September 2024 FOMC Debrief with Jack Farley of Monetary Matters

Welcome to my brand new show, monetary matters. We are beginning it on a historic day, Wednesday, September 18th. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates by 50 basis points. It started off with a strong double interest rate cuts. And the last time they started a cycle with interest rate cut, I believe was 2007. And I have a perfect guest. I'm going to be speaking with Joseph Wang, who on my previous show for guidance, where some of you may know both of us from, Joseph led us that he did right by me and our viewers served us well in terms of being a guide on what the Federal Reserve would do.

欢迎来到我的全新节目《货币事务》。今天是一个历史性时刻，我们在9月18日星期三开始播出。美联储刚刚将利率下调了50个基点。这次行动以强劲的双重降息开局。而上一次他们启动降息周期，我记得是在2007年。我邀请了一位非常合适的嘉宾，他是Joseph Wang。曾经在我之前的节目《指引》中，一些观众可能认识我们两人。当时，Joseph为我和我们的观众提供了很多关于美联储动向的指导，可以说他非常称职。

J. Powell just spoke. So we have a lot to get to. Now, welcome to monetary matters. VCB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough. Thank you. Let's close the door. All right, I'm here with Joseph Wang from FedGuy.com. Joseph was a senior trader for the New York Federal Reserve and is an expert on all things Fed. Joseph, what did you make of today's Fed meeting, the 50 basis point cut, the dot plot from the summary of economic projections, as well as the press conference? Well, first off, Jack, congratulations. I love the intro. And I learned so much and forward guidance. I'm so glad I've subscribed to your channel. And it's an honor to be the first guest here. Now going to the Fed, well, you know, this is actually the most exciting Fed meeting we've had in some time. As we've discussed before, the Fed doesn't like to surprise the markets. So every time we have a Fed meeting, it's well-telegraphed in advance what the Fed will do. And people thought that this one would be the case as well.

J. Powell 刚刚发表了讲话。所以我们有很多内容需要讨论。现在，欢迎来到货币事务的世界。VCB（欧洲央行）已经准备好采取一切必要措施来维护欧元。相信我，这将足够了。谢谢大家。我们把门关上吧。好的，我今天和来自FedGuy.com的Joseph Wang在一起。Joseph曾是纽约联邦储备银行的高级交易员，是关于联邦储备所有事务的专家。Joseph，你对今天的美联储会议有何看法，对50个基点的降息、经济预测摘要中的点图以及记者招待会有何评论？首先，Jack，恭喜你。我喜欢这个开场白，并且学到了很多关于前瞻性指引的知识。我很高兴订阅了你的频道，并且很荣幸成为你这里的第一个嘉宾。现在谈到美联储，你知道，这实际上是我们最近一段时间最令人兴奋的美联储会议之一。正如我们之前讨论的那样，美联储并不喜欢让市场感到意外。所以每次美联储会议之前，都提前透露了美联储将要采取的行动。而大家认为这次也不例外。

So heading into the Fed's blackout period, which is the period where the Fed speakers no longer make public statements, the market was pricing in about a 25 basis point cut today. Now that was based on Governor Waller and President Williams, open to large cuts, but not really pushing for them. Now, a few days before, there was some news reports that suggest that maybe the Fed is more inclined for 50 basis points than the market was pricing in and immediately the market left into action and began pricing in a pretty high probability of a face to be basis point cut. Now today, you know, the Fed delivered and it wasn't a short thing. We were pricing in 40 basis points, but the Fed did deliver 50 basis point cut. So that was boom, the beginning of the cutting cycle as Chair Powell promised since his Jackson Hole speech, the time has come, but also a larger than expected, a larger than usual cut. Now what's said out to me though, was the rationale for the cut. So why is the Fed suddenly cutting in such a big way? Now, Chair Powell seems to point towards the labor market. So over the past few years, inflation has been the Fed's primary problem. Inflation was much higher than 2%. But over the past few months, it's gone down a lot. But what's gone up a lot is the unemployment rate. So more recently, we're at 4.2%, but before that, we were at 4.3%. And that seems to be too high for comfort. Now, the Fed has been looking at a lot of indicators in the labor market from the Beige book, from the most recently revisions where we found out that the jobs created last year were actually, let's say we revised away about a million jobs. And so the labor market was not a strong looking at other survey data, looking at, for example, the Challenger survey and so forth. It seems like the labor market really is weakening. And so it seems like the Fed is trying to get ahead of what could potentially be a recession and try to cut rates by a lot. Now, looking at the DOP plot, what really stood out to me was that the Fed notably revised up its unemployment rate going forward. So that again, confirms that they think that the labor market is going to weaken more for the next actually several months. And so they want to be in a position to support that in the event that we do go into recession. I think that's the point I want to hammer home for the audience is that the Fed Reserve is concerned about the labor market. They're never going to use the word concern or worry. They prefer to say it's something that they're watching very closely. And that is the key point.

接下来进入美联储的静默期，期间美联储官员不再发表公开声明，市场预期今天会有大约25个基点的降息。这基于美联储理事沃勒和纽约联储主席威廉姆斯的态度，他们对大幅降息持开放态度，但实际上并未大力推动。几天前，有新闻报道暗示，美联储倾向于50个基点的降息幅度，而不是市场预期的25个基点。这导致市场迅速反应，开始预期有相当高的概率出现50个基点的降息。今天，美联储如期降低了利率，幅度达到50个基点，远超40个基点的市场预期。这标志着降息周期的开始，正如鲍威尔主席在杰克逊霍尔的讲话中承诺的那样，这一时刻已经到来，并且降息幅度比预期的和以往的都要大。 让我印象深刻的是降息的理由。那么，美联储为什么突然大幅度降息呢？鲍威尔主席似乎指向了劳动力市场。过去几年里，通胀一直是美联储的主要问题，通胀率远高于2%。但在过去几个月里，通胀已经大幅下降，失业率却大幅上升。最近，我们的失业率为4.2%，之前是4.3%。这个数字显然高于美联储的舒适区间。 美联储通过《褐皮书》和最新的修正数据，发现去年创造的就业岗位实际上被削减了大约100万个，从而劳动力市场看起来并不强劲。结合其他调查数据，例如Challenger调查等，显示出劳动力市场确实在走弱。因此，美联储似乎在试图提前应对可能出现的经济衰退，通过大幅降息来支持经济。 展望未来，美联储显著上调了失业率的预期，这再次证实他们认为未来几个月劳动力市场会进一步走弱。因此，他们希望在经济进入可能的衰退时处于支持经济的有利位置。我要强调的是，美联储在意的是劳动力市场。他们不会使用“担忧”或“担心”这样的字眼，而是更倾向于说这是他们“高度关注”的事情，这才是关键点。

But I'm surprised to say, Joseph, that you thought that they so they did revise the unemployment rate up in terms of projections. But I thought surprised to hear you say that you think that they surprised them up by a lot because I was struck by how little they revised them up because the unemployment rate has gone up from a single month from 4.1% to 4.3%. That's actually less than 20 basis points if you go into the second base extra decimal point. But like, let's look up here the first red box. So in June, they were projecting by the end of the year it to be 4.0%. And you're right. So they revised it up from 4.0% to 4.4%. But the actual unemployment rate has gone up from 4.1% to 4.3%. And in June, it could have been at 4.0%. I don't recall to be honest. But to me, Joseph, these unemployment rates forecast seems quite low. So basically, what they're forecasting is that the maximum unemployment rate for this entire cycle is going to be only 10 basis points higher, which to me seems like it's a pretty, they're taking a lot for granted. I mean, I think that if the unemployment goes to 5% and it peaks at 5%, I think that would be great for the economy in terms of it not going higher because still 5% is a decent labor market. And then we can start a new cycle. And that's great. I think, do you agree with me that the Fed is taking stuff for granted or no?

