see. And then there was another one. I'm looking for my, yeah, that. Oh, and then I, I have a no on oil at 5 cents. I, he's definitely saying oil, but, I mean, I put, yeah, 10 bucks on it to win $140. Just, just had to do it some long shots here just to have some fun. But inflation and no comment. That's, that's.

A (18:54)

I think we could get no comment and replacement in the same one. I'm gonna have no comment on my future replacement. I think that's it. I think it's a lot.

B (19:02)

That could be it.

A (19:02)

I like that could be it. Well, any minute, he'll be coming in here for possibly what we all believe is the final time. We'll get one last look at the purple tie. We'll get one last good afternoon as we dive in. And here he comes. As I perfectly set it up for the last time. Fed Chair, Powell purple. All right. Crypto 101 fam. A story I don't talk about at all is back in college, I played college football at a Division 1 level. Back then, I could eat whatever I wanted to, hit the gym, do the program, and stay in great shape. I didn't even have to think about it. Now that I'm older, in my 30s, it's a totally different story. And nobody loves a good dad bod more than me. But with the summer coming up, I was thinking maybe I should lean out a little bit. And my friends and I started looking into how we could achieve this. And instead of going down this peptide route or testosterone route where you got to do all these needles and stuff. We didn't want to do that. We were looking for something more similar. And so that's where we found Mars Men, listen, you lose muscle faster and store more fat as you get older. And a big reason for that is testosterone. Most guys levels start dropping in their early 30s and it makes it easier to gain fat, especially around the midsection. And the more fat you gain, the more your body converts testosterone into estrogen. It just makes it a never ending cycle. But Mars men, it's a natural supplement designed to support healthy testosterone levels, helping your body burn fat and build lean muscle more efficiently. No weird stimulants, just ingredients like Tonga dali, zinc and boron. Listen, I have friends that have taken this. They're saying they have more consistent energy, they're stronger in the gym, they have better focus and they're leaning out a little bit as well. Less cravings, better recovery, just more dialed in overall. And listen, if you're interested in trying this, it's something that again, you don't have to worry about needles and shots and peptides. It's just a pill. It's delivered to you and there's a 90 day money back guarantee so there's no risk at all. Or over 91% of users report higher energy and the reviews speak for themselves. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life, free shipping and three free gifts@ Mengotomars.com that's Mengotomars.com for 50% off, three free gifts when you check out and it's also available on Amazon. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them Crypto101 sent you again. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off and free shipping for life plus three free gifts. Go to MengotoMars.com that's MengotoMars.com for 50% off and three free gifts when you check out. Also check them out on Amazon and wherever you purchase it, tell them Crypto

C (21:42)

101 sent you this episode sponsored by IP Vanish. IPVanish protects every device you own. Your phone, your laptop, your smart tv. If it connects to the Internet, it should be protected. IPVanish encrypts your connection and masks your IP address, helping keep your browsing private at home and on public wi fi stream with added privacy. Browse securely. Connect with confidence right now. Save 83% off the two year plan. Get started today@ipvanish.com audio and take control of your privacy with Ipvanish.

D (22:21)

Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefits benefit of the American people. The US Economy has been expanding at a solid pace while job gains have remained low. The unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months. Inflation has moved up and is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices. 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. Developments in the Middle east are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook and we will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate. I'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Consumer spending has been resilient and business fixed investment has continued to expand at a brisk pace. In contrast, activity in the housing sector has remained weak in the labor market. The unemployment rate was 4.3% in March and has changed little in recent months. Job gains have remained low. A good part of the slowing in the pace of the job growth over the past year reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation, though labor demand has clearly softened as well. Other indicators, including job openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal wage growth, generally show little change in recent months. Inflation has moved up recently and is elevated relative to our 2% longer run goal. Estimates based on the Consumer Price Index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12 months ending in March, boosted by the significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in March. This relatively high rate largely reflects the effects of tariffs on prices in the goods sector. Near term measures of inflation expectations have risen this year, likely because of the substantial rise in oil prices. Most measures of longer term expectations remain consistent with our 2% inflation goal. Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. At today's meeting, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3 and a half to 3 and 3 quarters percent. The economic outlook remains highly uncertain and the conflict in the Middle east has added to this uncertainty. In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation. Beyond that, the scope and duration of potential effects on the economy remain unclear, as does the future course of the conflict itself. We will continue to monitor the risks to both sides of our dual mandate. 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, and the balance of risks. Monetary policy is not on a preset course, and we will make our decisions on a meeting by meeting basis. This is my last press conference as Chair and I will close with a few thoughts. First, I want to congratulate Kevin Walsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. This is an important step forward and I wish him well as that process continues. Huge Blunder the Federal Reserve exists for one fundamental purpose to foster the economic conditions in which American families and businesses can thrive stable prices, a strong job market, and a financial system they can depend on. Every decision we make, whether about interest rates or regulatory and supervisory matters or other issues, is made in service of that purpose. Our decisions reflect the collective judgment of the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee colleagues who demonstrate analytical rigor, principled judgment, and a genuine commitment to the public interest. Our collaborative and deliberative process has long reflected a shared commitment to finding common ground in service to our mission. This institution is resilient, capable, and staffed by professionals of extraordinary, talented and exceptional dedication. It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many great public servants at the Board of Governors and around the Federal Reserve System. The Fed's work is only as effective as the public's understanding of it, and you, the press, are essential to keeping the public informed about what we do and why. The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting. I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation. Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there's a criminal referral from the Fed's inspector general. And absent such a referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal, to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas. I've said that I will not leave the Board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that. I'm encouraged by recent developments, and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully. My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve. After my term as Chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. There's only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair. Once sworn in as board chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well. As I regularly, our success, our goals, matters for all Americans. I'm confident that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the kind words about the. The press often doesn't come from the podium in different places, but appreciate that. Can you talk about what is gone into your decision to remain on the board? What kind of criteria are you weighing and how long might you stay? Thank you. Sure. So, you know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. And I want to note here, this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials. I've never suggested that such verbal criticism is a problem, and neither has anyone else here. But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113 year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. It is so important for our economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way free of political influence. It's part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have. It's just one of the many reasons why the US Economy is the envy of the world. That piece of institutional architecture separates successful countries from unsuccessful countries. It is extremely important not for the people who work at the Fed at any given time, but for the people that we serve, that the Fed remain able to conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled into politics trying to help or hurt any particular politician or political party. It's critical for the people that we serve in terms of when I would leave, I will leave when I. When I think it's appropriate to do so. Was that all your questions or was that. Well, I just have a follow up, which is, what would you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board you're actually taking a political act and denying President Trump the majority of the board, which as president he would

A (31:11)

have if you president.

