Odd Lots - Kansas City's Fed President on What Everyone Will Be Talking About at Jackson Hole

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

It's Jackson Hole time again, when the most prominent minds in monetary policy meet in an idyllic Wyoming setting for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's annual symposium on monetary policy. For markets, the main event tends to be the speech from the Fed Chairman. But beyond that, there's always a theme that central bankers and academics are tasked to discuss. So to raise the curtain for this year's event, we spoke with none other than Jeffrey Schmid, the president and CEO of the Kansas City Fed. We talked about the official theme of this year's conference, the growing political pressure on the Fed itself, and how he thinks about monetary policy at a time when markets are at record highs, the unemployment rate is low, and inflation continues to come in above target. Only Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox — now delivered every weekday — plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts Radio News. And welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Wisenthal. Joe, it's that time of year again. Jackson Hole Week. It's my favorite time of year.

Yeah. So, I mean, it's a great time year anyway. But in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, come on. For many reasons. Okay. So this is the Kansas City Fed's annual economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. and they basically get together a bunch of different, you know, Fed presidents, a bunch of different speakers on economic policy. And then everyone geeks out while looking at mountains, basically.

It's really extraordinary. So this will be the third year that we'll have been there. We were recording this August 18th, but by the time people are listening to this, the event will have just will be kicking off. It really is extraordinary because you really have the top minds in this stuff from truly all around the world. But also, it's late summer. People chill. people hike, people recognize that they're in an amazing location and they would be wasting their time if they just spent the whole time inside talking monetary policy. This is true, but I think part of the planning of this event is this idea of, okay, you get everyone out in this really nice place in the wilderness and people are maybe a little

bit more forthcoming, maybe a little bit more open to having creative discussions about policy. And it's interesting, you know, you mentioned people talking about like this year's theme. I have a pop quiz for you, which is, do you remember the theme? from the last two Jackson Hole's that we went to? This will be our third. I'm a little embarrassed to say, it's monetary policy and a changing world. No, actually, it's a good question.

You're not that far off, actually. So last year, it was reassessing the effectiveness and transmission of monetary policy. The first Jackson Hole we went to in 2023, that was structural shifts in the global economy. That one, I got to say a little, I could forgive you for getting that one. But this year's theme, it just came out, you know, just got announced.

So this theme is labor markets in transition, demographics, productivity, and macroeconomic policy. It's a good topic for many reasons. So obviously, you know, the future of AI and its impact on the labor force will certainly fit under that particular thematic umbrella. But also, it goes straight into the heart of what a lot of Fed policymakers seem to be discussing right now and arguing, right? All kinds of things. Immigration, aging, et cetera.

how does that bear on the data that we're seeing right now? It's a great topic for both the short term and the long term of monetary policy. So it should be a fascinating conference. Right. And so on that note, I'm very happy to say we do in fact have the perfect guest. We are going to be speaking with Jeff Schmidt. He is, of course, the president of the Kansas City Fed and responsible for putting on this event every year. So Jeff, thank you so much for coming on all thoughts. Oh, it's my pleasure.

It's great to finally meet both of you officially. and we follow you quite intently. So it's really great to be on. We're leaving that in. That's right. Well, I mean, it is mutual, to be fair, because we follow you quite intently. So, first of all, let me just extend a personal thanks for putting on an event, which allows Joe and I to go to one of the most beautiful places on Earth every year. That is truly wonderful for both of us. And then I just, going back to the theme for a second, how do you come up with the themes for these events every year? Is there like a brainstorming session and everyone goes into a room and 12 hours later you emerge with some sort of consensus, much like a FMC meeting, I suppose. Yeah, it's a great behind baseball question. And as you can imagine, you know, we're in our 48th year. So every year, you know, immediately after it's over, we get in a room and we talk about what went well, what can we make better. And I really give credit to Joe Gruber, a grouper, a chief economist and his team. It's probably the most nervous.