但我很惊讶，约瑟夫，你认为他们确实在预测中上调了失业率。但我感到惊讶的是，你认为他们上调得很多，因为我震惊于他们上调得如此之少。失业率仅从一个月的4.1%上升到4.3%。如果精确到小数点后第二位，这其实不到20个基点。但让我们来看这里的第一个红框。所以在6月，他们预测年末的失业率会是4.0%。你是对的，他们确实从4.0%上调到4.4%。但实际的失业率仅从4.1%升到了4.3%。我不记得在6月预测值是否是4.0%。但对我来说，约瑟夫，这些失业率的预测似乎相当低。所以基本上，他们预测整个周期内最高的失业率仅会上升10个基点，这对我来说，似乎他们在冒很大风险。比如说，如果失业率上升到5%并在5%见顶，我认为对经济来说是好事，因为5%仍然是一个不错的劳动力市场，然后我们就可以开始一个新的周期了。你是否同意我认为美联储有些掉以轻心，还是不同意呢？

Well, Jack, you're absolutely right. I think the Fed has trouble to forecast that recession, right? So now to be clear, the Fed was forecasting 4.0% in June. And as you mentioned, it's at about 4.2%, 4.3%. So they were already forecasting too low on unemployment rate back then. And now they could, with their 4.4%, forecast, that could still be too low, right? So as we know from the sound deadly rule, when the unemployment rate goes up, it tends to exhibit upward momentum. So what seems to happen is that when some people lose their jobs, then more people, then there's a lot less demand, a lot less spending. That means other people lose their jobs. And so there's this nonlinear impact historically, not necessarily always the case historically, that unemployment rate tends to rise faster. And so the Fed could be behind in their, the Fed's projections could be too low again, and they could be surprised again.

好吧，杰克，你说得完全正确。我认为美联储在预测经济衰退方面有困难，对吧？现在需要明确的是，美联储在六月时预测失业率为4.0%。正如你所提到的，目前失业率约为4.2%至4.3%。所以当时他们对失业率的预测已经偏低了。而现在，即使他们最新的4.4%的预测可能依然过低，对吧？根据一个常识性的规则，当失业率上升时，它往往会表现出上升的趋势。看起来的情况是，当一些人失业后，会导致更多的人失业，因为需求和消费大幅减少。这意味着其他人也会失业。因此，从历史上看，失业率往往会以更快的速度上升，这并不总是如此，但在历史上确实有这种非线性影响。所以，美联储的预测可能再次过低，他们可能会再次感到意外。

Now, one other thing I'll note, and Chair Powell noted this as well, is that this time, one thing that's different this time, is that part of the reason we have a higher unemployment rate is because we have more labor supply. As we know, there's a lot of more migration. And if you add a lot more people looking for jobs, that will mechanically drive up the unemployment rate. So there's some caution in looking at that. It could be a little different.

现在，我还要注意一点，鲍威尔主席也提到了这一点，这次与以往不同的一个方面是，这次失业率较高的部分原因是劳动力供应增加了。我们知道，现在有很多移民。如果有更多的人在找工作，失业率自然会上升。所以在看待这个问题时需要谨慎一些，这次的情况可能会有所不同。

Joseph, we're going to get into your views. You've been a massive bull on stocks, which has obviously been the correct place to be. Your most recent article on FedGuy.com says that actually a large rate cut, such as the one that we had 50 basis point cut actually might not be good, so good for stocks. So I'm just going to tease that for the audience. But I want to ask you, Joseph, about something closer to home, which is the fact that you and I most people, almost everybody woke up today, perhaps even the Federal Reserve woke up today, not knowing what the Federal Reserve would do.

Joseph，我们来谈谈你的观点。你一直是股票的坚定看好者，显然这是正确的选择。你在FedGuy.com上最近的一篇文章中指出，大幅度降息，比如最近进行的50个基点降息，实际上可能对股票不利，所以我先给观众留个悬念。但我想先问你一个更贴近我们的话题，那就是你我以及几乎所有人今天醒来时，甚至可能包括美联储，都不知道美联储会做些什么。

Every single Federal Reserve meeting, the FOMC meeting that I can remember, Joseph, that I've been covering, has the day I woke up, I knew what they would do. And people paying attention, it wasn't that hard to know what they would do, because you just had to look at the forward market pricing. The Chicago market title exchange has a forecaster, and I would say in 2022, a 98% chance of a 75 basis point hike and a 2% chance of a 50 basis point hike. And obviously, you've got to go at the 98%. And that was never, never wrong. This is the only time that I can remember.

每一场美联储会议，也就是我能记得的每一次联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）会议，约瑟夫，我报道过的，每当我醒来的那天，我就知道他们会做什么。对于那些关注市场的人来说，知道他们会做什么并不难，因为你只需要看看远期市场定价。芝加哥市场交易所（Chicago Mercantile Exchange）有一个预测工具，我会说在2022年，有98%的可能性加息75个基点，而有2%的可能性加息50个基点。显然，你得相信那98%的可能性。而且这个预测从来，没有一次是错的。这是我能记得的唯一一次。

And I'm sure that we woke up this morning and it was pricing in maybe a 55% chance of a 50 basis point hike, a 45% chance of a single basis point cut. I said hike, I meant cut, sorry. We are at the beginning of a rate cutting cycle. We just got out of the hiking cycle. So everyone please bear with me. And when is the last time that you remember that Fed watchers woke up today being uncertain and short term industries traders woke up today being uncertain? And why do you think that is the case?

我确信我们今天早上醒来时，市场预期可能有55%的概率会降息50个基点，有45%的概率会仅降息一个基点。我刚才说加息，其实是指降息，对不起。我们现在刚进入一个降息周期，刚刚结束了加息周期，所以请大家理解。你还能记得上一次美联储观察者和短期行业交易员在早上醒来时感到不确定是什么时候吗？你认为为什么会这样？

I learned from you that Jay Powell likes to let the market know what is going to happen. That is the essence of forward guidance. He doesn't really like surprises. So is it a change of philosophy on that? Oh, actually, let's leave the market guessing because they've been pampered with all this information and forward guidance. Or is it that actually there is severe disagreement at the FOMC, the doves and the hawks are fighting? And that is why we had a dissent from Governor Bowman, which is the first dissent from a FOMC governor, board of governors, since I believe 2005.

我从你那儿了解到杰伊·鲍威尔喜欢让市场知道将会发生什么。这就是前瞻性指引的本质。他不太喜欢给市场带来意外。所以这是他理念的改变吗？哦，其实是让市场去猜测，因为他们已经被这些信息和前瞻性指引宠坏了。还是说，其实在联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）内有严重分歧，鸽派和鹰派在争斗？这也是为什么我们看到鲍曼委员的反对意见，这是自2005年以来首次有FOMC委员提出反对。

Yeah, no, I don't think it's a change in communication. So as you note, the Fed, the modern Fed doesn't like to surprise markets. And once upon a time, the Fed did surprise markets, famously back in the days of Greenspan, the Fed would do something. And market participants wouldn't actually know if they hiked or cut. They would actually have to look closely into the interest rate markets. And some central banks today still like to surprise the market.

是的，不，我不认为这是沟通方式的改变。正如你所指出的，现代美联储（联邦储备系统）不喜欢让市场感到惊讶。曾经，美联储确实会让市场措手不及。尤其是在格林斯潘时代，美联储会采取一些行动，而市场参与者其实不知道他们是加息还是降息，必须仔细观察利率市场，才能弄明白。而今天，一些央行仍然喜欢让市场感到意外。

The Swiss National Bank, for example, more recently, just, you know, what would change their currency policy, catch a lot of people off sides and basically shrug their shoulders and say, I forgot to tell you. But the Fed is not like that. Now, the reason why that there was uncertainty heading into this decision is because I think that the Fed themselves didn't know. Now, the FOMC likes to have consensus. So notice that very, very almost all the time there's unanimous agreement on their decisions.