D (31:12)

I don't see that at all. As I mentioned, you know, I'm literally staying because of the actions that have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring and you know, the things that have happened in really in the last three months have I think left me no choice but to stay until I see them through at least that long. You know, in addition, I don't see how this will interfere. My intention is not to interfere. You know, I was a governor for almost the president. The tradition is at the Fed that governors who understand how difficult the role of chair is and as a, as a soon to be former chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong minded people. You work with the chair, you, you try to, you try to be heard but also collaborate with the chair and try to support the chair when you can. When you can't, you can't. And I think that's the attitude that people generally take and that's the attitude that I'll take. Nick.

A (32:12)

Damn

D (32:16)

chirpal. If I could ask about the inflation outlook. In March you described the standard practice of looking through energy shocks as conditional on inflation expectations staying anchored. Since that meeting, there has been very little progress reopening key energy trade corridors. Can you help us understand how the inflation outlook has changed in the intervening period, beginning with the prospects for tariff pass through, resolving on the timeline that you had outlined in March before getting to the energy shock that is now on top. So you know, I would look at it this way for a long time we've been working on, on the hypothesis really that tariff tariffs would, would lead to a one time price increase and that that would go away over time. In other words, there would be no further change. So measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more. And it's time for that to happen. You know, we really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters. So we'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen. That's kind of critical part of the forecast. We need to really see that with, with energy. It's, it's so hard to say. I mentioned, you know, in, you know, sort of the textbook, you, you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be short lived and they tend to revert and monetary policy works with long and variable lag. So you know, you wouldn't necessarily react right away. I think that is all the more true given that we're several years above 2% inflation and that we're already looking through the tariff shock. So I think we're going to be very cautious about that. But the question about, about looking through energy really is not, not in front of us right now. It hasn't even peaked yet. And I think we'd want to see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about, about reducing rates. So if I could follow up, the statement today preserves language that has taken on some meaning as it was socialized when the committee was actively lowering rates. Why is that easing bias still ripe, given how different the inflation outlook is now versus a meeting or two ago and what more would have to happen for it to get evicted? So that was, as you will recall, we had a discussion about that at the last meeting and we talked about it in the press conference after the March meeting. We had the same today. We had quite a vigorous discussion about that, that very issue and the guidance and is it still appropriate and that kind of thing. And I would say that the, you know, number of people on the committee who either could support that language change, changing to a more neutral stance so that a hike is as likely as a cut, that number has increased over the intermediate period and it's easy to see why. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's a good question. Right. You see, inflation has moved up over the interim a bit. Core inflation is 3.2 now moving, albeit just a little bit in the wrong direction. And we know that there will be, you know, that there's headline inflation coming out of the Gulf and we don't know how much that will be. We just, we're going to need to see. So it makes all the sense in the world that people would look at that and we'd have a vigorous discussion about that. You saw that three people dissented over the language. I think all of those people agreed with the, with the right decision. So the majority of the committee did not want to do that. And I was, I didn't think we needed to do it at this meeting. It really was just a question of what's, why do we need to do that now? You know, we have so much to learn. There's so much uncertainty about the path ahead. There doesn't need to be any rush to make that decision now because, you know, what happens in the next 30, 60 days, even by the next meeting, could really change the picture around that, around that language. So, you know, it was a referencing the gospel. It's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March. And you know, that makes all the sense in the world, it seems to me.

C (36:15)

Claire.

D (36:17)

So.

C (36:18)

Claire Jones, Financial Times Just, just going back to this issue of the the easing bias. We've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark Brent crude. If it stays around those levels six weeks from now, what would be your best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement? Thank you.

D (36:44)

I wouldn't want to guess. Well, first of all, we're going to have new leadership in all likelihood by then, and new leadership is going to have a very important role to play in that. So I won't be standing here at this podium to answer your question. So I don't know. As I mentioned, that's all I can really say is that we had a great discussion about that today. You know, it's got, it's gotten to be a better question than the interim period. We had the discussion. The majority are still on the page of not feeling the need to move to that level. And that's where I am. I get it though. You know, at a certain point you would move and that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting.

C (37:21)

Thank you. Just to follow on market's not going to like that. Folks seem rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the DOT plots. What would your advice to him be on these communication tools?

D (37:33)

So I'm, I'm not going to give him any advice through you today here. But I've, you know, I, I think communications generally is, I think every incoming chair takes a look at communications and it's a very healthy thing. I mean communications is, it's very complex and you know, you can always be be looking at new things and if that happens, feels like it's going to happen, that's completely appropriate thing.

C (37:58)

Neil,

D (38:00)

hi Chair, Chair Powell, Neil Owen with Axios. Can you tell us if you've been in touch with, with incoming Chairman Warsh any to what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around something unusual and, and what can we expect when he takes, takes that podium in a few weeks? I haven't seen him since seeing him at a dinner in January where I congratulated him and had a nice, nice chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't know what a normal process is. You know, the last process was with Janet Yellen with whom I had worked for six years and so it was, you know, we were sitting down the hall from each other. So it's a very different thing, I think. I think this is and will be a very normal standard, kind of a, kind of a transition process. So that's, that's what I expect. I have every reason to think it will be quick follow up. Is the Supreme Court ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when you may leave as a governor? I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no, not really. I mean, I'm thinking more of the other things I mentioned.