nerve-wracking decision that has to be made because, you know, Jacksonville will get over in late August and then probably by sometime early the fourth quarter, you're starting to talk about what should we create a theme around for the following the year. And so they actually end up deciding on that by the end of the year. And it's nerve-wracking because you hope that all the research you've asked these brilliant people to do and present is applicable by August, because you know how fast things move in the business and economic world. And boy, they are so good at it. And they do think forward about some of the emerging issues that are going to be dealt with,

but whether it be with the central bank or with the global economy. And I tell you what, they hit a home run this year because I'm actually, as a, you know, economist and Fed president, I'm very interested in the dynamic of demographics, not just nationally, but internationally. There's things going on that you'll hear. and will be presented on Friday and Saturday that I think are going to really spur a lot of thinking and a lot of conversation about how demographic behaviors and movements move the workforce and labor force in the U.S. and abroad. So it is a, it's a tenuous eight months because you've got,

you know, Nobel-level economists doing the research and preparing these papers around a topic. And I think this one is really going to hit a really good chord. It is definitely a great topic for right now because of, you know, there's all the questions. You know, and here is just I'm talking U.S. specifically, but as you mentioned, it is a global story because there is aging and the effect that that's going to have on the workforce, and especially in many advanced economies and non-advanced economies, frankly. And then obviously AI is a huge one. And then in the U.S. specifically changing immigration policy and so forth. Just on the inside baseball part a little bit more. Okay.

So you establish the team establishes the theme. How do you then, like, figure out probably almost anyone, I assume, would say yes to an invite to present to Jackson Hole? But what is that actual process like where you identify the presenters that you're looking for? Yeah. So here again, as you can imagine, there's a community of economists and researchers, both nationally and abroad. While it's a big community, it's pretty connected. And so the team's going to get together and they're going to do a couple things. One is they're going to try to break down maybe inside the topic. What are some of the nuances of, because I think we have four papers that will be released on Friday and Saturday.

And so within that topic, there's subtopics. And so you're going to have researchers in university settings. You're going to have researchers inside of central banks. And a lot of that community is going to kind of focus itself on certain micro and macro topics. So they have a really good inventory. of experts that they'll reach out to. And I would say you're right. I mean, I think in most cases, the researchers would really covet the opportunity to do this research and submit the paper. But they're also very thoughtful about it. You know, some will just maybe not take the

engagement just because it's not well aligned to the research that they're either doing or they're they feel their experts have. But by and large, it's really a great honor. And we typically have a very positive response. The challenge is time. You know, a lot of these things might take a year or two to research, but they have a very tight window. Once they're asked and they agree, you know, they might have to submit within four or five months. And sometimes when you're talking about a very macro topic, that can be a super big challenge for a researcher. So speaking of challenges, why don't we get right into more of that theme, the idea of labor markets in transition? Why don't you go ahead and give us your sort of a high-level interest in this particular topic?

I guess how does something like AI, how does something like aging demographics, lower birth rates, actually complicate the task of setting monetary policy, especially when you think about things like the neutral rate of interest, R-Star. You know, R-Star is a nebulous concept at the best of times. I can only imagine what it's like trying to estimate our star at a time when we're also talking about, you know, AI potentially transforming the way everyone on Earth is working. Yeah. So let me kind of set the stage for this because first of all, my backgrounds, I'm a little bit of a hybrid Fed president. So you're going to typically have maybe Fed presidents that are in two different camps. One is going to be a traditional camp of economists, PhD, researcher, scholar, really focusing. attention on the monetary policy discussions relating their background to making good decisions at the policy table with the FOMC. The second is going to be more in my camp. I'm much more of a

practitioner, not a professor of economics. I mean, I've run banks. I've been a bank supervisor with the FDIC early in my career. I've done a little bit of leadership teaching at SMU the last couple of years. But I'll take my banker experiences through my 30 plus years. of building banks. The most important part of that is really the workforce of people that you put together. And through that 30 years, to your points, there's really two big drivers on the demographic end that are of interest to me. One is just the behavioral nature of the labor force generationally, how they're changing,

how they use technology. I'm a baby boomer. The 20 to 30 something coming in has a different sense of what the job is and how they're going to be successful at that work. The second thing is just, and there's a very compelling paper that's going to be released on that addresses things like fertility rates. And so that's not only a national, but that's an international phenomenon, is how does the labor force migrate, let's say in the U.S. state to state, what drives that migration of labor force? And then what's happening in other large labor-centric countries where the fertility rates are actually affecting,

the workforce going forward. I mean, China is a really stark example. Japan. India is something a country, I think everybody's really watching relative to how their labor force is maturing, educating, growing. I think all those dynamics are going to play a really important piece to the puzzle of where are things going to be made and how our economy is going to grow. because most economists and people in the markets would argue you've got to have a growing labor force for your economy to grow. And that probably gets to the next observation you made, I think, Tracy. And that's how does technology, maybe specifically artificial intelligence, weave its way into

this conversation. And you'll see some really good arguments about maybe the advent of AI is going to be perfectly timed for the nature of the labor force and how it's shifting, because overall, when you add fertility rates and you add labor market at large, it's pretty static. It's not growing in a big way. Probably the only areas that are growing significantly would be India and maybe the African continent. So all those things are going to play into this mix of both national and global labor force. So speak of technology, a couple weeks ago, we interviewed Fed President Mary Daley, She was talking about the iPhone, and for example, that the current iPhone can do so much more than the first iPhone, you know, however many years that go.

