tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business September 18, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
financial system first time in a decade, not just yesterday but this morning. maybe this will influence what the federal reserve does. they will take questions at 2:30. edward lawrence live at the federal reserve. reporter: the federal reserve cuts benchmark rate a quarter of a percentage point. the federal funds rate is 1.75% to 2%. fed officials are not forecasting a rate cut this year, another rate cut this year. they're also not forecasting any rate cuts in 2020. they're seeing a rate hike in 2021. a very divided fed over the future path of rates. thee fed members have dissented on this. neil: james bullard, esther george and eric rosengren dissented. bullard wanted to see a 50 basis point cut. rosengren and george wanted to leave the rates where they were. seven officials see one more rate cut this year. they needed two more to have extra rate cut.
five officials believe the federal fun rate should be at same rate. five would like to see the rate at level it was before this meeting today. now the federal reserve raises the gdp forecast to 2.2% this year. also see the unemployment rate nudging up to 3.7% by the end of the year. core inflation they do believe stays the sail at 1.8% by the end. year. in the statement everything was basically the same there except they added the fixed business investment and exports have weakened, changing from soft, federal reserve says they will act as appropriate to stay in expansion. now on the short-term funding costs that you were talking about, charles, the federal reserve lowered interest on excess reserves. lowered interest on excess reserves by 30 basis points. the federal reserve sets it 20 basis point under the top range of the federal funds rate. they will continue the overnight repo operations to stablize the federal funds rate. they set the rate on the
overnight repos five points under the bottom, 1.7% to keep it within the federal funds rate range. the federal repo options are below median rate at 1.7. rate cut, 25 basis points 1.75 to 2%. three dissents. the last time that happened in 2016, december of 2016. charles? charles: edward real quick they raised gdp to 2%. reporter: yes. charles: from where? >> 2.1%. a small incremental increase. interesting we had dissent in different directions. it shows a very divided fed. last time they had different directions in dissents december 2014 one going one way, one going the other which is what we saw in the statement. charles: we should have been embracing that. wall street hitting on that. edward appreciate it. to break down the statement,
former dal asfed advisor danielle dimartino booth, john lonski, paul schatz and cio of the bahnsen group, david bahnsen joins us as well. danielle, a lot of information. the dow waffling around a little bit but moving a little bit lower here. what is the biggest initial takeaway? >> i literally said wow out loud when i heard there is not a majority of those on the committee who are anticipating another rate cut this year. this completely flies in the face -- charles: this year or next year, right? >> or next year. charles: next move is a rate ke. >> hike in 2021. i have one word for you, wow. really, truly. charles: david the dissent was there last time. you had rosengren and george who dissented. bullard wanted a larger rate cut, but certainly seems like jay powell or powell doctrine not influencing his fellow
members, whatever that might be by the way. >> not influencing the vote, getting the same outcome. losing a few votes but running the day what he want to see. that issue about projecting a rate hike in 2021 opposed to another cut, i want to remind everybody, 2016 we started off the year with them anticipating four rate hikes that year. we got a doughnut, nothing. i don't believe it for a second. i think they will adjust that as soon as the market goes down. charles: speaking of adjustments, john, many came in today the dot plot would have to be explained on the q&a. there were talk about them dumping the whole dot plot it has been so confusing and to david's point so wrong. >> that is exactly right. they should have gotten rid of the dot plot. they have done poorly as broadcasters. it borders on rid i canlousness. this rate hike is meaningless given all the uncertainty we
face. charles: with our market guys i start with you, hal. essentially unchanged. we were down 55 points. we were off as much as 124. off as much as 130 points. takes a day for wall street to digest the move. i'm shocked the initial move is not more dramatic. what do you think? >> i agree. this is a mistake. we'll see what chairman powell says i think they should have cut 50 basis points. i think it is crazy they will raise rates in 2020. that will not happen. we're out of whack with the rest of the world, right? our real interest rates are zero. 1.8% inflation. 1.8% 10-year we're zero. in germany it is negative 2%. in uk negative 1 1/2%. meaning if you buy a bond in germany, you're losing 2% every year. what will happen? you move money to the united states. flows will come. the 10-year is probably going lower in yield. i wouldn't be surprised if we don't break back through 1.40
again. we'll be out of whack. the fed will be forced to cut rates more. they will probably do another 25 basis points this year. the market will force them to do it. the dollar will rally. that will hurt us on a trade perspective. president trump will be tweeting about this, i feel certain about that. charles: david, you're shaking yourd, why? >> i don't have the reasoning we don't have to take ps and qs from germany. i understand we have to play to reality plays in the calculus. is germany having 300 basis points do we have to case them negative? they have to look at what the economy is doing. did they get too tight? yes they did. chars:ouean the u.s. fed. >> the u.s. fed got too tight i get that. credit markets are working. there is no reason for them to make their entire driver of monetary policy what someone is doing in another country. charles: let me ask you, danielle -- hold on one second, hal. i want to get to paul too. in the last 24 hours what
happened in the repo market simplistically on the street, our financial system ran out of cash. >> a supply demand mismatch. charles: how does that happen? apparently the fed tried to address that today. many thought the best way for themo address this, get back to quantity kwan. >> or at least quantitative easing light. how can you come in every day with an emergency measure? that is just bad optics. you're the fed. financial stability is one of your mandates. you're supposed to be tamping that down. this introduces the element of uncertainty on a daily basis? this is ridiculous. charles: terrible for credibility, no matter what. experts say it is no big deal. like haley's comet comes around now and then but don't worry about it. >> this triggered financial crisis in the first place. they have to address financial stability. charles: hal? >> the good news right now we don't have a financial crisis. if we did, this would be a much more serious problem with a shortage of liquidity.