C (38:58)

Chris,

D (39:00)

hi. Thanks for taking our question. I wanted to ask a question about your tenure and Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. During your tenure as chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment in the new framework the fed adopted in 2020, some economists say elevated the Fed's employment mandate. Are you worried that the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market? And should they be? I don't know the answer to that. I mean, what we, so what we experience in, in, in the teens, the mid teens, was really low levels of unemployment for a long period of time and no reaction from inflation. And we all took very much, took notice of that. We also noticed that the biggest wage gains were going to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum. And we had many, many reports of, I mean, it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium and a lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum, including companies were, you know, setting up in, you know, people who are confined and like, training them before they got out. And it was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics. So, of course, I think anybody would love to get back to that. I don't think that anything that happened to create the global pandemic inflation was in any way related to overweighting the employment market. It was a global shock that happened essentially very, very similarly all over the world. That had to do with closing, reopening, stimulus and all that. And I mean, you could look at a graph of 10 big economies on the page and not know which was the US and which was Germany, France and things like that. So I don't think that that that insight was in any way responsible for the high inflation that we experienced. So, I mean, I think it's always been a balance. You've got to, you've got to be strong on both of our dual mandates. And we just, for example, now we don't feel that the labor market is at all a source of inflation. So we don't need to be worrying about that. It's been a long time since we have had to worry about that. Well, actually during, during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight and that's when we had to worry about it. But, but not now. Just on the other issue, are you, would you need, do you need more assurance from the Justice Department before stepping down? Is that what you're waiting for or what else? I'm waiting, you know, for the, for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency. And I'm waiting for that and I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so.

C (41:56)

Michael McKee,

D (42:00)

Michael McKee from Bloomberg Television and Radio, I'd like to ask you if you could explain a little more or characterize a little more the discussion about the two sided view and interest rates because there were some members of the Open Market Committee who've been suggesting that we may need to raise interest rates even absent the war, because inflation was not coming down fast enough. Is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up or was this just a setup to sort of warn people that you're worried about the war impacts? So nobody, the three dissenters and others who could have supported that and others who were, you know, who were voters and preferred non voters who preferred it, they all supported the right decision. Right. So people are not saying we need to hike now. It's more a question of, you know, don't we kind of feel that we should be neutral and markets or markets, what are markets doing? People argue that this is consistent with markets are doing. And again, it's a, it's a very fair question. But you know, these, these changes there is, you know, it's a form of forward guidance and you want to make, you don't want to make them, you want to make them in a way that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back, you know, fairly quickly. So I think we, just a group of us, including me, didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that, that markets are not confused about our reaction function. We don't have a problem to solve on that. But the other side of the argument is a good argument too. As I mentioned, it's a perfectly good argument to be having, good discussion to be having. So, and it came out the way it came out. Well, you've got three dissents in favor of two sided warning. You've Got yourself staying on the board. You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials and you've got a lot of critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow, 20, 21 with inflation. Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this? Is that one reason that you want to stay on, not, not driving my, my thinking now? I mean, monetary policy is going to get made by, you know, 19 people. There's a lot of stability there. I mean, if you think about it any, Every new Fed chair has the same situation, which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC, 11 of them vote during any year. And you have to. Your job is to create consensus. It's to talk to them, understand them, you know, be inside their thinking and be able to pull them together and get consensus and move. And that's, that's what every Fed chair has to do. And I think Kevin Wash is actually quite. Well, he has the capabilities, skills to be, to be very good at that. I would think so. I think I'm not so worried about that process. You know, I think that'll, that'll work itself out. Howard. Thank you, Chair. Howard Schneider with Reuters. You mentioned that staying on as a governor, you intend to keep a low profile. I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can.

A (45:14)

Touche.

D (45:17)

What that, yeah, walk down the steps, what that looks like, and particularly around the policy discussion, how you're able to have your intervention and not be a shadow chair and not have a kind of an outsized influence over the process.

A (45:30)

Process, yeah.

D (45:31)

You know, that's just something I would never do. You know, the shadow chair thing. No, you know, it's, it's. I don't know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I'm going back to being a governor. I respect the role of chair. I, you know, I was a chair, I was a governor for six years and I know what that's like. I know. And I, I had a, you know, pretty front row seat with, particularly with, with Chair Yellen, to whom I, I was close when I, when I, I was. Worked with Chairman Bernanke for two years. But, you know, I was brand new at that time, so I got a sense of what it was and I had real sympathy for how hard it is to get that group to consensus. And I always felt like I don't want to add to that unnecessarily. And that means try to support the chairs where the direction the chair wants to go in if you can. If you can't, you can't. But, and I think that's the way it's always worked there because the chair only has one vote plus the ability to develop consensus. And, and if people won't be, you know, they won't, if they're not flexible at all, then how do you ever do that? And so that's why the chair has the authority the chair has really is to develop relationships with people and work with them and then, and then put something forward that has consensus. And I, you know, I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process really out of respect for the office of the Chair. And in your view as a soon to be governor, how do you see the risks of oil prices bleeding into core inflation in coming weeks? Because that was, it seems like the commentary that was coming from particularly some of the Reserve bank presidents. They were elevated concerns about the bleed in the core. And you know, here we are with three dissents. Now what do you see as the prospect of a correlation? You know, there those prospects are real. Remember though, our, and the real thing is we're going to have to wait and see. We're going to need to see. And the good news is we think our policy stance is just, is in a very good place for us to wait and see. We, you know, we're right kind of at the high end of neutral or perhaps mildly restrictive. The labor market shows more and more signs of stability, whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving. And so maybe a little bit of restriction or the high end of neutral is just the right place to be. So we can wait here and see and see how things work out before we act and we'll see how much that, you know, how much does come through into core. You see it already in airfares, of course, but you may see it in many other places. You know, we just don't know yet. And it's so unknowable because how long will the strait be closed? You can develop any number of scenarios that you want, but we really won't know until we know. So fortunately we're in a good place to, to wait wait and let things develop. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You started holding post, post meeting press conferences for every meeting as opposed to the ones with just, with SCPs. Can you talk about why you see that as a net positive? So we, we always said when we were doing quarterly press conferences, we always said we can move at any meeting, but we only ever moved at the quarterly SEP meetings where we had the Press conference, conference. So if you think about it, you know, we, during the pandemic we were moving like a lot at every meeting and sometimes between meetings and doing that with our press conference I think would have been quite challenging. It's become the industry norm, it's the standard. I don't know whether that has to remain that way. I don't know. I mean, it's just something people have become used to and I do think it's quite helpful to, you know, to, I mean, I try to deliver a message on behalf of the committee rather than 18 people, 18 other people going out and delivering their message and it's, you know, it's going to be all over the place because we do thankfully have widely disparate views. Thanks. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the communications review from last year. Could you describe the debate last year? What changes were considered, what you wanted and what prevented action, any action on the, on, on those changes? So yeah, I'm not going to go into the, the real small specifics, but what we found very quickly was that making, making changes, making really large changes, for example to the dot plot or the sep. It didn't have, we couldn't come up with anything that had really broad support on the committee and, and so we just moved on. We didn't, we didn't really do as much on, on that as we might have. And you know, I was never the world's biggest fan of the dot plot, but you, you can't, can't beat something with nothing. And you know, there's a, that we've looked at a bunch of things and you know, it's something I, like I said, I think every new chair is going to look at our suite of communications and, and think about what would be changes. We are the only major central bank that doesn't publish a forecast and that's because we have a 19 person committee. And you know, you try to do it, you try to do that on the, at the board, that's hard. At the committee, that's hard, it's hard if you do it at the staff. So it's, you know, it's been, it works. I think our communications are fine, but looking at doing it in a different and better way is the most natural thing in the world.