And then I thought of a follow-up question to that, but I forgot to ask her. So I'm like, okay, I'm just going to ask the next Fed president. So I'm asking you the question that I actually should be asking Mary Daley. I apologize for the unfairness. But I think this could inform the AI discussion, which is that we have seen already setting aside AI. These incredible tech advances, undeniable, that have changed. change the world, right? No one would deny that. And yet, measured productivity gains have not been particularly extraordinary. So if you look at like since the first iPhone or the from the

pre-Iphone era to now, the world's changed dramatically on account to the technology changes. And yet productivity, nothing particularly special, at least in the data. And I'm curious, like when you think about the effect of AI, do you have any sort of theory for why that is or why it is that these obvious technological breakthroughs haven't actually moved the dial in some of these important measures? Well, I have some personal thoughts, maybe some observations within the Fed itself, at least with the Kansas City Fed. One is just be patient.

A lot of things are happening. I think a lot of this technology is emerging. Now, granted, it'll go fast. But the adoption, I mean, even I think about the Kansas City Fair, itself, you know, getting comfortable with what's kind of embedded inside, let's say, the AI technology. You know, the thing I worry a lot about is just things like copyright laws. You know, we're sensitive to using that technology. And is it safe for us to use as we try to figure out ways to be more productive inside our bank? From a more macro standpoint, I think

everybody's trying to figure out, I would kind of categorize the AI phenomena today as kind of a low fruit to high fruit process. So what everybody's trying to do is say, what's the nature of things inside my job? They actually can make me more productive, just inherently more productive, whether it be narrative in a legal brief, or let's say taking a bank examination report and trying to download things that would normally take you hours or days to populate an examination report with. I think we're at that kind of crossroads where we're trying to figure out what's the easy low fruit. And then I think over time, I don't know if you're going to get this blast of productivity that all of a sudden it's this moment of epiphany. I think you're going to, I think it's actually

perfectly time because over time, I think you're going to be able to integrate this technology and you're going to figure out where it's best used. Now, granted, and people are doing studies on this, there are some jobs that I think, I'll get Mary Daily credit, she coined the phrase soul-sucking jobs. What are the things that people are, let's say, more monotonous or boring, or things that just don't move needles

that aren't like super interesting and challenging? And I think you're going to see that's going to be the part of the low fruit process. the upper half of the tree, I think you might see some real productivity gains. But in the end, when you see shifts in like immigration policy and you see workforce is not growing, you're actually going to need to integrate that technology to keep a balance in the supply and demand. I think Chair Powell mentioned this in his last conference after the FOMC when he was addressing some of the data that came out in the workforce in the summer.

and some of the adjustments that while it was a little bit eye-opening, we feel like there's a balancing and supply and demand of the labor force today. And it's probably why you're not seeing at least today a major uptick in the unemployment rate. It's kind of rebalancing itself going into the next couple quarters. This was going to be exactly my next question since you brought up immigration. Why don't you go ahead and tell us what you're seeing in the labor market right now? Because the debate that seems to be emerging is that, yes, we've seen these big revisions to payrolls recently. But on the other hand, if we have a lot of people exiting the workforce because they're aging out of it or because of new immigration policies, then maybe that break-even labor rate doesn't really matter as much anymore.