here we have an example. not only can the fed not forcat interest rates, the fed cannot even fulfill one of its primary functions. that is to assure adequate systemic liquidity. >> one of the easiest functions they were not able to provide. >> right. charles: paul, bring you in, we're better part of post comments. we haven't moved a lot, can you also from a stock market investor point of view take from this the fed is looking for the gdp to be a little bit better, it is looking for reasonable unemployment rate numbers. it looking at next major move may be a rate hike? in other words, certainly not kind of stuff you would see in recession. the fed, should that matter for more investors than sugar highs you get from rate cuts? shouldn't a stronger economy be more important? >> clearly in the big picture over the long term we want good, solid economic numbers that are sustainable. but as you were reading off the
notes i almost thought you read a typo when it said the next move is going to be a rate hike. i think if investors really thought that was the case, and the the algos snuffed that out we would be down 3, 400 points almost immediately. the fed is trying to play peekaboo or play some kind of childish game where they keep the markets off balance. their actions don't speak what the market is expecting. i think the economy is fine. the markets are fine. dow hit 28. the dow hit 30. the fed can do its best not to upset the applecart but i can't believe with the dot plot, i can't see them yet, i can't believe what i'm hearing and everybody else is talking about. as an investor i will ignore right now. i will wait a day or two. markets have been strong into the meeting. i wouldn't be shocked if they were a little weak after that.
the underpinnings of the market right now, the semiconductor leadership, the credit markets are solid and stable. you have got stocks participating in the rally. that keeps expanding. charles: right. >> all these things are good and they indicate further upside coming from investor standpoint. charles: danielle, think about the economic data we've seen last couple weeks, from retail sales. yesterday industrial production. by the way driven by business equipment. today housing starts, household applications, mortgage applications through the roof. >> right. charles: this is the kind of stuff tha you start to argue where is the fed's urgency to take any further action and maybe corroborates the dot plot? >> you know that's feasible, that's possible but we have had six quarters of declining residential real estate. i'm surprised we haven't seen a bigger pop in housing given the magnitude of the decline we've seen in mortgage rates. and, you know, my biggest takeaway, charles, we have all
of the ceos in america that were polled came out today and lowered their gdp expectations. the fed comes out and increases theirs. it seems like they're completely out of touch. charles: you're talking about the business roundtable. to a degree can they be talking their own book though? we know their agenda is a little different? also they're more, listen i don't want to discredit the business roundtable i think they may be talk their book a little bit when they give these outlooks. >> that is special question about the trade war. there was obviously leading element to it but by the same token ceo's came out, hiring skilled workers was not the chief concern, first time, economic uncertainty. the fed has to address a element of uncertainty. gm on the strike for first time since wave. charles: how do you address economic uncertainty when economic data comes in better than expected? >> you have to look at the fact that the overall market is still quite worried about the outlook.
even with today es statement from the fed next move to hike rates. 10-year treasury still under fed funds. that is 1.75%. that is very much on the low side. we still have a slightly inverted yield curve. financial markets and the business sector are less than convinced the u.s. economy will manage to avoid further slowing plus we have problems overseas. you don't want to overlook that and that too should enter into the fed decision making. >> the easiest numbers to look to have been wages and jobs and the overall gdp number, the most important right now, the fed even highlighted this, business fixed investment that is one exception to the rule, charles. there is all this positive economic data. business fixed investment has been slowing. the fed called that out. they didn't mention trade war, what i think is a casualty of the trade war cap-ex. that is something we have to be watching. >> absolutely. >> let's go down to the floor of
the new york stock exchange. gerri willis, the dow down 100 points, near the lows of the session. what is the initial reaction down there? reporter: charles, you got that right. the dow down 100 points. the reaction here they got what they expected they expected the fed to underwhelm the markets. 25 basis point cut, that is exactly what they thought would happen. they want to see idea of what rate cuts would be coming in the future. they did not get that. that was a big disappointment to the market. down 117 on the dow. s&p 500 down half a point. they do not like that. take a look how banks are trading right now. they're only down half percent. if this was the kind of environment where they thought rate cuts would become the rule of the day, they would be down much more. look these traders want to see more rate cuts to cushion the yield curve. as you've been discussing right now, also to encourage growth. many of them buy the argument
from the president is competitive marketplace out this. if other countries are lowering, lowering their rates we should do the same. a lot of traders like that argument and believe in it but for right now down 132 on the dow. we're seeing some disappointment. you see bank stocks right there. you see dappointment on the floor of the new york stock exchange in what just happened here. wanted to see some kind of view into the future. when will the next rate cut be? we don't know. we didn't even hear data dependent. that phrase did not come up. back to you. charles: great point on the data dependent. a lot of this will get back to the q&a part. it comes down to this, jay powell, i've been joking to people, i hope he read malcolm gladwell's book on how to talk to strangers. this delicate balancing act, last time the fomc got together the dow was on 334 points. may 1sts 162 points.