C (50:48)

Thank you. Colby Smith at the New York Times. If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes. Are we right to assume that the hawkish outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause in rate cuts and to what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy really isn't just restrictive at all? Right now the economy is holding up relatively well despite this major energy shock. The unemployment rate has ticked lower. Inflation was moving sideways even before the war and is now moving higher. So, so where is the committee at on that debate?

D (51:21)

You know, where we're at is we think our really, we think our policy rate is in a good place. If we need to hike, we will, we will certainly signal that and we will and we will certainly do it. If we need to, to cut, then if it's appropriate to cut, then we'll signal the opposite, I think, because we feel like we're in a good place to move in either direction. Nobody's calling for a hike right now. So it really is going to depend on how things, how things evolve. And you know, that's really where it is. As I mentioned much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance, but ultimately we didn't.

C (52:02)

And as it relates to, to the war, at what point do you think the risk to growth will be larger than the risk to inflation as this conflict drags on?

D (52:11)

You know, you just have to find that out empirically. You know, with, given our, the fact that we're, you know, a big exporter of energy and that our economy is far less energy intensive, oil intensive than it was during the 70s, you know, the effects on the United States are really substantially less than, than those of Western Europe or Asia. We're feeling much greater effects from these things. The effects we're feeling in, you know, in the current situation currently and in sort of what's priced in, which is, you know, a relatively quick outcome. If, if this goes on for much longer and prices go much higher, then we'll feel that much more. And of course, I'm talking about aggregate inflation numbers. We know, we're very well aware of that people are experiencing higher gas prices all over the country now and that hurts that. And these are those hikes may continue to happen and other other things are going to start to reflect airline fares I mentioned and other products and services that are dependent upon petroleum and derivatives of petroleum. People are going to start to feel that.

C (53:21)

Edward,

D (53:24)

thank you. Thank you, Church. About Edward Lawrence with Fox Business. So I guess I'll just ask you directly on this. The markets don't see a rate cut at all this year is what they're predicting. Do you think that we are at the neutral rate? Why or why not? You know, the neutral rate is we cannot know it with, with certainty I think pretty close to the neutral rate. Yeah, I always had it, you know, between 3 and 4%. We're a little north of 3 and a half. So that's well in the range of what I would consider a reasonable, reasonable, but at the higher end of the range of what I would consider reasonable neutral rate. You know, I think the labor market is still probably cooling off just a little bit. And I don't think there's a much of a case for any case really, for the, for policy looking, you know, meaningfully restrictive, maybe mildly restrictive or neutral, I would say. And when I follow up on some of the other questions about your future a little bit, the, the first time we've seen four dissents now since October of 1992, are you handing off a divided Fed? You know, the thing to remember is we have always had vigorous debates and they're excellent debates, I have to say. They're, they've been really good. And we're in an unusually difficult situation. So we've really had four supply shocks, actually, you can say more than four. But at a minimum, we had the pandemic, we had the invasion of Ukraine, we had tariffs, and now we have Iran and the oil, you know, the oil spike. So those, every, every supply shock has the capability of driving inflation up and unemployment up. And what do you do? You know, you're, it's central bank has a really hard time knowing what to do. So, so the right thing to do is to try to balance the achievement of those two goals. And that's what our framework calls for us to do. But these are really tough, difficult judgments. You've got to have a forecast for each variable. You've got to think how long it's going to take to get back to target. You got to think how restrictive or not is policy. So it's only natural that you have a range of views on the committee. People are going to see it different ways, they're going to have different risk tolerances and that kind of thing. I mean, if everybody agreed, that would be, that would be surprising. And I think it's only, it's partly a function of the extraordinarily challenging set of supply shocks that we've been dealing with now for five, six years.

C (55:59)

Thank you so much. Chair Powell, Selena Wayne with ABC News. Are you confident that Kevin Warsh will stand up to political pressure from President Trump?

D (56:07)

So he testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I'll take him at his word.

C (56:12)

And when it comes to gas, right now it's over $4 a gallon. Inflation just hit a two year high. Should Americans expect to be paying higher gas prices for the rest of this year? And in your view, does that take a rate cut off of the table? And secondly, by staying on as Fed governor, what message do you think you're sending to the President?

D (56:32)

I don't know what gas prices are going to do for the rest of the, the year and it will depend on how long the strait remains closed and how quickly it can be reopened and that kind of thing. But remember, when gas prices go up, that's disposable income coming out of people's pockets. So they're going to spend less on other things. So there will be a hit to gdp. So it's a, you know, it's a, it's a question whether spending, you know, goes down to offset the inflationary effects. So it's not. The answer is an obvious ex ante whether you, whether you should move your rate because of that. We'll have to see how it evolves

C (57:14)

by staying on.

D (57:15)

I'll stand on what I said earlier. Victoria.

C (57:22)

Hi, Victoria Guido with Politico. During your tenure, Fed independence has come under pressure in a lot of different

D (57:29)

ways by the President.

C (57:30)

And I was just wondering, practically speaking, where do you see Fed independence as coming from?

D (57:35)

Is it the law?

C (57:37)

Is it political support from Congress?

D (57:39)

Is it the actions of the Fed?

C (57:41)

What, what sustains Fed independence?

