Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, global head of Macro Strategy.
- [00:05]
B
And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's chief U.S. economist.
- [00:09]
A
Today, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal. Rather than announcing a rate change, markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate and the growth outlook. But of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So what are your thoughts before the press conference?
- [00:45]
B
A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that. Probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important. But I think what's really important from my perspective, more than the modality outlook or the baseline that participants have, is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped where the labor market appears to have stabilized. Labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it's inflation that looks persistent. So if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast?
- [02:25]
A
There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement? Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked? And how do you think he might
- [02:54]
B
respond, well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statements of more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So the obvious first question is, is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now, Warsh may not want to answer that if he kind of is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us and we'll do what's necessary. And second, I think, as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is the past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference, the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue, as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design. The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give, and then we'll see what fills that vacuum, what narrative fills that vacuum, and is he okay with that? So it may be that there's a new sheriff in town and he chooses that. There's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time.
- [04:41]
A
During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it?
- [05:02]
B
Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all. And then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off press conference meetings because they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So they migrated eight meetings. So I think kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight or there's longer gaps for Other narratives to come in, like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed and is that replaced by forward guidance from the treasury, for example, how do markets weigh those signals? But then also I would say, would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair for. For example, let's assume that at some point in the future the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts when it comes to that. But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view, would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So does it reduce their opportunity set?
- [06:23]
A
I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to, investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market. But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself, or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications?
- [07:07]
B
I think the right thing to do. Again, our job is to say what we think he will do, not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do. I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does, because as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So I do think it would make sense to kind of work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can. And here what I would hope that they where they kind of ultimately land is warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the ceps, the summary of economic projections, to provide a forecast. But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function that if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation and unemployment, then expect our policy path to look different. So Is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do.
- [08:42]
A
Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are? In the context of Chair Warsh coming in, having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy, both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy, what are the purview of the Committee itself, The
- [09:06]
B
two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policies. Both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets, all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the Board can make certain decisions. Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of 0809. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So the Chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicates, how often it communicates, but the policy decisions are from the fomc.
- [10:11]
A
I'm often asked about this idea that less communication may end up affecting the bond market in certain ways. And typically the concern amongst investors is that with less communication from the Fed, whether it be the Chair or whether it be from the committee as a whole, through the summary of economic projections and its interest rate dot plot, there's concern amongst investors that removing that type of guidance would raise bond yields essentially through the term premium component of the term structure. And the way that we think about it is probably in this environment where interest rates have already been inching higher and investors are concerned about the hiking cycle that may eventuate, it probably would raise term premia initially. But from a more medium term perspective, the way I think about it is that, you know, term premia can be positive, it can also be negative. And if we have less forward guidance, I would generally expect that term premium component to be more volatile than it has been in the past. Not necessarily just in the upward direction, but it could also be in the downward direction. If macro environment ends up changing in some way.
- [11:30]
B
Yeah, I could see in the current context the inflation surprises have been to the upside. So less communication may mean more term premium, but we went through almost a decade after 0809 where most of those surprises were to the downside. So you can imagine that it could be a symmetric story rather than an asymmetric one.
- [11:48]
A
Absolutely. Well thanks Mike, that's very interesting and thanks for taking the time to talk ahead of this upcoming FOMC meeting. I'm looking forward to our next discussion around the following FOMC meeting. Great speaking with you Matt and thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. The preceding content is informational only and based on information available when created. It is not an offer or solicitation, nor is it tax or legal advice. It does not consider your financial circumstances and objectives and may not be suitable for you.