in march off 142 points. up only fractionally in june. for the most part i think it has been his verbal gaffs. the panel, you seem disappointed it wasn't 50 basis point. so what could jay powell say during the q&a part that would make you feel better? >> he will have to clear things up. now he has created uncertainty. everyone was expecting 25. i expected 25. charles: you got 25. >> that's right. now, everyone was going to expect another 25 this year. it looks like they're putting out the message it may not happen. now you have uncertainty. he will have to clear that up. again what you will have happen, more money will flow into the united states. we could end up with a 10-year below the 1 heroin 45 level which means more inversion at federal funds level. it creates more problems what we're trying to do in the u.s. if you keep having a massively yield curve because the fed is behind. i think he will have to clear at up. charles: hopefully he will but,
david, is this the right reaction, initial reaction in your mind? >> the reality 150 points up, down 100, down 30, not a big deal. that is not very much movement percentage wise. we'll see what happens in the presser as always. i agree he needs to provide clarity. let me point out something he could clarify in a way bernanke never did, yellen never did, we will not allow negative yields in the united states of america. he could put a firm policy out there. that would be do more to help markets. charles: that would help our markets, they would go up on that? >> tremendously. it is the biggest destablizg force out there, with a world of 16 trillion negative yields there is ambiguity about what the united states -- charles: a week ago mario draghi said negative yields were phenomenal. he got did did i when asked about this. >> he is delusional. charles: it has been phenomenal. worked out great. he took a victory lap. he said if it wasn't the ecb, they created 11 million jobs in
europe. they staved off recession. single-handedly without help from fiscal policy, the central bank saved the day. we hear jay powell say the same thing. >> that is flat-out delusional. over 50% of europe's economy was really mad, came out publicly against what mario draghi did. this man, is shepherding a economy going into recession. charles: he was. >> he is there until halloween. charles: sure. >> he is shepherding a economy going into recession before he could raise interest rates out of negative territory. to your point, they are the most destablizing force in the global financial system. they're also by the way feeding into this liquidity situation here we've been dealing with the past 48 hours. charles: john, what could jay powell say or does he have to say anything in your mind to turn around the initial response to this action? >> what he could say, look at the fomc interest rate forecast,
folks. i guess this tells us there is no recession through 2021. charles: that is the biggest takeaway, that we have a pretty strong economy? even with some of the issues, trade related or otherwise that we're doing pretty good? >> well you know, perhaps we are but i still think there is a above average macroeconomic risk. above average business cycle risk. charles: do you agree with hal it should have been a 50 basis point cut today? >> i would like to seeed funds lowered underneh a 1.75% 10-year treasury yield. get rid of the inverted treasury, the inverted yield curve as quickly as possible. charles: so, paul, we'll know a lot more as the rest of the day goes on in 12 minutes, jay powell will probably step up to start answering questions. what do you want to hear? what do you think ultimately wall street's reaction will be, not just today? because it always kind of i think it's a little bit hard to judge two hours after the fomc, i always think the next day is a
better gauge of wall street's reaction? >> first of all i don't think any fed chair will ever say negative rates are off the table permanently because they will look even foolish than they already are, that is number one. number two, amazing fed statement days were such a bullish day for so long through all these fed chairs until jay powell came along. he has done an amazing job turning almost shooting fish in barrel today according to quantitative edge website into an easy day for the bears. i don't think there is anything he can do. the less he says the better. when he says more, foot goes in the mouth, markets aren't happy. i think he is only going to confuse the markets more. if i were him, say little and get away quickly. charles: i guess we could get powell the party-pooper hashtag. let me see if we get that working. david, the thing also of course i felt the very first question
last time out of the gate i know maybe it shouldn't be this way but i think jay powell is human like the rest of us and constant attacks from president trump, it felt like he was taking, he was attacking president trump. he brought up china trade often during that first question last time in a way he hadn't really brought it up before. prior to that he said the actual economic impact had been really diminimus, the threat, anxiety, pulling back on certain things but the actual economic impact to a 21 trillion-dollar economy had been little but he brought it up a lot. he seemed to be counterpunching in my mind, that is the way i interpreted it. the market started to sell off. if powell starts to lose focus on his primary job, gets into a tit-for-tat with the president of the united states that does no one any good? >> jay powell has a lot of catching up to if he will get into a tit-for-tat what the president has done with him, enemy of the united states comment comes to mind. listen, reality is, that it is
very good chance we would have gotten 50 basis points cut today if it weren't for president's tweets. powell is in a position of being afraid looking like he is capitulating. charles: should he do that? should he care? >> i'm not saying it is conscious. i'm not playing psychologist. i hate it when people do with the president. i think the president overplayed that, perhaps it had a negative effect. charles: don't go away. we're at lows of the session. jerome powell will host a news conference in a minute. our panel will come back. we'll examine it a little more. look at initial reaction to the announcement. also what powell must do to help us really understand his new policy the powell doctrine. stay with us. ♪ lps airtech automotive streamline payroll and hr, so welby torres can achieve what he's working for.