例如，瑞士国家银行最近在改变货币政策时，没有提前通知，导致很多人措手不及，然后基本上就是一摊手，说，哦，我忘了告诉你们了。但美联储不是这样的。这次决策前的不确定性，是因为我认为美联储自己也不确定。联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）喜欢达成共识，所以你会注意到他们的决策几乎总是全体一致同意的。

Now, the way that this is achieved is that there is a lot of lobbying that goes down behind the scenes. So, Chair Powell, as you said before, has numerous conferences with all the FOMC members before the meeting. So he wants to walk into that room having a good idea of what the decision will be. He doesn't want to be surprised. But for this particular meeting, though, you could have a good case for 50 basis point cut and you could have a good case for 25 basis point cut. And he just wasn't sure what the committee would decide.

现在，这种情况的实现方式是，有很多幕后游说在进行。所以，正如你之前所说的，鲍威尔主席在开会前与所有联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）成员进行了多次会议。他希望在进入那个房间时，已经对决策有了一个很好的预估，他不想被意外所困扰。但是，对于这次特别的会议来说，既可以有充足的理由支持降息50个基点，也可以有充分的理由支持降息25个基点。而他并不确定委员会会作出什么决定。

So heading into blackout period. So I think that's the reason why that he also allowed news stories to leak that it could be 50 because he wanted to prepare the market to know that they're not really sure what. So the market shouldn't be so sure about 25 basis points.

所以进入禁言期。我认为这就是为什么他也允许一些消息走漏，说可能会是加息50个基点，因为他想要让市场知道他们并不确定。所以市场不应该对加息25个基点太确定。

Now, as you note, Jack, we had one dissent this time. It's the first governor Bowman dissentage. It's the first time a governor descended since 2005. Now, Governor Bowen is a noted hawk. I actually think she's the most hawkish person on the FOMC. So it's not surprising that she would be the person who dissented. Now, when the Fed, when Paul was asked about the degree of agreement on the FOMC, I think that he suggested there was broad agreement. So my sense is that although Bowman was the only person who openly dissented, I think it took some politicking to get everyone on board. So there's probably a few others who were reluctantly voted for the 50 basis point cut.

好的，Jack，正如你所提到的，这次有一位反对者。这是Bowman州长第一次表示反对，也是自2005年以来首次有州长在FOMC上的反对。Bowman州长是著名的"鹰派"，我实际上认为她是FOMC中最"鹰派"的人。所以，她反对并不令人意外。当问到美联储在FOMC上的一致意见时，鲍威尔似乎暗示大家有广泛的一致意见。据我所知，尽管Bowman是唯一公开反对的人，我认为让每个人都同意可能需要一些游说。所以，可能还有其他几个人勉强投票赞成了这次的50个基点降息。

Now, looking beyond that, though, I think the dot putts suggest that this is a one time thing. And the next two meetings will get 25 basis point cuts. Again, this could all change with the data. But I think right now the plan, according to the dot plot is just to start with a bang. Start with a bang. Just like they did in September 2007, it's an interesting move. So it's not you think that the next few cuts will be 25 basis point cuts. And it sounds like are you confident that the next few meetings will be cuts. There will not be policies. It's going to be 25 or 50, probably 25, but not zero.

现在，不过，展望未来，我认为从点阵图来看，这只是一次性的事情。而接下来的两次会议将进行25个基点的削减。当然，这一切都可能随着数据而改变。但我认为目前根据点阵图的计划，是要以一个大的动作开始。就像他们在2007年9月那样，这是一个有趣的举动。所以你认为接下来的几次削减会是25个基点的削减。听起来你对接下来的几次会议会有削减很有信心，不会有新的政策。削减幅度将会是25或50个基点，可能是25个，但不会是零。

So there are two ways to look at this. You can look at the dot plot, which strongly suggests we're probably going to get a cut a meeting for the next two meetings. Or you can look at what the markets are pricing. Now, the markets are much, much more dovish than what the Fed is pricing, what the Fed is guiding towards in their dot plot. The market is thinking we'll have 75 basis points before the end of this year. And looking towards the end of next year, the market is thinking we'll be below 3% by December of next year. And the Fed's dot plot is thinking we'll maybe be at 3, 3.4%. So the market is pricing in a lot more cuts back to its old habits of being very aggressive.

所以有两种方式来看待这个问题。你可以看点阵图，它强烈暗示我们在接下来的两次会议中可能会有一次降息。或者你可以看市场的定价。现在，市场的预期比美联储的点阵图预期更加鸽派，市场认为在今年年底前会有75个基点的降息。展望明年年底，市场认为到明年12月利率会降到3%以下。而美联储的点阵图认为可能会在3%到3.4%之间。因此，市场预期会有更多的降息回到它一贯的激进习惯。

And as we've discussed over the past few years, Jack, the bond market has not been very good at guessing what the Fed would do. So we'll see if they would do better this time. We will. So you're absolutely right that this entire hiking cycle, the market always thought that the Fed was done hiking and that they would start to cut. And they were always way too early. And they always thought that the market, the Fed would be way more dovish. But that was during a hiking cycle or during a pausing cycle. We are now in a cutting cycle. Is that a fundamentally different period where just as the market was fighting the Fed's hawkish niche on the way up during a hiking cycle, is it actually correct to price in a lot of dovish niche during a cutting cycle? Because that's what a cutting cycle is all about.

正如过去几年我们讨论过的，杰克，债券市场在预测美联储行动方面并不很准确。所以我们拭目以待这次它们是否会表现得更好。你完全正确，在整个加息周期中，市场总是认为美联储已经加息完毕，并将开始降息，但市场总是预测得太早。他们总是认为美联储会比实际情况更鸽派。但那是在加息或暂停加息的周期中。现在我们进入了降息周期。这是一个本质上不同的时期，在加息周期中市场总是在抵抗美联储的强硬政策，那么在降息周期中市场正确地反映出更多的鸽派政策合理吗？因为这就是降息周期的本质。

So I think that really has to do with two things, just how strong the economy is and where the quote unquote neutral rate is. So looking first at the economy, now over the past two years, I've heard endless people with all sorts of prognostication saying that we are in our session. And any moment now the data is going to revise down and you'll finally figure out that the economy was in our session. I mean, look at things like the yield curve or something like that. But looking at the most recent data, the GDP continues to grow above trend. Like or most most recently, GDP was revised upwards from 2.8 to 3% comfortably above trend. Looking at the Atlanta Fed now GDP now casting, it looks like we are continuing to grow out 3% as well.

所以，我认为这实际上与两件事有关，一个是经济的强劲程度，另一个是所谓的中性利率。首先来看经济，过去两年中，我听到无数人做出各种预言，说我们正处于衰退中。任何时候数据都会被向下修正，你最终会发现经济确实处于衰退中。他们还会提到像收益率曲线之类的数据。但看看最近的数据，国内生产总值（GDP）持续超出趋势增长。例如，最近的GDP从2.8%上修到3%，这是显著高于趋势水平的。从亚特兰大联储最新的GDP预测来看，似乎我们仍在以3%的速度增长。

So it seems like the economy continues to do well. But I think there are major risks ahead in the coming months. And we'll talk into that later. But as Trappao repeatedly noted, just looking at the data as we have it today, it doesn't look like it justifies the degree of cuts in the price into the market. Now, the next thing is how do you think about the neutral rate? And the neutral rate is basically the interest rate level where the Fed is neither stimulative nor restrictive. So let's, for example, let's say the neutral rate is 4%. That means when the Fed sets interest rates above 4%, it's slowing the economy. And when the Fed sets interest rates below 4%, it's stimulating the economy.