And we can tolerate it as long as the employment rate stays pretty strong. And we are pretty close to full employment levels still. So what are you seeing now? How would you characterize it? So Tracy, I would say that there was a bit of a convergence of things in the first and second quarter. So when we talk about being data dependent, there's two buckets of data that I really focus on. One is the kind of the hard data that's issued by third parties or internally by government agencies, things that would, that they track and have tracked for a long, long time that emerge with things like unemployment rates. The second bucket is really my travels in and around the, the 10th district. We're seven states, 20 million people and businesses trying to get four-cornered

in the district to try to get as much real-time information. And so the convergence, the way I see it, I think a couple of things were at odds in some of the information and data that emerged here in the last month or two. The first is that there was a lot, you know, we heard the word uncertainty everywhere we went. You got to change in administrations. You got some big policy. rocks, you had a budget that was being debated. All those things create uncertainty in a business person's mind, right? The second thing was a major change in immigration policy. And so that created its own set of uncertainties and dynamics. And I think what we're finding, or at least what we're seeing in the 10th district, is a lot of those things converged over a very short period

of time. And what normally will happen, and this kind of gets me back to my banker days, is businesses will actually, they'll slow their decisioning down. They'll, let's say, freeze hiring for a time. They'll be a little bit more conservative with their spend on certain things. And so I actually think that affected some of the labor numbers that came out. In the most recent tabletops we've done with businesses, they seem to be digesting a lot of that change and those changes. In the last couple weeks, I've seen a level of confidence back in both the business sectors and some of the discussions about labor and workforce. So we'll see. I mean, I would expect maybe a bit of a rebound in some of the labor statistics, but at the end of the day, it really is about balancing

the supply and demand of the labor force and what emergence from that over the next, I'd say, a couple of quarters. It's interesting you talk about maybe people feeling slightly more comfortable, relatively compared to the beginning of the year recently because I've seen some chatter about maybe an economic reacceleration right now. You know, some of the tariffs have now been finalized. It looks so far like we haven't had that huge inflationary uptick, although of course producer prices that we saw last week, maybe tell a slightly different story. We did have that retail spending report out on Friday that showed people were still spending quite a lot of money. Yeah. Do you see signs of sort of like recovery or reacceleration at the moment? I don't know. I mean, we got good GDP numbers,

kind of a bit of a rebound sling back in the second quarter from the first quarter's weakness, and that had a lot of noise in it the first quarter. I think, I don't know if I necessarily categorize it as a rebound. I think there's a lot of things that are kind of working themselves through. I mean, you've got a major, major cycle change with a new administration, with a lot of really very interesting macro ideas that they're putting in place. And, you know, I think you could make a fair argument that a lot of those are pro-growth types of policies and processes and programs. So I think the nature of what we see in both the labor data and the inflation data are going to be

pretty interesting. And there's a lot yet to emerge between even this week and our September FOMC meeting. But I think the nature. of how people are thinking about the economy, what the markets are how they're performing. There is an optimism, I think, shift from, it wasn't that they were down in the first couple quarters. They just weren't sure. And so there was some pausing happening. And then I think we're sensing that the nature of the next couple cycles as we get into the holiday seasons toward the end of the year, there just seems to be a pretty good optimism about what's going to happen.

in the next couple quarters. Let me ask you a question about the latest jobs report that actually sort of ties near-term cyclical story with the broader terms theme of the conference, which is that the two sectors that basically, in the most recent jobs report, the two sectors that basically added all of the jobs were health care and social assistance. And these sectors basically add employment virtually every month without fail. And it's very easy to connect that to aging because people who are elderly or retire need a certain type of nurses and so to take care of them.

But these aren't considered to be particularly high productivity jobs. Looking in the medium term, do you worry about this, like how much of the productive labor force will be necessary to essentially take care of old people and what that means for productivity overall? So when we kind of interview a lot of our health care professionals in the district, there is still a huge demand need. in that sector. And so I think there's a big up potential in specifically in the health care industry. And here again, I'm a baby boomer. So I'm using more of those services. And as you do experience that,

you do see that there's a real demand need for health care professionals in kind of all spectrums of that industry. And so I do think that there are pockets by industry that could still use a lot of labor talent. I'd say health care, certain agricultural industries in the 10th district. There's certainly some technology at manufacturing that I think you could see a bit of nice growth in over the next several quarters. So I think what's going to be interesting and kind of getting a little bit back to the AI conversation is I think the nature of jobs inside industries is going to change. So we talk a little bit about this in the Reserve Bank. is we just launched a new five-year strategic plan.

And embedded in the plan is really to re-explore the skill sets that are necessary to make this plan happen. And I think the things that we used to be doing the last five or ten years need to be shifted to something else to stay a high-performing reserve bank. So I do believe in a lot of these industry areas with, I think, health care being at the top of the list. I think you're going to see a re-skilling in a lot of these job areas as some of the jobs that can be done by a more artificial intelligence technology are going to shift to much more, let's say, intellectual or behavioral-based job skills going forward. So I think here again, I think that's the message I give to our business associates in the 10th district is tell us how you're reskilling your workforce.