dimitri's on it. eating right and getting those steps in? on it! dimitri thinks he's doing all he can to manage his type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is his treatment doing enough to lower his heart risk? [sfx: glasses clanking.] sorry. maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c! jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance.
back to our fed panel, danielle dimartino booth, john lonski, david bahnsen. john, you are not as animated as you normally are. i'm concerned about this. what is going on? >> quarter of a percentage point cut. charles: you are moving around, sweating a little bit. >> ultimately the fed will take its cue from the financial markets and the economic outlook. charles: those are two different things. the financial markets, is that sort of saying they will be pushed around by wall street? >> not necessarily going to be pushed around. they will be guided. wall street is not a bully. it is a guide. charles: it's not? it's not. >> such a polite term, guided. charles: i've seen them bully fed chiefs for a long time. >> i will say right now that the fed has no choice but by the end of this year the federal funds rate has to be sitting under the 10-year treasury. charles: mark your words there will be another rate cut this year? >> i think there will be another rate cut unless the economy does
so well that the 10-year treasury yields heads up back towards 2%. then we're finished. >> that was pretty short-lived last week, wasn't it? got up to 1.9. it came back tumbling right now. >> because of events overseas in saudi arabia. >> of course. gm striking. service data out that shows the business outlook come crashing down in the state of new york. there is a lot of things that are going on right now in the economy. we did have a surprise up side with housing starts. we did have a good month over month with industrial production. year-over-year it has been down for a very long time. charles: you're saying every now and then you will get these bounces? >> of course you are. can't tell me gm being on strike will not filter through the entire supply chain. charles: you should be happy about that. you're talking excess inventory about automobiles. >> that is the bizarre line for them. they were pushing through production cuts.
this will take care of it. >> 1970 when a strike by automakers figured in recession. gm is a much smaller company compared to what it was in 1970. charles: on my way in, we had two major, i can't call them major because they didn't impact markets but two would-be black swan events. attack on saudi araa. something nobody thought that would happen. not a single person thought there was inkling it would happen. going into the weekend we didn't think drones would take out half the saudi arabia's oil capacity and they would need to pump money into the system. this could have been two black swans event that could have started dominoes coming down. does that say something about the resolve of our economy and the markets? >> i wish it were. i'm not sure that is what it is. i think it is these events, these events was merely transitory and not really fundamentally undermining of economic strength.
i do believe that they point to problems or weaknesses and vulnerabilities but they didn't become a fundamental problem. charles: on the screen we're showing president trump tweeted. jay powell and federal reserve fail again. no guts, no sense, no vision. a terrible communicator. >> was saying that before the press conference. gosh. give the guy a chance. >> that is a retweet. >> say about the recent events, corporate bond market yawned what happened with saudi arabia and reserve shortage. in fact we had narrowing of junk bond yield spreads. charles: what does that say? has to be silver lining moral to the story, something -- >> make a point. i didn't know this until last week but four years ago when oil prices collapsed the energy sector was 38% of the debt in the s&p 500. it is only 20% of the debt now on a net basis. charles: right. gasoline is much smaller percentage of household outlay. >> there is a lot of deleveraging in that sector. i don't think the high-yield
bond market is afraid of default. >> believe me, the high-yield bond market doesn't have many members in the s&p 500. that is basically higher quality. looking at different market all together. high-yield bond market is looking a lot of private-held companies are actually on life-support thanks to this wonderful supply of financial liquidity. charles: maybe president trump didn't see the, get his grip ahead of time for jay powell. maybe he is trying to influence him. someone whispering in jay powell's ear, making final adjustments, button up the suit, get notes together. president just tweeted how much this fleet influences him? if it causes him not to push for 50 basis point cut what does he say to the q&a? i'm afraid of him saying something negatively influenced by this that hurts the markets. >> he could. there is distinct possibility. for sure some of his gray hair just turned whiter. he is definitely going to be barraged with these questions
but in zurich when he made his speech recently he was very elegant and very poised fending off any kind of suggestion, i think he will maintain that line. charles: foreign press though, they don't ask questions like american. >> it was quite polite. charles: they're very polite. they accept your answer, don't ask you again 4,000 different ways. hey, president trump "punk'd" you on twitter, what do you say to that? we urge or push them into this. overall -- there is jay powell. let's take a listen. >> my colleagues at the federal reserve and are i dedicated to serving the american people. we do this by steadfastly pursuing the goals congress has given us, maximum employment and stable prices. we are committed to making the best decisions we can based on facts and objective analysis. today we decided to lower interest rates. as i will explain shortly we took this step to help keep the u.s. economy strong in the face of some notable developments and