看起来经济持续表现良好。不过，我认为未来几个月有重大风险。我们稍后会详细讨论这个问题。但正如Trappao反复指出的那样，光从我们目前掌握的数据来看，目前的市场价格削减程度并没有得到合理的支持。接下来要讨论的是如何看待中性利率。中性利率基本上是美联储既不刺激也不限制经济的利率水平。举个例子来说，如果中性利率是4%，那么当美联储将利率设置在4%以上时，它是在减缓经济增长；而当美联储将利率设置在4%以下时，它是在刺激经济。

So the market and the Fed are both struggling to figure out where that neutral rate is. And once they know that, they can kind of calibrate the path of policy. Now, looking at the market pricing, it looks like the market still thinks that the neutral rate is really low. And so maybe the market thinks that even if we cut rates to 3%, it won't really be very stimulative because the neutral rate is very low. Trappao gave a really interesting comment today that he thinks that the neutral rate today is significantly higher than pre-pandemic. And so that suggests that, according to Trappao, rates probably won't have to be cut as deeply as they were before. And so that probably is why they're thinking that they would be at 3.4% at the end of next December rather than say 2.8% as the market is pricing in today. Just to put that dot plot back on screen, the forecast of where interest rates would be is well below where the Fed forecast is on the last dot plot in the June. And so it seems pretty dovish to me forecasting 4.4% for 2024, 3.4% at the end of 2025 versus 4.1% as the end of 2025 was forecasted in June. That seems pretty dovish.

市场和美联储都在努力找出中性利率（neutral rate）在哪里。一旦弄清这个问题，他们就能调整政策路径。从市场定价来看，市场似乎认为中性利率很低。所以市场可能觉得，即便把利率降到3%，由于中性利率很低，刺激效果也不会很强。Trappao今天发表了一个很有趣的看法，他认为当前的中性利率比疫情前高很多。因此，根据Trappao的说法，利率可能不必像以前那样大幅下调。所以这可能是为什么他们认为到明年十二月底利率会在3.4%，而不是像市场今天预期的2.8%。再来看一下这个点阵图，对利率的预测远低于美联储六月最后一次点阵图的预测值。因此，在我看来，预测2024年的利率为4.4%，2025年底为3.4%，而六月预测2025年底为4.1%，这一预测显得相当鸽派。

Now, it's not as dovish as the market is still forecasting. So there's still a difference between where the market's forecasting. I'm just looking at the Fed funds futures for the end of 2025. And that has it at roughly 2.9 to 0.8%. So that's still well below the 3.4% that the Fed reserve is forecasting, but they're getting into closer balance. So Joseph, going in, there was a perception that, well, it doesn't really matter how much the Fed is going to cut. If they do 25 or if they do 50, it's going to be a similar amount of dovishness or hawkishness. In other words, if there's a 25, there will be a dovish 25 cut. If they do a 50 basis point cut, it will be a hawkish 50 basis point cut. So the effect on the stock market and the short term interest rate term structure of the bottom market will be the same. I might say that this was a dovish or at least not a hawkish 50 basis point cut. Would you agree with that? Just based on the dot plot? Absolutely. Absolutely. You have major downward revisions in the path of the Fed policy, like you just pointed out, and notable upward revisions in the unemployment rate. It's definitely a dovish dot plot, dovish conference. There's no doubt about it.

现在，市场预期的情况并没有想象中那么“鸽派”。市场的预期和实际情况之间还是有差距。我在看2025年底的联邦基金期货，预期大约在2.9%到0.8%之间。这仍然远低于美联储预期的3.4%，但差距在缩小。所以，约瑟夫，之前大家觉得美联储削减利率多少其实并不重要，无论是削减25个基点还是50个基点，最终的“鸽派”或“鹰派”程度是差不多的。换句话说，如果削减25个基点，那将是“鸽派”的25个基点削减。如果削减50个基点，那将是“鹰派”的50个基点削减。因此，对股票市场和短期利率结构的影响是相同的。我可能会说这是一个“鸽派”或者至少不是“鹰派”的50个基点削减。你同意吗？仅从点阵图来看？绝对同意。你刚才提到的，联邦政策路径有了重大下调，同时失业率有显著上调。毫无疑问，这是一个“鸽派”的点阵图，“鸽派”的会议。没有疑问。

Now, what's really interesting to me though, was the markets reaction. Now, first off, the immediate reaction was, well, the Fed pricing in an even lower, let's say, December 2025 Fed funds rate, like you mentioned, to 2.8%, but I noticed though that as we're recording this, it seems like the longer data interest rates rose. So the 10 year and the 30 year interest rates actually rose. And that suggests to me, maybe the market might be concerned somewhat by inflation accelerating later on, because maybe the Fed is cutting too much too soon. Right. And you had a piece that came out two days ago on Monday, all your pieces come on FedGuy.com on Monday. And your piece was called when big cuts are bad. And it was about how actually a 50 basis point cut could not be great for the stock market. Interestingly, the S&P is down as we record this after a 50 basis point cut. Tell us about how you arrived at that view. So I think looking at the stock market, so at the end of the day, prices are just supply and demand. People buy in sale for very different reasons. Now, there's a presumption, I think that when interest rates are low, stock prices go up. It's positive for asset prices. And that's totally true. We've seen that happen over and over again for the past, you know, as long as we have had interest rates. But there's that's not the only thing that matters. One of the things that I've noticed is that and this is highlighted again through the collapse of the in carry trade we saw a few weeks ago is that foreigners are increasingly large participants in the US equity markets. And from their perspective, they also care about the currency aspect to it.

现在，让我感兴趣的是市场的反应。首先，立即的反应是美联储把2025年12月的联邦基金利率预期降低到了2.8%，但我注意到，就在我们录制这个时候，长期的利率好像在上升。比如10年期和30年期的利率实际上上涨了。这让我觉得市场可能有点担心未来通胀会加速，因为美联储可能降息过多过快。你在两天前发布了一篇文章，你的文章都是在周一发布在FedGuy.com上的。这篇文章的标题是“当大幅度降息不好时”，讲的是为什么50个基点的降息未必对股市有利。有趣的是，在我们录制这个节目的时候，标普指数在50个基点降息后反而下跌了。请你谈谈你是怎么得出这个观点的。 我认为，看股市的本质，价格只是供需关系的表现。人们买卖股票的原因各不相同。通常认为，当利率低时，股价会上涨，这对资产价格是有利的。这完全正确，我们已经多次看到这种情况发生，只要有利率存在。但这并不是唯一重要的因素。通过几周前我们看到的套利交易崩溃，我注意到一个现象：外国投资者在美国股市中的参与越来越多。从他们的角度来看，他们也关心货币方面的因素。

For example, let's say they buy US stocks, it goes up 10%. But if the dollar weakens by 10%, then they're not really any better off. So there's that extra lens of currency that matters to foreign investors. Now, when I look at the data, it looks like foreign equity holdings. The equity holdings of foreign investors are the highest they've ever been. And they hold about 20% of US equities. Now, for them, of course, the US equity market has done really well. So it's a great trade. And the US equity market has like these really awesome companies, particularly exposed to AI like NVIDIA, Mac 7 and so forth.