Because I think that's where AI is going to really play a big role. You can't be static in the job you're doing. You have to reimagine that job with new technologies. You know, you mentioned markets earlier. And clearly there's a lot of enthusiasm about AI still in the markets. And that's one of the reasons we've seen stocks, you know, hovering around all-time highs. And credit spreads are now at, what, like a 30-year low, basically. talk to us about where you see rates at the moment in terms of their restrictiveness.

Because some of your fellow Fed presidents will say that they think rates are still restrictive. And then when I look at something like credit spreads at, you know, a three-decade low, I think actually this doesn't look that restrictive to me. And with inflation still above target. And with inflation still above target. How restrictive are rates at the moment? Yeah, it's a great question. And I've been very public.

I believe they're, I would call them modestly restrictive. They're not overly restrictive. And I think that what we have to be careful of is kind of rebasing our decisioning on rates. And I think the markets do this because, look, I'm a former banker. Bankers and bank clients, they love low credit rates. They like lower rates because they can perform better on their capital base. So I understand that piece. But I think we talk about being range bound to a degree.

I like to think about, you know, I love the 90s, right? So if you think about how hard the 80s were, as we emerged into the 90s, we had a technology surge. And if you watched or looked at the nature of the economy, it performed really well, but there were, monetary policy became a bit of a wave. So you would start to make decisions where if you saw things happening in either the, you know, your dual mandate, you're, you know, keeping stable prices and full employment, you would adjust that policy rate.

And when things got maybe a little bit hotter and then as they cooled, you'd bring them down. But it was a nice range bound process. For me, the experience of the last, let's say, two or three shocks, so you had the 08 shock, you had the 2020 pandemic shock, you know, you're pushing rates down to de minimis levels. You probably don't want rates down there that low because if they're down there that low, you're trying to pick something off its back. And so you're trying to create a rate environment to create stimulus. So I think right now we seem to be in a really good place.

And so, you know, it almost becomes more difficult in the debate on rates, whether they should be higher or lower, when you're at the margin, versus when you're trying to use monetary policy as more of a blunt force instrument to try to pound a high inflation rate down like we did in the 22, 23 cycle. So it's actually going from kind of a blunt force tool to actually more surgical. And then the debate gets very interesting about where that you should turn those dials relative to the data that you're seeing. So it actually becomes it more difficult when you get on the margin in that rangebound area

versus when you're trying to really sledge the economy on the inflation side down. So Tracy mentioned that estimating the neutral rate of interest is a sort of difficult concept in any period. But there is this view that the neutral rate of interest today in 2025 is significantly higher than it was in 2019. And probably some of the best evidence for that is the fact that even though the market is anticipating rate cuts in the short term over the next couple of years, that the long-term rates still fairly elevated, curve-steepen, higher rates for longer.

What changed? What's the difference between 2025 and 2019, such that it looks like the neutral rate of interest is so much durably higher? Yeah, Joe, this is really interesting science. With the policy side of our mandate, we have some influence on the short end of the curve, right? So taking the long end, And the whole concept of the long rate, it has what we call term premiums in it, right? And you have to kind of sub. Joe doesn't believe in the term premium for the record. But I do. I don't know if I believe in it.

But I think there are pieces of a long rate that have sections of it that the market is going to try to digest. Can I just say Tracy thinks that I have a complete crank. But every once in a while we get a guest who's like, no, there's something to Joe. No, no, no. Every once we get a guest who will say, you know, it's a nuanced thing, which it is. We all agree. All right. Keep going. Keep going. Okay. So what I try, what I'm trying to do with, let's say the concept of the long end of the curve is you've got issues of, okay, some of the markets going to say they're going to be influenced by the prospect of inflation because you have to build a price into the long rate for inflation. Some of them are going to say it's a demand and supply issue with the debt that's trying to be. finance, both government and private debt. The nature of that long rate, there's pieces of it that are going to influence it. It's interesting, you know, I talk about the Fed balance sheet quite a bit. It's hard to second guess what we did in the 08 and 2020 cycle with our balance sheet relative

to trying to keep the long rate somewhat in submission. So actually the duration of our balance sheet is influencing the long rate to some extent. which I think is in a positive way. So when you think about it, the Treasury duration is about four or five years. Our balance sheet's about a little over eight years in duration. So that's that quantitative twisting that people talk about. So we're actually influencing the long rate a little bit in our balance sheet in a positive way.