to provide insurance against ongoing risks. the u.s. economy has continued to perform well. we are into the 11th year of this economic expansion and the baseline outlook remains favorable. the economy grew at 2 1/2% pace in the first half of the year. household spending supported by a strong job market rising incomes, and solid consumer confidence has been the key driver of growth. in contrast, business investment and exports have weakened amid falling manufacturing output. the main reasons appear to be slower growth abroad and trade policy developments, two sources of uncertainty that we've been monitoring all year. since the middle of last year, global growth, the global growth outlook as weakened, notably in europe and china. additionally a number of geopolitical risks including breaths sit remain unresolved. trade policy, tensions have waxed and waned, elevated
uncertainty is weighing on u.s. investment and exports. our business contacts around the country have been telling us uncertainty about trade policy discouraged them from investing in their businesses. business fixed investment posted a modest decline in the second quarter and recent indicators point to continued soft even though with household spending remaining on solid footing with supporting financial conditions we expect the economy to continue to expand at a moderate rate. as seen from fomc participants most recent projections the median expectation for real gdp growth remains near 2% this year and next before edging down toward its estimated longer run value. the job market remains strong. the unemployment rate has been near half century lows for a year-and-a-half. and job gains have remained solid in recent months. the pace of job gains has eased this year but we had expected some slowing after last year's
strong pace. participation in the labor force by people in their prime working years has been increasing. and wages have been rising particularly for lower paying jobs. people who live and work in low and middle income communities tell us many who have struggled to find work are now getting opportunities to add new and better chapters to their lives. this underscores for us the importance of sustaining the expansion so that the strong job market reaches more of those left behind. we expected job market to remain strong. the median of participants projections for the unemployment rate remains below 4% over the next several years. inflation continues to run below our symmetric 2% objective. over the 12 months through july total pce inflation was 1.4% and core inflation which excludes volatile food and energy prices was 1.6%. we still expect inflation to rise to 2%.
median projection is 1.9% this year and 2% in 2021. however, inflation pressures clearly remain muted and indicators of longer term inflation expectatis are at the lower end of their historical ranges. we're behindful of continued below target inflation could lead to an unwelcome downward slide in longer term inflation expectations. overall, as we say in our post-meeting statement, we continue to see sustainedded expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions and inflation near our is symmetric 2% objective as most likely. this has been our outlook for quite some time, our views about the path of interest rates will best achieve these outcops have changed significantly over the past year. as i mentioned weakness in global growth and uncertain trade policy weighed on the economy and posed ongoing risks. these factors in conjunction with muted inflation pressures have led us to shift our views about appropriate monetary
policy over time toward a lower path for the federal funds rate and this shift has supported the outlook. of course this is the role of monetary policy, to adjust interest rate to maintain a strong labor market and keep inflation near our 2% objective. today's decision to lower the federal funds rate target by a quarter of a percent to 1.75% to from 2% is in light of global developments i mentioned as well as muted inflation pressures. since our last meeting we have seen additional signs of weakness abroad and including imposition of additional tariffs. the fed has no role in the formulation of trade policy but we do take into account anything that could material i affect the economy relative to our employment and inflation goals. the future course of monetary policy will depend on how the economy evolves and what developments imply for the economic outlook and risks to the outlook. we've often said that policy is
not on a pre set course and that is certainly the case today. as i have noted baseline economic outlook remains positive. the projections of appropriate policy show that participant generally anticipate only modest changes in the federal funds rate over the next couple of years. of course those views are merely forecasts. as always will evolve with the arrival of new information. let me say a few words about our monetary policy operations. funding pressures and money markets were elevated this week and effective federal funds rate rose the top of the target range yesterday. while these issues are important for market functioning and market participant, they have no implications for the economy or the stance of monetary policy. this upward pressure emerged as funds flowed from the private sector to the treasury to meet corporate tax payments and settle purchases of treasury securities. to counter these pressures we
conducted overnight repurchase operations yesteay and again today. these temporary operations were effective in relieving funding pressures and we expect the federal funds rate to move back into the target range. in addition as we've done in the past, we made a technical adjustment to the interest rate paid on required excess reserve balances setting it 20 basis points below the top of the target range for the federal funds rate. in a related action we also adjusted the rate on the overnight repurchase facility to five basis points below the bottom of the target range. we will continue to monitor market developments. we will conduct operations as ssarneceto foster trading in the federal fund market at rates within the target range. consistent with our decision earlier this year to continue to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime we will over time provide a sufficient supply of reserves so that frequent operations are not required. to summarize, we are fully committed to pursuing our goals of maximum employment and stable