例如，假设他们买入了美国股票，这些股票上涨了10%。但如果美元贬值了10%，那么他们实际上并没有真正获利多少。因此，汇率对于外国投资者来说是一个重要的考量因素。 根据数据来看，外国投资者持有的股票达到了历史最高水平。他们大约持有20%的美国股票。对他们来说，美国股市表现一直不错，所以这是一个很好的投资。此外，美国股市中有一些特别优秀的公司，尤其是与人工智能相关的公司，比如NVIDIA（英伟达）和其他一些顶尖公司。

So when you even when you look at sovereign wealth funds, say the origin sovereign wealth then, their top top equity holdings are actually all US technology stocks. They're top six stocks at all. Right? Yeah, they love the Mac 7 and you know, the Swiss National Bank owns a lot of US tech stocks as well. So everyone likes US tech stocks.

所以，即使你看看主权财富基金，比如说它们的起源，最高的股票持仓都是美国科技股。它们前六大持仓都是这样的，对吧？是的，它们都喜欢美国科技股。而且瑞士国家银行也持有大量的美国科技股。所以每个人都喜欢美国科技股。

And indeed, it's been a great trade. I'm thinking about it from their perspective, dollar strengthens over the past few years. And of course, the Mac 7s have done well. But right now, though, if we have big cuts, we could have a situation where the dollar actually weakens a lot. And in that case, the old, these foreign investors, they're going to have losses on through currencies through their currency exposure to the dollar. And that might change their calculus and encourage them to sell.

确实，这是一笔很好的交易。我从他们的角度来看，过去几年美元一直在走强。当然，Mac 7的表现也不错。但是现在，如果我们进行大幅度的削减，可能会导致美元大幅贬值。在这种情况下，那些外资投资者由于他们对美元的货币暴露，可能会遭受损失。这可能会改变他们的计算方式，促使他们出售投资。

Now, the way that I look at the US dollar is one of the determinants, of course, in addition to short term interest rate different shows is, of course, the fiscal deficit. When you have a large fiscal deficit, you are basically printing dollars, right? Showrooms are just dollars that pay interest. Now, the US has a very large fiscal deficit. The IMF is projecting that it will be about 6% a year for the foreseeable future. In comparison, the other developed company peers, it's about 2% a year for the foreseeable future. Some are a little bit worse, of course. So there are depreciary pressures on the dollar from our fiscal situation.

现在，我看待美元的方式之一是基于几个决定因素，当然除了短期利率差异外，还有财政赤字。当你有大量财政赤字时，实际上你就是在印美元，对吧？这些赤字只是支付利息的美元。目前，美国有非常大的财政赤字。国际货币基金组织（IMF）预计未来几年这一比例将达到每年约6%。相比之下，其他发达国家的这一比例预计约为每年2%。当然，有些国家情况会更糟一些。因此，由于我们的财政状况，美元面临贬值压力。

I think that's been held. The dollar has been held up by really high interest rates. Again, dollar interest rates have been higher than many other developed countries. But if we have these aggressive rate cuts, you can easily be in a situation where massive fiscal deficits plus low interest rates, plus maybe a potential recession, that could be a recipe for significant dollar weakness. And you could have a lot of foreign investors who want to sell to get ahead of that ethics currency losses that it will experience.

我认为情况就是这样。美元一直受到非常高的利率支撑。再说一次，美元的利率比很多其他发达国家都要高。然而，如果我们大幅度降息，就很容易出现这样一种情况：巨额财政赤字加上低利率，可能还有潜在的经济衰退，这就可能导致美元大幅贬值。此外，很多外国投资者可能会提前卖出美元资产，以避免即将面临的汇率损失。

So that could be really negative. We see something like that happen in other markets, mostly emerging markets. But I think the dynamics are set up so it could happen here as well. I mean, just look at the fiscal management of the country and look at the exposure of foreigners to US equity. So I think that's something to be cautious.

这可能会非常负面。我们在其他市场，尤其是新兴市场上看到过类似的情况。但我认为这种情况也有可能在这里发生。看看这个国家的财政管理，再看看外国人对美国股票的投资。因此，我认为这值得警惕。

So I'm thinking that maybe, again, the bigger picture, large fiscal deficits, upward pressure on asset prices and so forth. But I think we might have to wait until this position gets adjusted. So maybe the crash up, which I've been in, for most of this year, will have to wait for a little bit. And what specifically about now is making you a little bit more cautious on the stock market, basically, as you said, the risk that as US interest rates decline and the US fiscal deficit continues, the dollar will weaken. And foreigners, let's say someone in Japan owning a US dollar asset, if the yen strengthens against the dollar, they wish they owned the Japanese stocks instead of American stocks and that could force a liquidation.

所以我在想，也许从更大的角度来看，大的财政赤字、资产价格上升压力等等。但我认为我们可能需要等到这个位置进行调整。所以今年大部分时间里我所期待的上涨可能需要再等一阵子。那究竟是什么让你现在对股市更加谨慎呢？基本上，就像你提到的，当美国利率下降而财政赤字持续存在时，美元将会走弱。这样一来，外国投资者，比如在日本拥有美元资产的人，如果日元对美元升值，他们会希望拥有日本股票而不是美国股票，这可能会导致资产的抛售。

And I'll also say that a lot of when it comes to bonds, a lot of foreigners hedge their currencies. So for example, Japanese government bond yielding 1%, the 10-year yielding 4% in America, oh my god, that's such a great deal for a Japanese investor. Well, actually, if you include the hedging cost, it's actually, you know, can be negative.

我还想说的是，在涉及债券时，很多外国人会对他们的货币进行对冲。举个例子，日本的政府债券收益率是1%，而美国的10年期债券收益率是4%，这对于日本投资者来说看起来是个很划算的交易。但是，如果你考虑到对冲成本，实际上收益可能是负的。

However, as you pointed out in your piece, research indicates that foreigners, when they invest in American equities, don't hedge. So actually, this is a risk. But my question is Joseph, what about now? You know, six months ago, many percentages on the S&P ago, six months ago, this argument could also have been true. And yet, you know, you didn't put much weight in it. Why are you putting weight in this now? Why are you taking this as a risk right now, September 18th? Because, well, a couple of things. I think one is that we're beginning a rate cutting cycle, and it's a rate cutting cycle that the market anticipates to be pretty aggressive.

然而，正如你在文章中指出的，研究表明，外国人在投资美国股票时并不对冲。因此，这确实是一个风险。但我的问题是，约瑟夫，现在情况怎么样？六个月前，当标普500指数涨了很多百分点时，这个观点也可能是对的。然而，那时候你并没有太在意这个问题。为什么你现在，9月18日，把它当做一个风险？为什么现在要重视这个问题？因为，有几个原因。我认为其中一个是我们正在进入一个降息周期，而且市场预期这个降息周期会相当激进。

Now, when the market, let's say earlier in the year, in January, when the market was pricing in seven rate cuts this year, we also saw a notable weakness in the dollar. The Dixie was, you know, at around 100. Now, today, we're in the same situation, actually, it looks like the dollar index is around 100, and the market is back to cutting, pricing a lot of rate cuts. So I think the difference is I actually do think we have a good chance of having a lot of rate cuts, good chance of falling into a recession later on. So this is becoming more salient.

现在，当市场在今年早些时候，比如一月份，预计本年度将进行七次降息时，我们也看到了美元显著走软。当时美元指数大约在100左右。现在，今天的情况实际上很相似，看起来美元指数又回到了100，市场再次预期将进行大量降息。因此，我认为不同的是，现在我们确实有很大的可能会经历多次降息，并且有很大的可能会在后期进入衰退。所以，这个问题变得更加突出。

And the second thing is, you know, we had that episode in August where we had suddenly a reversal of the end carry trade. Of course, there were other things going on as well, blowing up of dispersion trade, short of all and all that. But, you know, from a Japanese investor perspective, the investor has strengthened 10% in three months. And so if you're a Japanese investor in US stocks, that's been painful. And I think that is making it more aware to market participants that this is something that could happen, that this big gravy train people have been riding the past few years, appreciation, US equities, appreciation, US dollar could reverse.