But I think over time, as long as the market believes that debt can be financed, and there's not a lot of inflation expectation, you're seeing a long end of the curve drift downward. So I'm going to go to what I think, you know, what is maybe the hot button topic of the moment. The formal theme of this year's Jackson Hole is, of course, about the labor market and various trends. The subtext theme, and I think this is going to be a lot of interest, is the attacks on the Fed and concerns about central bank independence. Just to your point about what's driving that long end of the curve, if there are concerns that the political will is no longer there to keep an independent central bank, if there are concerns that in the future, that the Fed will

more be at the beck and call of elected officials, could that also be a factor in driving up the long end of the curve as investors may rationally presume that a future Fed may not be as committed to stable prices as the current Fed? Wow, that's a, that's deep, Joe. actually there's so much there's such an onion in what I know I know but I'm trying but so strip away all of my throat clearing which I felt was necessary if there is concern that there is no longer the political will to maintain an independent central bank that there is concern that a future Fed may not be as committed to inflation fighting as it ought to be to keep that 2% goal could that be a factor driving up rates at the long end peel the onion for us we have time okay so the quick answer is I I don't know. I guess I wouldn't, I don't see or hear that. Acknowledge the debate, Joe. And I believe, look, our country's going to be 250 years old next year. It's still the great experiment. It's built on legislation.

And what's fascinating to me is the issue of Fed independence, it's codified, right? So, you know, we have a mandate. It's legislative. That that legislative authority can shift and change, but it's hard to argue the efficacy of the independence piece. I mean, I think there's a bit of perfection in me being able to go to a table with 18 other really committed and bright people to try to keep this economy on a level rail. I talk to people about the economy being this big, very massive train, the largest most powerful economic train in the world, $30 trillion, and you've got administration and a Congress that really is running the train. The American people are riding on that train.

Now, for the Fed, the Fed is not the train. The Fed is actually the rails. It simplifies to me to think about the two rails being stable prices and full employment. And for us, it's really, it helps us not to have to worry about the market or the politic of things to try to keep the rail steady and level. So that train can go fast. And so the nature of what we do in those two rails and the decisioning we do is really more balancing than it is trying to shoot towards some predetermined place.

We know 2% is a good place to be for inflation. I think time has tested that. We know full employment is a really very positive. friction to the stable price mandate. So kind of getting back to the independence saying, healthy friction in the conversation just makes the republic stronger, in my opinion. So I'm happy with the debate. I'm happy to express it, but frankly, it's less important that I express it as what you and your listeners believe that independence does to the decisioning of that massive economy. I think it works. I think you see other countries that disentangle it to the body politic.

And I think it's very difficult to keep economies level set when you don't have that independence piece. Well, on this topic, let me ask, I guess, a blunter independence question. Because Joe's right that this is, you know, this is the unofficial theme of the conference, I think. And you yourself have previously stressed the importance of Fed independence. So are there steps that the Fed should be taking in order to, you know, not necessarily improve its independence or even protect its independence, but to convince people like us and the markets that it is truly making decisions independently? So the proof is in the pudding about, you know, how is our policy action affecting the level setting

of those rails? And so, look, we should be held. to task, that are we making decisions that are rationalized on sound data and that they are in compliance with the congressional mandates that we have? And so we are kind of duty bound to that framework. And so I would say there's a measure of perfection in the fact that even in the Fed structure where you've got seven board of governors and 12 Reserve Bank presidents where the nature of just how those individuals are seated with, let's say, Senate confirmation, a White House nomination for the Board of Governors,

and then the 12 Reserve Banks having their own in-market, in-district boards that really kind of act as a ballast to the whole independence architecture. So I actually think that the nature of how it was structured in 1913 is still effective today. We're just continuing to learn about how to make policy. better relative to what to the cycles in the economy. Think about the 20s and 30s. Think about the 1970s and 80s cycle. We're still learning as a body to get this right because we've got this amazing economy, 30 trillion of 100 trillion. And if we're healthy, the globe can be healthy. And that's the way I see our role. And that's why I think independence matters.