prices. as a committee contemplates future path of target range for the federal funds rate it will continue to monitor implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion with a strong labor market near its symmetric 2% objective. thanks. i will be happy to take your questions. >> marti krutzinger with the associated press. mr. chairman, when you cut rates in july, you characterized it as a mid-cycle adjustment. is that still your view of what's happening? >> so as you can see from our policy statement and from the sep we see a favorable economic outlook with continued moderate growth, a moderate labor market and continuing 2% objective. that view is consistent with those of many other forecasters. as you can see fomc participants gerally think the positive
economic outcomes will be achieved with modest adjustments to the federal funds rate. at the last press conference i pointed to two episodes i guess in 1995 and 1998 as an example of such an approach, was successful in both of those instances. as our statement also highlights though, there are risks to this positive outlook due particularly to weak global growth and trade developments and if the economy does turn down a more extensive sequence of rate cuts could be appropriate. we don't see that. it is not what we expect but we would certainly follow that path if it became appropriate. in other words be as we say in our statement, we will continue to monitor these developments closely. we'll act as appropriate to help insure the expansion remains on track. reporter: i'm sorry. rich miller with bloomberg. taking the statement, your opening remarks and the
separate, i wonder what kind of message we take from this? is it safe to say the fomc still has an easing bias or not? >> so the idea of i think a bias is something that was a long-time practice and we don't actually have that practice anymore. i can't really adopt it right here but nonetheless i will respond to your question. so we did, we made one decision today and that decision was to lower the federal funds rate by a quarter of percentage point. we believe that action is appropriate to promote our objectives of course. we're going to be highly data dependent as always. our decisions will depend on implications of incoming indications fro the outlook. i will often say as we do we're not on a preset course. so that is how we're going to look at it. we'll be carefully looking at economicat sometimes the path ahead is clear and sometimes less so. so we're going to be looking carefully, meeting by meeting at
the full range of information that we'll assess the appropriate stance of policy as we go. as i said, we, we will act as appropriate to sustain expansion. >> if i could follow up. you also said that the favorable outlook is predicated on financial conditions and the financial conditions are in turn predicated on an outlook for fed policy, in this case further cuts. wouldn't that suggest that you should be inclined, if you want those financial conditions an that favorable outlook to come about you should be inclined to cut? >> well, what we do going forward is very much going to depend, rich, on the flow of data and information. we've seen if you look at things we're monitoring, global growth and trade developments, global growth continued to weaken. it weakened since our last meeting. trade developments have been up
and down, or back up during this intermeeting period. in any case they have been quite volatile. we see the risks more heightened now. we'll watch that careful. we'll watch the u.s. data quite carefully. we'll have to make an assessment as we go. reporter: thank you, mr. chairman. nick timmeros of "the wall street journal" i know you're trying to speak for the committee when you do the press conferences but committee is clearly divided now at least about the out look and appropriate policy path. some people think you need to wait to see the labor market and consumer crack to weaken further before acting more aggressive. some people think by the time that happens you will need to do even more aggressive action to arrest a downturn. where do you stand on this? >> well, let me just say on the
general point of diverse perspectives, you're right, sometimes the, there have been many of those times in my almost eight years at the fed, many times the direction was relatively clear, relatively easy to reach unanimity. this is time of difficult judgments and disparate objectives. i really think that is nothing but healthy and so, i see a benefit in having those diverse perspectives really. so your question though is -- >> to your own view. the data to some extent lagged especially when you have these risks on the horizon and the markets obviously think these risks could materialize more than what you and your colleagues are projecting in the dot plot today. i wonder where are your own views about the tension between risk management which implies some degree of data independence and this idea of being data dependent? >> i will try to get at that this way. i think that the idea that if you see trouble approaching on
the horizon you steer away from it if you can i think that is a good idea in principle and i think history teaches us it is better to be proactive in adjusting policy if you can. i think applying that priiple in a particular situation is where the challenge comes so, i told you where the committee, the bulk of the committee is going meeting by meeting. i think the main takeaway is, that this is a committee that has shifted its policy stance repeatedly consistently, through the course of the year to support economic activit as it has felt it is appropriate. the beginning of the year we were looking at further rate increases, then we were patient, and then we cut once and we cut again. i think you've seen us being willing to move based on data, based on evolving risk picture. i have no reason to think that will change. but it will continue to be data dependent and data includes the evolving risk picture. that is where i am.