第二件事情是，你知道，我们在八月份经历了一次情况突然逆转——持有期限套利交易的结束。当然，还有其他事情在发生，比如分散交易的崩溃、做空等等。但是，从日本投资者的角度来看，日元在三个月内升值了10%。所以，如果你是投资美国股票的日本投资者，这段时间是非常痛苦的。我认为这使市场参与者更加意识到，这种情况是可能发生的。过去几年，人们一直享受着美国股票和美元升值的红利，但这种趋势可能会逆转。

And so I'm thinking that since people are more aware of this possibility, they might be more sensitive to further dollar depreciation. So Joseph, if for all of 2023 and most of 2024, you have been an indefatigable equity bull, are you now bearish on stocks or you less bullish or are you neutral? Are you cautious? What adjectives would you use to describe your outlook and your positioning in the stock market right now? Yeah, I'm bearish and bearish slash very cautious. So what I would really feel more comfortable with is we had a lot more clarity on direction of US policy.

因此，我想，由于人们现在更加意识到这一可能性，他们可能会对美元进一步贬值更加敏感。所以约瑟夫，如果你在整个2023年和大部分2024年一直是一个不知疲倦的股票看涨者，那么现在你对股票是看跌吗？还是不那么看涨了，或是中立呢？你会谨慎吗？你用哪些形容词来描述你现在对股票市场的看法和你的立场？是的，我是看跌的，看跌或者非常谨慎的。所以，我会觉得我们如果对美国政策的方向有更多的清晰了解会更舒服。

So the way that I look at the world, public policy is the most important driver of asset prices. You can think of it in terms of fiscal policy, where we know you could give money to a whole bunch of people that is positive for the economy. You could cut taxes bigly and we saw equities respond strongly when President Trump did that. And we can also think of it as monetary policy, right? So Fed does this, Fed does that and it oftentimes has an impact on the financial markets. Now all that is public policy. Now we're heading into a situation where I think there could be a pretty big divergence in policy, depending on who wins the White House after November.

所以，我看待世界的方式是，公共政策是决定资产价格的重要因素之一。你可以从财政政策的角度来理解，比如说，我们知道，如果向很多人发放资金，对经济是有利的。减税也是一个例子，当特朗普总统大幅减税时，我们看到股市强烈反应。我们也可以从货币政策的角度来看这个问题，比如美联储的各种操作往往对金融市场产生影响。所有这些都是公共政策的一部分。现在我们正面临一种可能的情况，即未来公共政策可能会出现很大的分歧，具体取决于十一月大选后谁入主白宫。

And so that makes me pretty cautious. And I think that makes a lot of businesses cautious as well. And there's a lot of survey data that suggests that businesses, you know, they're having trouble making long term plans because they don't really know what the world would look like. And that is going to have a chilling effect when it comes to hiring and when it comes to investments. The Challenger Survey, which is a survey that surveys a whole bunch of companies about their hiring intentions, recently noted that they found that their survey shows that hiring tensions are the lowest that they've ever had in their survey.

这让我变得非常谨慎。我认为，很多企业也是这样非常谨慎的。有很多调查数据显示，企业在制定长期计划时遇到了困难，因为他们并不真正知道未来的世界会是什么样子。这会对招聘和投资产生冷却效应。根据Challenger调查，一项关于许多公司招聘意向的调查，最近指出，调查结果显示招聘意向达到了有史以来的最低水平。

So I think there's a lot of uncertainty that's going to have a dampening of on the economy. But more importantly, I think we could have very different visions of the world in until I get more clarity as to what the world would look like. I don't think that I would be comfortable in equities. And so how much of your uncomfortable, you know, lack of comfort in equities cautiousness on equities is due to the upcoming US presidential election. How much of is due to this these carry trade interest rate differentials that you've cited, you know, as the dollar sells off foreigners will sell their US stocks. And how much of it is to do with other factors, it's the US market stock market is quite expensive on a historical basis. And the late market is slowing down, we could be entering recession other factors.

因此，我认为存在很多不确定性，这将对经济产生抑制作用。但更重要的是，在我更加清楚世界会是什么样之前，我们可能对世界有非常不同的看法。我认为我不会对股票市场感到安心。你对股票市场的谨慎有多少是因为即将到来的美国总统大选？有多少是因为你提到的这些套利交易利率差异？随着美元贬值，外国人会抛售他们的美国股票。还有多少是因为其他因素？比如美国股票市场从历史角度来看相当昂贵，并且晚期市场正在放缓，我们可能正进入经济衰退等因素。

Now, so I don't really look at the world through things like valuations. I mean, you could have PES or whatever. And if you look at a chart, things that are expensive by whatever metric can continue to be very expensive and things that are cheap on whatever metric could continue to be very cheap. So it seems to me that's not super useful. So again, I think it seems more in terms of policy. Now, I think having a, having a depreciating dollar and very devilish monetary policy, that always actually connected to what could be happen after November, because you do have one of the presidential candidates who would like to have more control over monetary policy and maybe have some influence on the dollar. And that is to be clear totally within the purview of the executive branch.

现在，我并不是通过估值等指标来看待世界。换句话说，你可以用市盈率（P/E）等指标去衡量，但如果你观察市场走势，用某种衡量标准来看“贵”的东西可能会继续变得很贵，而“便宜”的东西也可能会持续便宜下去。所以，从我的角度来看，这并不是非常有用。我更倾向于从政策的角度来思考问题。现在，我认为美元贬值和非常宽松的货币政策，实际上和十一月之后可能发生的事情密切相关，因为有一位总统候选人希望对货币政策有更多的控制，并可能对美元产生一些影响。需要明确的是，这完全在行政部门的权限之内。

So that's one thing. And another thing I think just thinking about macro and inflation more generally, one of the big changes that we've seen over the past few years is the executive branches willingness to basically change the supply of labor in the US economy. And that has been positive for GDP growth. One of the reasons why we have above trend GDP growth is because we have more people working by several million. And on the other hand, one of the reasons why we have inflation that's suddenly above 2% is because of shelter inflation. And that's also related to having more people in the country looking for places to live.

所以，这是一方面。另一方面，我认为从宏观经济和通货膨胀的角度来看，过去几年的一个重大变化是，美国行政部门基本上愿意改变劳动力供给。这对GDP增长是有利的。我们有高于趋势的GDP增长，其中一个原因是有更多人参与工作，增加了几百万就业机会。另一方面，我们通货膨胀突然超过2%的原因之一是住房通胀。这也与有更多人在国内寻找居住场所有关。

You see the same thing happen across the road. In Australia, they actually haven't cut rates. Inflation remains around 4%, largely because their rent inflation is through the moon because they increased their population by almost 3% in a year. In Canada, same thing, increased their population by about 3% a year, tremendous increase in shelter inflation. So depending on what happens with immigration policy after November, you can have different dynamics that impact inflation and impact GDP growth and how monetary policy reacts to that. That would also be part of political decision.

你可以看到对面的情况也是一样的。在澳大利亚，他们实际上没有降低利率。通货膨胀率仍然在4%左右，主要原因是他们的房租通胀高得离谱，因为他们一年的人口增加了将近3%。在加拿大也是一样，他们的人口每年增加大约3%，导致住房通胀大幅上升。因此，根据11月后移民政策的变化，可能会对通货膨胀和GDP增长产生不同的影响，以及货币政策如何应对这一变化。这也将是政治决策的一部分。

So there's just a lot of moving parts that could, I think, have really big impacts on the economy and markets that I think really merits caution until we have more clarity. And when you said that one of the presidential candidates favors the presidential involvement in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, I presume you're talking about former President Trump, when he was President for the first time around 2018, he said on Twitter that Powell needed to cut rates or stop hiking rates at the very least. And he has sounded off again that he thinks that interest rates should be lower. And his background in real estate may explain a potential favoring of low interest rates.