All right, I have another question that I forgot to ask Mary Daly. And now it's and I've been thinking about it and I was like, okay, now you're here. At the most recent Fed decision, there were two dissents, which is not crazy. Decents happen, but they're like fairly rare, et cetera. Why are dissents rare? How would you articulate why dissents are rare? Because I think this again could be relevant in the future, depending on who the next Fed share is. are they rare because generally speaking, you and your colleagues roughly arrive at the same

view of what's appropriate policy, or are they rare because historically, when there is some marginal difference, the regional Fed presidents and the other governors tend to defer to the judgment of the chair? Yeah, I love that question. And so I maybe frame it in a couple ways. One is, I think in a lot of ways to censor healthy, I think there are times when we're we we get kind of criticizes being kind of fed speak, you know, that they're always aligned. And that doesn't make sense. One, two is rare. Sometimes there's one frequently is there.

So what's the reason why, generally speaking, they are pretty rare? So here again, we're at the margin on things like the policy rate today. So the data could shift people's opinions one way the other on the dual mandate relative to their vote on dissent or not. So I think the two dissents were fairly rational public statements about concern about the labor market and the labor force. There was great debate. And so you're trying to figure out where do you settle on the debate. The other influence really is the chair. I've worked with Jerome Powell for a couple of years now. He's a principled. He's committed. I think he appreciates in his background and experience trying to collaborate with people at the table to get a sense of where they are in their opinions of where the economy is and where the policy rate should be.

And I've really enjoyed working with them. And we don't always agree. But the nature of once you get to the table, you've got to make a decision. And I think that you just have to have good data, good background, good discussions. your district about where do you think that the policy rate should go. And so I think it really does, it's healthy discussion. And at times, I suppose it's going to be a vote of dissent at a time or two. But we're in the margin play now relative to where that policy rate should be. Okay. So speaking of where the policy rate should go and healthy discussion,

obviously there's a lot of stuff happening between now and the September meeting. We have the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium itself. We have a, a couple more big data points. What specific data or developments would signal to you that perhaps it is time to start, you know, really thinking or advocating for that rate cut? What are you watching out for? Yeah, so I'd be watching what a lot of us watch, you know, some of the inflation data, there's quite a bit of it going to come out in the next four or five weeks.

Certainly, we're going to be very determined to network our inside the 10th district about what's happening inside labor. the workforce, just try to get a better beat on where unemployment is and supply and demand, where that is. So I think those are the principal data points. Then I think that that's what's beautiful about the Jackson Hole timing. I think there's going to be a lot of discussion, not just domestically, but internationally. I mean, we've got 150 people, experts in their own rights, central bankers, some of those most amazing economists on the globe, all four corners. just to get a calibration of where everybody is just globally.

And I think we'll be able to emerge with solid decisioning in September. We'll see where that goes. Like I said, when I put everything in the basket, it just seems like we're in a pretty good place right now. But look, that data can shift and change. And we're in kind of, as I mentioned, kind of the nuance of the range of where we want to be with policy rate. and we'll see where it goes in September. My last question is, and it's basically just a restatement of Tracy's earlier question, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

You know, Americans have experienced years of above target inflation. It's still running a little warm. As Tracy mentioned, stock markets at all time high. Credit spreads very low. And again, inflation still warm. And you also say that you think the labor market is all right. It's fine and that maybe businesses have a little of confidence. Just articulate.

What is it therefore that's restrictive or even modestly restrictive about the current stance? Well, so you're, I think you're a lot of, how do you demonstrate that it's restrictive? Yeah, yeah. So, so look, there's a lot of market opinion about kind of the nature of where the policy rate is to say, let's say where the two-year treasury is. And just the, you know, everybody has kind of the, they go back to this whole neutral rate conversation. Right. Which I think has some value. I mean, the R-star processes of value. There's going to be some really interesting discussion on the Taylor Rule.

I mean, some of the Taylor Rule dated today would suggest that maybe rates ought to be a little higher. So we're going to, I think we're going to really bear down on the nature of how restrictive things might be. But to your point, Joe, with all the data sets that you just espoused, along with the dual mandate data sets, it just seems like we're in a pretty good place. I don't think we should not talk about would there be a scenario where rates could go higher on the policy side. The PPI was a bit eye-opening.

We'll see where the CPE comes in later here in August and September. Not that necessarily it needs to go higher, but you have to be willing to anchor yourself inside those mandates. So if in fact you see something that needs more restriction, you shouldn't be unafraid to act. That's our job. So we'll see.