D (57:43)

Well, it's, you know, it's, it's to, to a significant extent it is the law. And you know, we've had to go to court to successfully so far to defend it. But you know, the law does create a setting in which the Fed can and is directed to make monetary policy without consideration of political factors. And so part of it is law. But it goes beyond that, though. There's a set of customs, there's a boundary line between the Fed and the administration, between the Fed and the Treasury Department. And we need to respect those, continue to respect those boundaries about what the Fed is responsible for and what the treasury is responsible for and what the rest of the administration is responsible. So some of it is legal. In fact, it's all legal at the end of the day. But it's more than just monetary policy. We don't want to use our tools, we haven't wanted to use our tools to achieve goals that are really clearly outside our mandate. Every administration looks at our tools and thinks it would be good to repurpose those to serve other purposes. But that gets drag that's dragging us into politics and into fiscal policy. So we've resisted that.

C (58:57)

Well, maybe another way of asking it, too, is do you think that Fed independence is as strong now as when you became chair?

D (59:03)

And if so, why? Look, I think it's at risk. I mean, I think these, these, you know, these legal assaults, if you will, as I mentioned, you know, where the institution is being battered over these things, we're having to resort to, you know, the courts to, to enforce our legal, you know, it's not so much independence. It's, it's really the ability to do monetary, to make monetary policy without political considerations. That's what we're talking about. And we've had to do that and we've been successful so far. But that's not over. None of that is concluded yet. And it's, you know, it's really important. It's not about, it's not about people who work at the Fed or the institution. It's about the benefits of a central bank that makes decisions based on analysis and our best thinking rather than, you know, trying to help or hurt politicians. It's, you know, that there's, there's a bright line between central banks who do one and do the other. And successful countries have uniformly successful advanced economy countries have a really strong set of protections around their central bank just for that reason. So that's what it's all about. I, you know, I think I am confident, as I said in my remarks, that the Fed will continue to make its decision based on analysis, rigorous analysis, and not on political considerations. But we've had to fight for it. And, you know, I'd like to think that, you know, I'd like to think we can get out of that era and go back to respecting, you know, what the law says and what custom has been, which is to, you know, let the Fed do our thing. We're, you know, we're, it's an institution full of human beings who work super hard to get things right for the benefit of the public. We're all human, don't expect perfection, but do expect us to make decisions without political considerations and the very best analysis we can bring.

C (60:59)

Katerina. Katerina Siriva, Bloomberg News how would you characterize what you've heard from your colleagues on your decision to stay? Do you have their support? And then have you heard concern from your colleagues about continued legal attacks from the executive branch? Is this something that others have, you know, talked to you about?

D (61:25)

So I think that I don't want to report on what my colleagues think. They can, they can speak for themselves, but, you know, yeah, there are, there are widespread concerns that these things may continue. That's all. That's all I'll say. And you know, and that would be a problem. And so,

C (61:46)

and then I just also wanted to ask about Governor Waller's speech on the Reserve Banks. What, you know, do you have any thoughts on, on centralizing some of those functions and the way he described and then have, you know, do. Are you concerned that something like that could potentially be a slippery slope to, you know, to consolidate Reserve bank functions even more in such a way where you, you know, the central bank ultimately loses some of that important regional information?

D (62:18)

So we try to be good stewards of the public's money and efficient. And Chris in particular, Chris Waller is particularly passionate about that. Of course, so are the reserves, so are the presidents. And it's a question of how do you. We, of course, and, and Chris said this in his speech. We, you know, we want 12 strong independent central banks with their own staffs and their own monetary policy views and all that.

A (62:44)

It hit, I'm cashing out right now.

D (62:45)

You know, there are things that are done in all 12 which could well be done at one much more efficiently and with cost savings. And so winners, Brian, winners on that, but everybody, everybody on the same page. The other thing he touched on was, was the idea of removing Reserve bank presidents from office over different, different views on monetary policy. And I would, I would just agree with him so strongly that that would be the beginning of the end of, of the Fed's ability to, to make monetary policy independently. If every administration could come in and do that, you're just another cabinet agency at that point. So that's not something that I would support. Chris said the same thing.

C (63:24)

Christine. Thanks, Chair Powell. Christine Romans, NBC News. I want to ask about legacy. When the history books are written, how do you think your stewardship at the Fed will be remembered for the past eight years?

D (63:40)

Wrong. Now I'm going to just say that that's for someone else to say. I'll give you a mulligan on that.

C (63:47)

All right, I'm going to ask you about inflation. Then. You talked about those four big shocks, supply shocks over the past five years and inflation still misbehaving. What's your message to American families who feel like inflation has not been under control for them really since, since the

D (64:03)

COVID reopening that locking goods, inflation to bring inflation back down to 2% and sustainably? That's our goal and we'll stick at it until that happens. We keep getting these events keep happening, which Keep driving up costs. And you know, the best thing we can do is to use our tools to guide inflation back down to 2%. I think trying to get there really quickly could be very costly in terms of, of, of job loss and things like that. But we try to get there over time in a way that does the least damage possible. And you know, our commitment to that is never ending and unshakable.

C (64:42)

How would you describe the economy outside of the misbehaving inflation? I mean, it's still awfully resilient given all of the blows.

D (64:52)

Inflation can be awfully resilient. So it's actually quite resilient, I would say, because it's a positive thing. If I can, if I can have that amendment. Yeah, growth is really solid across our economy. Some of that is that consumer spending is hanging in pretty well. The most recent data are good and some of it is just the apparently insatiable demand for data centers all over the United States. So of business investment going into building data centers and every reason to think that that continues. So you've got an economy that's growing at 2% or better pdfp, which is private domestic final purpose purchases, that, which is really a better signal of, of a momentum in the economy is actually higher than that. So, so that's, you know, that's a positive thing. If you look at the unemployment rates, 4.3%. So that's a low rate. That's pretty close to mainstream estimates of the natural rate. We've been there for a long time. So it doesn't feel like a good labor market to some who don't have jobs because quits are really low, hires are really low, and there's effectively no new net job creation. So that's a, that's, you know, in a sense the labor market is in balance, but it's an unusual and uncomfortable kind of a balance where people who don't have jobs will have a hard time breaking in unless somebody quits their job. So, so that's pretty good. You know, inflation is the thing we need to work on and it's partly tariffs, which we think, we think that, that inflation should subside over the course of this year because it's, it's kind of a one time increase, it shouldn't be repeated and that should start happening pretty soon. The energy inflation that we're getting should go through fairly quickly and we'll just have to see how that works out. In the meantime, you know, we think our policy stance is in a good place for us to hold and wait Developments. Jennifer,

C (66:45)

thank you, Chair Powell. Jennifer Schonberger with Yahoo Finance. At the risk of beating the dead horse here, clearly three members objected to keeping that easing bias in the statement. And you said that the majority still didn't need, still didn't need to move to new language at this point. So does the majority of the committee still have a bias towards cuts at this point, or has the bias on the committee shifted away from cuts towards holding or hikes if that was needed?