所以我认为，有很多变动因素可能会对经济和市场产生很大影响，因此我们需要在有更多明确信息之前保持谨慎。你提到有一位总统候选人支持总统干预联邦储备的货币政策，我猜你指的是前总统特朗普。他在2018年第一次担任总统时曾在推特上表示，鲍威尔需要降息或者至少停止加息。最近他再次表示认为利率应该更低，他在房地产领域的背景可能解释了他偏向低利率的原因。

So if President Trump got reelected, he might call on a J-PAL to lower interest rates. Powell was asked about that possibly today. I think he pretty artfully dodged that question. But how do you take that as someone who used to work at the Federal Reserve and someone, an institution that prides itself on central bank independence on not taking directions from either party and supposedly doing purely what they think is best for the economy, according to the dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment?

如果特朗普总统再次当选，他可能会要求美联储主席鲍威尔降低利率。今天有人问鲍威尔这个可能性，我觉得他巧妙地避开了这个问题。作为一个曾经在美联储工作的人，你怎么看这个问题？毕竟美联储一直以其独立性自豪，不接受任何一方的指示，而是根据双重使命——稳定物价和充分就业——来决定对经济最好的措施。

The Fed is run by people and people are not angels. They have their own beliefs, their own biases, their own preferences. Now one way you can see that is looking at President Dudley, former President Dudley of the New York Fed, used to be the second most powerful person in the Federal Reserve. In 2019, he wrote an op-ed in Bloomberg suggesting that the Fed should conduct monetary policy in a way that could prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House.

美联储由人来管理，而人并不是天使。他们有自己的信念、偏见和偏好。有一个例子可以说明这一点，就是前纽约联储主席杜德利，他曾是美联储中第二有权势的人。2019年，他在《彭博社》上发表了一篇专栏文章，建议美联储应该通过货币政策来阻止唐纳德·特朗普赢得白宫。

So there's this guy who used to be super important, basically openly being very political. Now if you look at the public donation data in the Fed, you'll notice that almost everyone who works at the Fed donates to the Democratic Party. So the Fed is, we want to think of them as an independent institution, but they're very much, I mean, they are people and they have their political beliefs and it's strongly tilted towards one side.

所以，有这么一个人曾经非常重要，基本上公开展现他的政治立场。现在，如果你查看联储公开的捐款数据，你会发现几乎所有在联储工作的人都捐款给民主党。因此，我们想把联储看作一个独立的机构，但实际上，他们也是人，也有自己的政治信仰，而且这种信仰明显偏向某一方。

So even though we say that Donald Trump wants to have more influence on the Fed, well the truth is that the Democratic Party already has tremendous influence on the Fed. They don't really need to do anything. Another way you can look at this is how they make the trade-off between say inflation and unemployment, whereas I think the conventional thinking is that the more left-leaning you are, the more pro-unapplicant the more you place emphasis on the labor mandate and that's certainly true with what happened with President Biden.

所以，虽然我们说唐纳德·特朗普想要对美联储有更多影响力，但事实是，民主党已经对美联储有很大的影响力了。他们其实根本不需要做什么。你也可以从另一个角度来看待这个问题，比如他们如何在通货膨胀和失业之间做出权衡。传统观点认为，越倾向左派的人越支持失业者，越重视劳动任务，这一点在拜登总统的执政中确实得到了体现。

When you look at his appointees to the FOMC, they don't really have very strong credentials in macro, but they're very strong credentials in labor and that could partially explain what we see today, where we start with a big bang of 50 basis swing cut and a very, very high emphasis on the unemployment side of the Fed's mandate.

当你看他的联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）任命时，会发现他们在宏观经济学方面的资历并不太强，但在劳动力方面的资历非常强。这可能部分解释了我们今天所看到的情况，比如他们一开始就大动作地减息50个基点，并且非常强调美联储任务中的失业率方面。

I would say that no matter who wins the White House, you're going to have a political Fed. It really just depends on how political they are. Well, thank you Joseph. So that is an excellent point. I've seen the data you cited and I think what you meant to, I think you said that the vast majority of people at the Fed contribute to Democrats, I think what you meant to say is the vast majority of people who contribute to a political party contribute to Democrats. That is definitely true. Do you have a sense of like how much are the staffers who produce very detailed research, but they don't have a vote versus the actual members? And maybe I'm foolish because I believe in central bank. I believe they are, they do have the political affiliations and they do, they are doves, they are hawks and they are chosen by a Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the combination thereof. But I don't believe that the vast majority of FOMC participants are, I'm going to cut 50 basis points to help Kamala Harris or help go Biden. Would you agree with me there or would you think I'm foolish and you know, that actually know that it's a little more dark, it's darker than that. I agree with you. I think the bias is not so much that, you know, okay, so let's be clear now. Remember former president of the New York Fed, William Dudley wrote an op-led saying that we got to do something to get down on Trump and so make sure that he loses. Okay, so there are people there who do that to be sure. Now for the most part, I agree with you. People there are not trying to do rig the game in favor of one person or another. But I think the bias comes into how they perceive the world and how they make the trade-offs. Now remember, the Fed has this dual mandate and it's they don't have any instructions on how to weigh them. And so the bias has to do with do you value inflation more, having low inflation more or do you value having low unemployment more? And so that's very much a personnel decision. Got it.

我认为无论谁赢得白宫，联邦储备系统都会有政治色彩。这只是他们政治色彩的强弱问题。好的，谢谢你，Joseph。这个观点非常好。我看过你引用的数据，我猜你的意思是联储系统里绝大多数人捐款给民主党，我认为你想说的是那些向政党捐款的人中，大多数是捐给了民主党。这绝对是真的。你是否知道有多少工作人员编写了非常详细的研究报告，但他们没有投票权，相比实际有投票权的成员？也许我有点天真，因为我相信中央银行，我相信它们确实有政治倾向，有的是鸽派，有的是鹰派，它们由民主党或共和党或两者结合挑选出来。但我不认为联邦公开市场委员会的大多数成员会为了帮助卡玛拉·哈里斯或拜登而削减50个基点。你是否同意我的看法，还是觉得我太天真，觉得实际上情况更黑暗？我同意你的看法。我认为偏向不是那么明显。让我们明确一点，纽约联储前主席威廉·达德利曾发表过一篇文章，说要做些事情来打击特朗普，确保他落败。所以，的确有人那样做。但大多数情况下，我同意你的观点，那些人并不是试图偏袒某一个人。偏见更多地体现在他们如何看待世界和做出权衡决策上。请记住，联储系统有双重使命，但没有具体指示如何权衡。所以，偏见体现在你更重视低通胀，还是更重视低失业率。这很大程度上是一个个人决定。明白了。

Okay, and then what is your personal view on the appropriateness of the executive branch, namely the US president or people who work for the executive branch to share their opinion publicly or even put pressure on the Federal Reserve to act a certain way as former president Trump did in 2018. And although she's a senator, Elizabeth Warren did, she wrote a public letter to the Federal Reserve asking for a 75 basis point cut. So it definitely does happen. But what are your personal views on, you know, how appropriate that is? I mean, it is true after all that central bank independence and, you know, you're namely the, you know, 2% inflation target and we have a focus on this was kind of pulled out of thin air. I mean, Volcker did talk on TV in the 1980s about how the deficit was out of control. I mean, these two worlds, they merge a lot more than, you know, it caused commonly thought, right? Now you're exactly right. So I think Chair Powell, when asked that, he would say that, you know, historically, if you look across the world, having an independent central bank has produced good macroeconomic outcomes. And that that's true. But I would caveat that in a couple ways.