that is where the bulk of the committee is. reporter: mr. chairman, wonder if, sorry. steve liesman, cnbc. i only done this a dozen, a lot of times. i wonder if you're concerned about how the federal reserve operated through the recent liquidity crunch in markets? we talked to many traders who said the tax date payment was known well in advance. there were several reports from people pointing to september as a potential crunch time. you closed monday at the top end of the fed funds rate. tuesday came along and there wasn't an operation until 9:00. no announcement until of a second operation until 4:00 in the afternoon. was the fed listening to markets well ahead of time going back a year when there were blowouts in the overnight rate at year-end and turn of the year? are you concerned for example, how the new york fed operated
through this? >> i would say i doubt that anyone is closer to and has more invested in carefully following the, behavior of these markets so of course we were well aware of the, you know, the tax payments and also the settlement of the large bond purchases and you know, we were very much waiting for that but we didn't expect, the response to that was stronger than we expected. our sense it surprised market participant a lot too. people were writing about this and publishing stories about it weeks ago. it wasn't a surprise but it was a stronger response than certainly than we expected. so, no, i'm not concerned about, about that to answer your question. i can go on a little bit how we're looking at that. why don't i do that? so as i mentioned, we don't see this as having implications for the broader economy, for the economic outlook or our ability to control rates. the strains in the money markets
reflect forces we saw coming. they just had a bigger effect i think than most folks anticipated. strong demand for cash to purchase treasurys and kay corporations. we tongue measures to keep the fend fund rate in target range of the those efforts were successful. if we expect more pressure we have the tools to address those pressures. woe will not hesitate to use them. since we're talking about this, let me take a step back and say this. earlier in the year as you all recall after careful study over a period of years actually the committed announced decision to implement mon monetary policy in an ample reserves regime. we've been operating in that regime for a full decade. we think it works well timely meant the rate decisions. the main hallmark in that regime we used a adjustments in the administrative rates, roi and p rates to keep the target if the funds range. it is done specifically so which expect we don't conduct open
market operations for that purpose. going closely we'll monitor market developments and assessing implications for appropriate levels of reserves and we'll assess the question when it will be appropriate to resume the organic growth of our balance sheet. i'm sure we will be revisiting that question during the intermeeting period and certainly at our next meeting. >> follow up. do you think you underestimated amount of reserves necessary for the banking system? >> we've always said that the level is uncertain, right? that is something we've tried to be very clear about and as you know we invested lots of time talking to many of the large holders of reserves to assess their what they say is their demands for reserves. we tried to assess what that is. we put it out so the public can react to it but yes there is real uncertainty and it is certainly possible we'll need to resume the organic growth of the
balance sheet earlier than we thought. that has always been a possibility and certainly is now. we'll be looking at this carefully in coming days and taking it up at the next meeting. reporter: brendan greer with the financial times. earlier this year or actually in september the governors board put out a research paper looking trying to quantify trade uncertainty and it suggested it could drag through the business investment channel on growth as much as a per age point the next year. how much confidence do you have in fed's ability to estimate the real effects of trade uncertainty? that paper should suggest that more aggressively dovish path than you've chosen. >> to provide a little context fed economists do research all the time. it is generally high quality. it is their research. it is not an official finding of the federal reserve board or the federal reserve civil.
by the way they put it out for public review. you can see their econometrics, you can see their whole work is exposed to critique bit whole profession. it's a great tradition that we have and what this particular piece of work did, it went after measuring trade policy uncertainty through a cowell of channels include tariffs, threat of more tear i was are and it looked deeply at the data to try to assess the effects on output while i say directly answering your question there is real uncertainty around these effects. it is 22 trillion-dollar economy. to try the isolate the effects of certain things is very challenging but we do the best we can. so this piece of research found significant effects. that is frankly consistent with a number of other research projects that economists have undertaken. it is also consistent what we've been hearing in the "beige book." so i think if you take a step
back from that we do feel that trade uncertainty is having an effect. you see it in weak business investment, weak exports. hard to quantify it presicily though. reporter: hi, howard schneider with reuters. i was struck by the anchored median federal funds rate through 2020 and that in comparison to the fact that you now have sort of three discrete groups of opinions around where the fed funds rate is heading. i wonder is it fair to say that the, those opinions have become sort of firmer in their conviction and that it is going to take some sort of real material change in the outlook now for that to move in either direction? >> you're asking specifically about 2020? >> well the fact that the feds funds rate now seen as not moving through 2020 suggest to me that these opinions are pretty well-anchored right now
in those groups? >> honestly i think it is hard to have hardened expectations about where rate policy is going to be a year from now. i think the closer you get to the current day the more confidence you can have. but even then, knowing what the data will say, and the way geopolitical events and other events are going to evolve in the next 90 days, the implications for that to the economy i would say there is a lot of uncertainty. reporter: fair enough. >> if you look at 2020, the use of this individual participants write down their forecasts. it should give you a sense how people thinking about likely path of the economy and the appropriate path for monetary policy in that individual person's thinking. i think that's a good thing to know. i would very reluctant to look at it as hardened views or a prediction, really. >> just to follow up if i could, there were a number of arguments in july around the reason for
cutting rates. have any of those gotten substantially weakened or changed around the table? >> if you look at the u.s. economy, the u.s. economy is generally performed roughly as expected, roughly. consumer is spending at a healthy clip. i would say business fixed investment and exports have weakened further. i would say the manufacturing pmi suggests more weakness ahead. the labor market is still strong. generally that is the same. i think if you look at, at global economy i think has weakened further in the eu and china. i think trade policy developments have been a big mover of markets. and of sentiment during that intervening period. i think that is what has happened over the intervening period. and you know, different people around the table have different perspectives as you obviously know.