D (67:15)

So I think that, you know, the center is moving toward a more neutral place, and that's sort of what markets are saying, too. I just think, you know, there's a lot of signaling going on when you change guidance like that. And so we just, I guess the majority, a majority of us didn't feel like we needed to send a signal on that right now. And, but maybe it'll come to that. And the reason is because, you know, we're kind of waiting to see what happens with, with events in the Middle east and what are the implications of those events for the US Economy. So there was just a, there's a group who feels like we don't need to be in a hurry to do that. We get it. And of course, we will move to a hiking bias if we want to hike, and we'll move to a new, a neutral bias before that. But there was a difference over whether to do it at this meeting, at a meeting at which all but one of us agreed that the rate decision was correct, which was not to move.

C (68:12)

And you just said moments ago that you believe Fed independence is at risk. Is it safe to say that you want to stay on as a governor, to serve as a check and balance on that?

D (68:24)

I want to stay until, I will stay until it's, I feel it's appropriate for me to leave. And yes, that is, that is really what is driving this. I'm not, I'm not looking to be, you know, a high profile dissident or anything like that. I'm more looking at the other aspects of this and wanting to see that things have calmed down and, and we're returning to a traditional model of working with the people that you have and bringing them to consensus and respecting that consensus. That's what, that's what I'm, I'm hoping to see.

C (69:01)

Matt Egan,

D (69:05)

thanks, Chair Powell. MATT eagan, CNN you've made many tough decisions in your time at the Fed, and as your time as chair comes to a close and you think about your tenure and perhaps your legacy, are there any decisions that stand out as ones that you're particularly proud of.

A (69:22)

And are there any that, with the

D (69:24)

benefit of hindsight, you would take a mulligan on? Yeah, it's hard. I wouldn't want to single out individual things at this point. Point. You know, I'll just say, you know, we all of us together have consistently tried to do what we think is best for the American people based on our tools and our objectives that Congress has given us. It's been very challenging because we've been in a situation of supply shock, supply shocks, really, for six years. And that's just a very different situation than for a very long time. What the Fed and other central banks were doing all the time was demand management, and there was always the inflation mandate, but inflation was low for 25 years. So this is a very different world and a much more challenging one where you have to balance the two objectives. And by the way, central banks that have an inflation mandate have to do exactly the same thing because they're balancing economic activity. So that's been challenging. And we've, you know, we've tried to do our very best through these really challenging times. And I'm really proud of the work that I've done that my colleagues and I have done during these years to follow up on some of the discussion around Fed independence. Can you explain to the public why this notion of Fed independence, which might sound kind of wonky to some, is so critical? I mean, what are the consequences if either the Supreme Court rules against Lisa Cook or the Fed in the future decides to make decisions more around the political calendar instead of the economic data? So every major advanced economy in the world has made the same decision the United States has made, and that is that they want to take the making of monetary policy, the setting of interest rates to support the economy to achieve maximum employment and price stability. They want to take that out of the direct control of elected politicians. And the reason is elected politicians are always running for election, and they'll always want low rates, and that will lead to inflation over time. So after literally centuries of experience with that, the whole world moved to a different model, and it's worked great. I mean, this is the era in which inflation was under control for 40 years. Then we had the pandemic inflation everywhere in the world, and now we have inflation that had gone up pretty much all the way back to target, really close to all the way back to target, and now is being buffeted by the energy shock in the US Buffeted by the. By the tariff shock as well. So. But what I would say to the general public is that's, that's the backstory, is that it. Don't think about an institution being independent. Think about it this way, that you want people to make monetary policy and set interest rates to benefit the general public and try to achieve economic goals which are maximum employment and price stability, and focus only on that and ignore political considerations. Completely ignore them. This isn't bipartisan. This is nonpartisan. So we want to just, we just work directly for the American people doing these things. We don't think, oh, this, I want to do this because the President says it's a good idea or because there's an election coming up and I want to, I want to speed up or slow down the economy. I mean, think about that. If that's, if that, that's what we were doing, we'd have no credibility. Markets would lose faith in us and our ability to control inflation and, and have any respect would be, you know, would be gone. And let me say, whatever people say the markets believe in that we will produce 2% inflation. If you look at longer run expectations, markets believe that they, there's, there's no sense in which our credibility in the markets has weakened. It's just not the case. It's, it's, people do get it, that this is our commitment and that we will achieve it and it's priced in. If you disagree with that, then you can go ahead and bet against the markets. But the markets are pricing in Fed credibility.

C (73:19)

Okay, we'll go to Richard for the last.

D (73:24)

Thank you. Chair Powell, Richard Escobedo with CBS News. We talk a lot about gasoline prices and, and even you mentioned airline ticket prices, but both of which are up dramatically because of the war in Iran. And so I wonder, are you seeing that way down consumer spending in other parts of the economy? And if so, how worried are you that that will be a drag on growth? You don't see, you don't see it in spending yet. You really don't. I mean, as one of your colleagues said, the economy has been resilient. It really has. Not just this time, but it's been remarkably resilient for some years now. The US Economy has just powered through shock after shock and consumers are still spending. And that's, that's what the banks will tell you, credit card companies will tell you. The retail sales numbers that we got most recently. People are still spending. And you know, how long can that go on in a world where if gas prices were to go up a bunch more, that's taking otherwise spendable money out of people's pockets. But right now we don't actually see much slowdown and yet certainly none from, from this. But you think logically you will because people have a certain amount of money to spend. If they're spending 25% more on gas or something like that, then you know that's going to come out of other spending. But again we don't see it yet. One last thing you mentioned those economies in Southeast Asia that are particularly dependent on petroleum, they make a lot of the stuff that American consumers buy. So was there any discussion today about whether or not those costs getting passed along to consumers is a real concern and whether or not that might push up inflation? So all of those things are in or are in the models that, that we use to calculate inflation. So you know, they're, they're just parts. You can ask about anything like that. And they are, they have a place, the staff has a place where they're looking at that and pricing in, what will happen with higher prices and that kind of thing. So it's there. The effects are not that big yet. You know, we're a huge economy. The import sector is only 10% of the economy. So we're not like a European country where 50% of the external of GDP is in the external sector. We're also, you know, as I mentioned, we're an oil exporter. So we're not feeling the same kind of pain and we're not likely to feel the same kind of pain that economies in Western Europe and certainly in Asia are feeling. Anyway, thank you very much everyone. I won't see you next time.