But right now it seems like we're in a good place. By the way, we brought that policy rate down 100 basis points since a year ago. So it's not like we haven't moved it. And the yield curve seems to be in a pretty good place too. And so I don't know. I like what I'm seeing right now with a bit of caution on let's just keep our eye on this inflation number as they emerge. So I have one more question because I realize it would be bad if we had you on and we

didn't ask you at least one banking question given your previous career history. But the other forgotten theme of our macroeconomic policy moment is quantitative tightening, right? QT is still going on in the background and reason. Recently, we've seen use of the RRP, the repo facility, going to less than 50 billion. And so people are talking again about are we getting to a point where we are going to see bank reserves start to drop and maybe they will become scarce. I know the Fed has been watching this. Is funding on your radar at the moment?

Is there a possibility that we do start to see some signs of additional stress in the funding market? Okay. So I would say that right now there's a, I think, of general consensus that we are in an abundant reserves policy framework. But there's also debate on both the size of the Fed balance sheet and the size of the reserves in the system. There's actually actually very good debate relative to the cost or non-cost of ample or abundant reserves in the system. Is it, does it create an inefficiency? Does it create too much of a footprint of the Fed into

to the markets. I will say that I'm encouraged that we're in a project now that's, I think, going to modernize the discount window process. So I think there's an opportunity where the Fed, as the nation central bank, can make the activities inside the discount window much more fungible and much easier for banks to access. And I think you could start to see in future years where reserves and discount window act or react in a positive way, where you can actually see a smaller footprint of reserves where banks are much more comfortable having the backstop and having a much, much easier way to access reserves through the discount window and other tools as a way to make the market comfortable that there's plenty of liquidity

in the system. So I'm excited about that. It's very timely that we do that, because here again, two years ago, we launched Fed Now. So I think what's the other fascinating thing about the ecosystem of banking is we are moving to an instant payment economy. I mean, you're starting to see even businesses start to think about paying people every day, you know, and just the nature of how we move money instantly, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The nature of that is really going to be a very interesting dynamic. And it's going to be necessary for the central bank to be accommodative to the immediacy of that money movement. And so I'm excited about some of the conversations we're having to make that, to make our system of money movement much more modern.

All right. Well, Jeff, we're going to have to end it there. We could go on forever, but we'll save some of it for in person at Jackson Hole, I suppose. Oh, great. Thank you. I really look forward to that. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. for coming on and giving us a preview and we'll see you in Wyoming. Very welcome. See you there. There was a lot to pick out of that conversation. And it was a really good preview of, I think, what's going to be like hot button topics at the event itself. But one sentence kind of jumped out at both of us, I think, which is the idea that, well, you know, there are scenarios where interest rates, you could argue interest rates should be higher here. Yeah, that was a little bit interesting.

And he phrased it in an interesting way. And I have to, like, go back to the tape because it was like, I think a double negative in there. But, I mean, look, you said it. Stocks are record high. Credit spreads are record low. He characterized maybe we've already seen the worst of the labor market momentum for 2025 with the unemployment rate still in the low fours. And inflation is still warm. Well, I know he also, he pushed back on the specific use of economic reacceleration, that word. But it is true. We have seen, in addition to some of the data like turning negative or showing a slowdown, we have seen some of the. We have seen some. of the data start to tick up, at least compared to, like, recent months. So this is an interesting thing. We got that recent jobs report and you say, oh, we're like slowing down. But when we did our recent episode with Scanda, he made the good point. Like, well, actually, maybe that data was weak because that was the immediate post-tariff volatility and you slam the brakes on the hiring and so forth. And assuming that the uncertainty

measures have come down certainly since the middle of April, it is plausible that we've already the softest labor market of 2025. Anyway, lots of interesting there. And I think, like, it's a really good theme. I mean, it's a good theme for this year's conference because it does feel like some of the things that are happening immediately right now also intersect with long-term themes.

And so there's a lot of moving parts. It's one of those conference themes that is not just, like, theoretical, you know, 10 or 20 years in the distance. It's sort of like, it's very much now. And on that note, you know, we're going to have some good episodes that we record with people who are presenting papers on those topics.

Yes, very excited. So listeners should be prepared for much Jackson Hole content to come. Yeah, all right. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Pondcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our producers. Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armid. Dashel Bennett and Dashbot at Kail Brooks and Kail Brooks. For more OddLod's content, go to Bloomberg.com slash OddLots. for the Daily Newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.g slash oddlots.

And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we go to Jackson Hole, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes, absolutely add free. All you have to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.