reporter: hi, chair powell. gina with the "new york times." i'm just curious on your balance sheet point. you talked about the committee thinking about resuming organic growth over time. i guess the question is, if you have shrunk your balance sheet maybe just a little bit too small to the point that reserves are too squares to get through these unusual periods is organic growth in the balance sheet enough to get back to a point of ample reserves that can get us through the tough times or would you need to see something a little bit above that, is that a possibility the committee would consider? >> i think it's, it's hard to deal with every hypothetical possibility. i think for the foreseeable future, we're going to be looking at if, if needed, doing sorts of things that we did the last two days. these temporary market operations. that will be tools we use. the question will be as we go through quarter end, as we earn
learn more you how much this has to do with the level of reserves i think we'll learn a lot more in the next six weeks. >> victoria with "politico." another money market question. you know, banks have been pointing to liquidity rules as having contributed to some of the volatility we've seen in repo markets, potentially some capital rules as well. are you all looking whether some tweaks to liquidity coverage ratio might help? and also, what is the status of the net stable funding ratio rule? are you all planning on putting that out soon? >> you know, i think if we concluded that we needed to raise the level of required reserves for banks to meet the lcr, we would probably raise level of reserves, rather than lower the lcr. it is not impossible it would come to a view that the lcr is
calibrated not too high. on the other hand might be more reserves are needed. in which case we're in a position to supply them. in addition the net stable funding ratio, it is, i believe we put it out for comment and got comments. i believe we're looking at finalizing that in a relatively near future. >> just to follow up, in terms of tweaks to the lcr, potentially giving banks some room in times of stress to contribute to the equity buffers? >> i think we want probations to use their liquidity buffers in times of stress, rather than pulling back from the markets or serving their clients as a general rule. >> about a month ago, edward lawrence from fox business network, mr. chairman. a month ago you said we didn't
have integrate trade uncertainty into monetary policy. have you figured out how to incorporate the level of trade uncertainty in monetary policy? you talked about uncertainty many times today. >> so my point riley was, to start that trade policy is not the business of the fed. it is the business of congress and the administration. but, so why are we talking about it? we're talking about it, anything that affects the achievements of our goals, can the principle be something monetary policy should take into consideration. our discussions and research we have suggests that trade policy is something weighing on the outlook. i pointed out in recent remarks the thing we can't address really is what businesses would like, which is a settled road map for international we can't do that. we don't have that tool. but we do have a very powerful tool which can counteract
weakness by supporting demand through sound monetary policy. we think our policy tools support economic activity through fairly well understood channels by reducing interest burden and encouraging consumer purchase of durables, of homes and other interest-sensitive items, by creating broadly more accommodative financial conditions which support spending and also investment by businesses and also by boosting household and business confidence. so you know, i don't want to be heard to say that our tools don't have an effect. they do. but i was making the point that there's a piece of this that we really can't address. reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> i think, yeah, it's a challenge. there's no simple bottom line answer where i can say yes, i've got it for you here. what it amounts to is this. what you see is probably the kind of volatility that's typical of an important complex ongoing negotiation and i think what we need to do is to try to
look through the volatility and react to the underlying forces, the underlying things that are happening that are relevant to our mandate. we don't -- we have nothing to do with setting trade policy or negotiating trade agreements. we are supposed to be reacting on behalf of the american economy to support maximum employment and stable prices. we need to look through what's a pretty volatile situation. that means not overreacting quickly, means not underreacting. that's really what we're trying to do. i would say the outlook is positive in the face of these crosswinds we have felt. to some extent, i do believe that our shifting to a more accommodative stance over the course of the year has been one of the reasons why the outlook has remained favorable. reporter: michael mckie from bloomberg radio and television.
fed funds futures trading since the statement was released show that investors still think another rate cut is coming this year. on their behalf, let me ask what is going to guide fed policy to either pull them towards where the dot plot suggests no more moves this year, or keep them in plac are you reacting to data now? are you reacting to your gut feeling about what trade tweets might mean? should they just watch for jay powell's speeches to decide what's going to happen going forward? what's the fed's reaction function now? >> right. so what we are looking for through all of the data, all of the events that are going on around the world, we will be looking at the evolving geopolitical events, we will be looking at global growth, we'll be looking at trade policy uncertainty, most importantly we will be looking at the performance of the u.s. economy. we will