A (75:58)

Damn. And that's how it wraps. Goodbye Fed Chair pal. You heard it straight from him. Sorry for the music there. You heard it straight from him. You will not see him next time. A man that himself is very confident that it will be his last time at the podium. But I thought was very interesting and you could have got some action on this. We didn't get it. One of the few things we didn't get Brian, absolute winners across the board is that he was going to announce that he's staying on. That was, that was an option. I saw it earlier. I saw it. Maybe it wasn't, it wasn't in the press conference, it was a separate contract. Is what I saw of will he stay on? So I guess it probably had a little bit more of a longer date. It wasn't going to end today. It was a general Will he stay on? I was going like 60, 40, 60 that he would actually leave. So Congratulations to all those betters. Congratulations to anybody who tailed Brian, how did the inflation count go?

B (76:51)

W. Yeah, it looks like it's a W. You know, it's under review. But 99% chance he was under and I, I hit them all. Except for no comment. And he had an opportunity. He had a juicy opportunity. He told the reporter that he'll give her a mulligan.

A (77:08)

Yeah.

B (77:09)

And that was perfect for a no comment. But he was feeling frisky, you know, his last meeting he wanted to crack a joke, make a golf joke out there. I can't dislike Kava. Classy exit. I mean he's not really leaving though. But you know, he always shows some class out there.

A (77:25)

Yeah, I think for all things said, and we've said this before, minus the politics, the whole thing, he's, he's been, you know, a steward on that podium and you know, always kept his cool. And my favorite will never forget when he wore the, when he gave President Trump a tour of the Fed construction site and they both wore the hard hats. That was, that was an all time. Put that one in the, in the American history. 250th birthday this summer. Put that one in the hall of fame because that was an awesome picture. If you followed any of my bets. Holy cow, Brian. Three for five on the long shots today. Three for five. We had like a 30% winner, a 22% and a 9% on President. Unbelievable. Kind of snuck him in there pretty late. It got to the point there was times where I thought he was going to say it. I was listening closely. He didn't say it. And then that's why you still gotta believe. I, I added it up, I added it up here, added up all the winners. 135 winners for me turning, you know, double, Double the money +35.135 giving this alpha out.

B (78:36)

Dude, you're just giving it out. If it's not in the crypto market, if it's not in the stock market, you're out here just talking mention markets. Absolutely.

A (78:45)

Eating TV mentions. That's what they're saying, TV mentions. Unbelievable. Three out of five long shots on the mention market is. We said before, it's like, okay, one, you basically make your money back. Two, you're winning. They don't even talk about three, you don't even talk about the People don't even. People don't even hope for three. Unbelievable mention market. W. The Calci account is looking strong for. I guess we'll give a little teaser of the, the, the bet for 27 or 26, sorry, is, will Johnny Manziel make it onto college game day, which was alpha that I gave Brian a couple, a couple months ago when it came out. That's sitting pretty. And we just got 135% winner here in the, you know, last 40 minutes. So mention markets are strong.

B (79:33)

Yeah, Johnny Manzel bet. Still one of my favorites you've ever given me. And it's, it's a nice, long, drawn out sweat, you know, we just, we're gonna talk, we're gonna be talking about it in August.

A (79:45)

True.

B (79:46)

So it's, it's one of those ones that you like to have.

D (79:50)

Yeah.

B (79:50)

Good day for the, Good day for the boys in the mention markets. Great. We both turned some profit there, which is great. What, what you think about what he had to say? He had a couple things that, you know, were a little shaky there, but kind of overall just pretty neutral, huh?

A (80:07)

Yeah, the market danced around. And I'll pull up the S&P 500 here real quick. So you could see it was right here when the, when the decision came out. Once he started talking, it got a little hairy, a little squirrely. The market did not like when he said, you know, they're looking, people are talking about possible hikes. But then, but then he said something about five minutes later. It wasn't right after that where he said, oh, he was talking about the neutral rate. He was like, I think our neutral rate is, you know, between four and five or something. He's then we're at four and a half and that's on the high end. So he gave you a little thought into his own brain of we think we're at the high end of neutral. So, yeah, if inflation goes rampant again and we need to cut, that's a different discussion. But if you want to talk about where we are trying to do both for price to stability and maximum employment, we're on the high end of the range of neutral, which again is why they're leaning towards cutting and he's handing it off to somebody who in my thought is, you know, again, the Fed chair can't make the sole decision. He kind of explained that really well of, you know, the role of the Fed. But I don't think in the first meeting in June, the new Fed chair that Trump appointed is going to change their neutral leaning or change their cut because they're looking to cut. I don't think he's, they're going to reverse that. Even though they, they probably won't cut the first meeting. I don't think they're going to come out and say, hey, we're no longer looking to cut. We're, you know, looking the other way. So the market did like that. So you can see kind of from the moment he said that to now, the markets, at least the S and P is moving up. The one that got hit the most obviously is going to be the Russell here because they need lower rates to go higher. The bitcoin market, the crypto market, let's see, let's just call it bitcoin. Kind of flat again. Same thing bouncing off the lows there. Not a ton of action. So, yeah, I think it was, it was historic. Obviously it's his last time. History will judge him. You know, he navigated a lot. The problem is, you know, Monday morning quarterback. Looking back at the pandemic in some of these wars, you just see through them. But in the moment, especially the pandemic, not a lot of people really knew what was going on. So, you know, I think overall the markets were higher during his tenure. I think I heard it averaged 13 a year on average during his tenure for like call it the S and P. So friendly to the markets. And a new era begins with, with war. She did. We'll cover this on the rundown. But I did see, see that Kevin Warsh passed the initial Senate vote. So now it goes to the full Senate vote. And I think they need at least one or two Democrats to participate in that to go through. But John Federman, Democrat from Pennsylvania, said he's already going to vote. So it looks like this, this is going to happen. And as pal signed off, he said goodbye. Any questions from anybody? Last call for questions in the chat, we actually had a pretty good live over a couple hundred people tuning in. That's awesome. Thanks for tuning in. Any questions? Toss them in there. We'll answer them. We are going to be back on Friday as well with Brendan. We're going to do a little technical analysis spectacular on Friday for everybody but Brian. Any, any closing thoughts before we head out today?

