Raphael Bostic is ready to pause Fed rate hikes after one final move in May.
That’s according to an interview with Reuters, during which Bostic described incoming data as consistent with “moving one more time.” “We’ve got a lot of momentum suggesting that we’re on the path to 2%,” he remarked.
A hike in May is now virtually guaranteed, but the incoming macro data, reflecting last month’s economic environment, uniformly suggests the economy has cooled. ISM manufacturing is in contraction territory, ISM services is decelerating, jobless claims are higher than previously thought (after revisions), job cuts are running at the seventh fastest pace in recent memory (according to Challenger), job openings fell more than expected in February, retail sales have slipped in four of the last five months, ADP hiring has slowed and both CPI and PPI were benign this week.
Taken together, the figures do suggest the Fed is at least approaching an inflection point. The question is whether pushing the issue with more hikes would be an example of “making sure the job is finished” or an example of not knowing when to quit.
In a Friday speech, Christopher Waller didn’t sound like he agrees with Bostic. “Because financial conditions have not significantly tightened, the labor market continues to be strong and quite tight, and inflation is far above target, so monetary policy needs to be tightened further,” Waller said, in remarks prepared for an event in San Antonio.
Bostic, during his chat with Reuters, suggested the Fed should “hit the mark and hold, unless you see a trend that is unmistakable.” By “the mark” he presumably meant getting rates up to the 2023 dot.
Waller, by contrast, said this: “I would welcome signs of moderating demand, but until they appear and I see inflation moving meaningfully and persistently down toward our 2% target, I believe there is still work to do.”
As noted here earlier this week, and as reflected in the March FOMC minutes, there appears to be significant disagreement among the hawks and doves at this juncture.
As an aside, I continue to believe the daily soundbites count as over-communication. Fedspeak is rarely useful when it comes to refining expectations. More often than not, officials confuse the issue. All they’re doing is giving traders and excuse to trade.
Anyone out there notice the lead editorial in today’s WSJ? “DeSantis Aims at the Fed.” Free markets champion Ronnie D is taking the wood to the Fed for “contributing to inflation by printing trillions and trillions of dollars.”
Not the first time that the Fed has been an election issue, but worth keeping an eye on.
Meanwhile, you heard it here first: if DeSantis is elected, Jim Bullard will be appointed Fed chairman.
Nah – R hawks turn into doves when they enter the White House.
Bullard has been lobbying for the job for the last year at least. They’d make a great pair!
I really hope the Fed can deliver some form of landing, even if a hard one let it be one we can recover from without giving DeSantis or Trump an economy that paves their way to the WH. The US can survive an economic hard landing but I’m not sure we survive one of the two GOP contenders (or both) for 4 years in power, the Fed as we know it might not survive that either.
Perhaps Leader Schumer should be careful what he wishes for in abandoning the filibuster. We have the Court we have today because of former Leader Reid’s action abandoning the filibuster for District and Circuit judges. Interestingly at the time, Mr. Schumer stated that Democrats would regret changing the rules for judges. McConnell merely followed their actions for SCOTUS nominees.
I disagree with your framing: McConnell did not fulfill his duties to evaluate a supreme court nominee (whereas he was within his responsibilities to simply lead a down vote).
While I’m mad at Obama and Democrats complacency in thinking it wouldn’t matter it surely did matter; power is at stake and bad faith actors abound.
The Senate itself is archaic but “whataboutism” is a poor way of making a point (and yours diverges quite a bit from the Fed – and the very salient implicit risk that with a more partisan (controlled) Fed that no longer does their duties the US falls into economic (and political) ruin.
You may disagree, but my framing is correct. Mr. Reid abandoned the filibuster in 2013 for District and Circuit judges. Mr. McConnell did so in April 3017 for SCOTUS to push Justice Gorsuch through. Your refer to the non-vote of Judge Garland (which is an entirely different issue). While I do agree that Mr. McConnell should have simply held an up or down vote, the Garland appointment had nothing to do with the filibuster.
My point is not complex. If Mr. DeSantis or, God help us, Mr. Trump somehow get elected, and being that the Senate needs to confirm the Fed Chair, the Senate Democrats will be pleased to have not abandoned the filibuster in total. It’s not even close to “whataboutism”, it’s “be careful what you wish for.”
It doesn’t matter for two years because of the House. But, Rules changes, over time, frequently come around to bite the party who changes the Rules. Mr. Schumer was prescient in 2013.