B (83:21)

You know, I'm fired up. We got to keep these Fed rate decision videos going because I'm enjoying the mention markets. We're leaving Powell on a winner, so that, that makes me feel a little bit better. Wash doesn't even know what he's coming into. A couple of guys are pretty savvy with the mention markets right now. He, he needs to, he needs to kind of step up his game. But we don't, we don't know what we're. I know I knew very limited about Warsh. I don't know what his favorite color is. I don't know if he's going to go the purple tie, if he's going to go blue or red. So if anybody in the, in the chat has an inside look of Kevin Worsh's favorite color or if they know his family intimately and you find some information on what tie he may be wearing, all jokes aside, it's, you know, it's kind of, it's, it's what we kind of expected. Nothing crazy happened during this. It was fun to do the mention markets with it. We're turning a page and there's good, there's going to be a lot to, a lot to happen here with wars now and the markets could certainly test it. But the overall, the market right now is kind of, kind of choppy, just like what we said going in. It's going to, it's going to, and that's okay. I'm okay with that right now. I feel, I feel comfy with my bags. I feel comfy with where the market is. I'm okay with how things are looking. And there's, there's some brighter days ahead, I think.

A (84:44)

So, yeah, I think I kind of, maybe I came across as a little bearish again, long term, long term bull here, long term permeable. I just think that there's something here in the next couple months that could give us another buy the dip opportunity. But I also think that specifically Bitcoin and like Ethereum for example, you know, kind of led the way down. So I don't, I think that bottom, you know, is, is in or close to in. And then I think that there's again some froth that might need to be taken out because that's, that's the way markets work, right? It's like we kind of talked about it the other day of the sectors, right? Money's going from here to there, here to there, but it's not coming out in cash. So the crypto market and the bitcoin Ethereum taking that hit and being low is an area that you've seen, seen over the last couple weeks where the pain trade was higher. So when the money does come out and the froth does come out, you know, I think a lot of, especially if the clarity act passes, I think that's, that's what we need and we hope that it's, you know, positive for the crypto community, positive for stablecoin users especially, so we can get some of those rewards. But I think that's a huge thing for institutions. They're kind of monitoring and once that goes, that could be the green light. We're testing a new Fed chair, we've talked about that. And then also midterms. So the market doesn't like uncertainty. I think there's going to be chances to allocate and make your own personal financial decisions, of course, but you're going to have a window here to keep building your bags into the fall, I believe. But that's all the more reason why you're going to want to tune in all summer. You're going to want to like the video, bottom right, subscribe because the market moves before the actual event. So we're going to be monitoring that into the summer. And what I'm eyeing, you know, the medium term view is, you know what's going to happen with the midterms. Is there going to be a stalemate between the Senate, the House and the, the executive branch? Because when that happens, there's basically no legislation that'll go through. And markets tend to know that because that means clarity. And when the markets have clarity and know the rules of the road, traditionally it goes up and there could be, you know, again, we don't know what's going to happen, but if that happens, that's a two year window to, to kind of go have some fun. So clarity, act classes, two year window. Pretty bullish going into the end of the year in 27, but I think there's going to be some volatility for us over the summer.

B (87:02)

Yeah, it's kind of, it's kind of lining up this whole four year cycle that we all discounted. And now it looks like it's a perfect four year cycle. It's kind of lining up perfect for

A (87:14)

the side of the boat saying everybody got. I, I even admit, I even admit I was like, there's so much bullishness around. The cycle's dead. It was, you know, it was a good, it was a. And it looked, it looked like it. Right? We were ripping. Yeah, ripping. We were kind of all waiting for that blow off top. But the market at all times will humble everybody at some point. And if somebody tells you all they do is win, they're lying to you. Because everybody learns lessons along the way. And that's what this show's about, is un, you know, doing it together week in and week out, multiple times a week and having fun along the way as we do it. I will say I'm excited for Warsh's first quarter presser Brian, because people aren't going to be able to, they're not going to be able to price the markets, I feel like properly. Right. Go get maybe some old speeches and interviews. But I, you know, I think it's. Yeah, I mean we're up on this one. Up big up huge. Some are calling it the best prediction market mentions results in history for a live podcast. People are saying it, I don't know, we'll have to check the data. But I think I'm taking all those winnings and I'm doubling down on some, some, some low end, you know, odds because how are you going to price the first ever Fed thing? So I think, I think there's going to be some winners there too.

B (88:25)

Yeah, we're gonna have some fun. It's, it's gonna be a good one. It's something to look forward to. I'm, I'm just stuck on what color Ty is going to wear. Maybe Walsh wants to wear bitcoin orange. Really shake up the markets and get us get our blood pumping.

A (88:38)

Maybe he wears with benefits T shirt. He just walks down the for all those long time listeners and every week if you listen to the episodes week in and week out, you love that one. That's a callback. Let's wrap it up. That was fun. Hour 22 minutes. That's about as long as we do here. Appreciate everybody tuning in on YouTube again. Give it a like subscribe bottom right. We'll be back Friday. Everybody on audio. We always appreciate you listening as well. But that's gonna be all for today. Have a great Wednesday Thursday. We will see everybody live on Friday. Thanks as always, but that's all for now. Bye bye everybody.

D (89:22)

When I found out I was going to be a parent, I immediately felt a lot of anxiety and worry. So I went on to BetterHelp to try to look for a therapist to

A (89:31)

help me with that.

C (89:31)

My relationship with my family and with my boyfriend and with myself were suffering.

D (89:36)

I really needed help.

A (89:38)

I was ruminating a lot.

D (89:39)

Really. Getting those thoughts out to a therapist

C (89:41)

and getting feedback was just life changing.

D (89:46)

Discover what BetterHelp online therapy can do for you. Visit betterhelp.com today.

C (89:54)

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. More Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. This episode sponsored by IPVanish. IPVanish protects every device you own. Your phone, your laptop, your smart tv. If it connects to the Internet, it should be protected. IPVanish encrypts your connection and masks your IP address, helping keep your browsing private at home and on public WI fi stream with added privacy. Browse securely. Connect with confidence right now. Save 83% off the two year plan. Get started today@ipvanish.com audio and take control of your privacy with IPVanish.