好的，那么你个人怎么看待行政部门，特别是美国总统或者行政部门的工作人员公开分享他们的意见，甚至施压联邦储备局采取某种行动的做法？例如，前总统特朗普在2018年期间就曾这样做过。尽管她是一名参议员，伊丽莎白·沃伦也曾这样做过，她写过一封公开信，要求联邦储备局削减75个基点的利率。所以这确实发生过。但你对这种行为的适当性有什么个人看法呢？毕竟，中央银行的独立性是事实，尤其是2%的通胀目标，这种关注好像是没有来由地设置的。我是说，沃尔克在1980年代曾在电视上讨论过预算赤字失控的问题。这两个世界比人们通常认为的要更加交融，不是吗？你说得完全正确。所以我认为，当问到这个问题时，鲍威尔主席会说，从历史上看，拥有独立的中央银行在全球范围内产生了良好的宏观经济结果。这是事实。但我会在几个方面加以保留。

Well, first off, so what if a central bank does a bad job? I mean, if they are independent, then there's less probability of having of being able to replace, you know, people who are not suited for that job. What comes to mind is Mary Daly of the San Francisco Fed, right? So she's fully on team transitory, so she got that call wrong. And then she's also supervisor for Silicon Valley Bank. Now they had access to all the books of Silicon Valley Bank and did a terrible job supervising them and ended up seeing Washington Silicon Valley Bank blow up. Now, she's still there, right? There's no accountability and so forth. And that's true for basically everyone in the Fed. If you say that they are just independent, well, there has to be some mechanism for broader accountability, which brings me to my second point.

首先，如果中央银行表现不佳会怎样？我的意思是，如果他们是独立的，那么更换不合适的人的可能性就会更小。让我想到的是旧金山联储的玛丽·戴利。她完全支持“过渡性通胀”理论，但这个判断是错误的。同时，她还是硅谷银行的监管者。他们有权查看硅谷银行的所有账目，但监管做得非常糟糕，最终导致硅谷银行在华盛顿倒闭。然而，她仍然在职，没有任何问责机制。这种情况对联储的其他人也是一样的。如果你说他们是独立的，那么就必须有某种更广泛的问责机制。这就引出我的第二点。

Now, the central bank is still ultimately serving the American people. There should be some mechanism where there should be direct accountability. Now in the past, it may be surprising, but we actually had the Treasury Secretary of the US sit on the FOMC contributing to their discussions. So that's one way we could do this. So I think it's hard to design a system that where both we can have a central bank that is not captive to politicians. So basically running policy to benefit people in office, but also making sure that we have a way for them to be accountable for decisions when they make big mistakes. So that's a really difficult design problem. And I'm not sure I have an answer to that, but I'm open to the fact that having the executive branch, which is of course, elected by the American people to have more say, could be one way that we can have more of this accountability. So I don't know if it will work better. And I'm not saying that the president should run monetary policy, but it is a potential solution to what currently what I see to be a lack of accountability for a whole bunch of people who, you know, like President Trump has said, they never fire anyone. And so you don't really have any way to get rid of people who have bad judgment. And that's certainly my personal experience working at the Federal Reserve as well. That is a really interesting perspective. And thank you for sharing that. Joseph, moving on, what is your economic outlook at the US and for the United States right now, you acknowledged as the Federal Reserve's acknowledged, the labor market is not as strong as we thought it was in 2022 and 2023. And it probably wasn't as strong then as we thought it was then. How seriously are you taking a risk of a US recession? And how does that shape your outlook on interest rates and equities? Because I mean, if we're going to have a recession, equities are probably way too expensive, are you way too high? And the bond market is pricing in all these cuts is probably correct, and maybe they need to even price in more cuts. No, I think there's a good chance we could have a recession starting later on in the year.

现在，中央银行最终还是在为美国人民服务。应该有某种机制确保责任追究。在过去，可能会让人惊讶，我们实际上让美国财政部长参与过联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的讨论。这是一种方式。因此，我认为设计一个既能让中央银行不受政治影响，从而执行有利于在职人员的政策，但也能保证在他们犯重大错误时对其进行问责的系统是很困难的。这是一个非常复杂的设计问题。虽然我没有明确的答案，但我认为让由美国人民选出来的行政部门有更多发言权可能是一个解决方法。所以我不知道这是否会更好。我并不是说总统应该管理货币政策，但这是一个潜在的解决方案，因为目前我认为存在一个严重的问责缺失问题，正如特朗普总统所说，他们从来不解雇任何人，所以你没有办法处理那些判断有误的人。这也是我在美联储工作时的亲身经历。这是一种非常有趣的观点，谢谢你的分享。约瑟夫，我们继续聊聊，你对当前美国的经济前景怎么看？你之前提到，美联储也承认，劳动力市场在2022年和2023年并不像我们想象的那样强劲。考虑到这一点，你认为美国经济衰退的风险有多严重？这又如何影响你对利率和股票的看法？如果我们真的要经历经济衰退，那么股票很可能被高估了，债券市场预测的一系列降息可能是正确的，甚至可能需要预测更多的降息。我认为今年晚些时候出现衰退的可能性很大。

Now, the way that I think about this is rather than focus on things like interest rates, now recession, I mean, if you're looking, if you're thinking about growth, things like that, that's ultimately coming from individuals working hard either starting new companies or working more hours. And that has to do with their view of what the future will be, their confidence, so to speak. Now, I think we're heading into a period because the country is so divided that no matter what happens, about half the country will feel like the world is ending after the election. And maybe that will drag on for some months because maybe it's not a binary event, maybe there's some litigation and so forth. So all of that, I think, is a drag on confidence. If you have a lot of people in the country who feel like things are not getting better, who feels like things are, you know, dark skies in the future, I think that will impact their willingness to start new businesses, to innovate, to work harder. And that's going to be a drag on growth. Now, that's just on the domestic fund. Looking across the world, you know, you have very strong, I think, deflationary pressures emerging from places like China, looking at the Chinese government bonds, you know, they're making all time low.

现在，我的想法是，与其关注诸如利率、经济衰退之类的问题，如果你在思考经济增长，最终还是来源于个人的努力，不论是创业还是增加工作时间。这取决于他们对未来的看法，换句话说，他们的信心。我认为我们正走向一个时期，因为国家如此分裂，无论选举结果如何，差不多一半的人都会觉得世界末日到了。这种情况可能会持续数月，因为这或许不是一个简单的事件，可能会涉及到诉讼等。所以所有这些都会打击信心。如果国家中有很多人觉得情况没有好转，未来充满阴霾，我认为这会影响他们创办新企业、创新以及更加努力工作的意愿，而这将拖慢经济增长。这只是从国内的角度来看。放眼世界，例如中国，那里出现了非常强烈的通缩压力，看看中国的政府债券，它们正创下历史新低。

So it does seem like global, the global economy, maybe it is slowing a bit. And if you have all these forces, it could, of course, push the US economy into recession, US economy is more insulated to global forces than other economies. But ultimately, we do see the trajectory as slowing. And if we have, we're at this moment of fragility, you know, you could have things happen that push it over. On the other hand, these two have very positive headwinds, large fiscal deficit, putting money into the US economy, and of course, the Federal Reserve willing and able to cut rates significantly. So that is supportive as well. So right now, looking at the trajectory of everything, it looks like it's just going to be, I think, a lot of uncertainty for the next few months.

看起来，全球经济也许确实在放缓。如果各种因素叠加，当然可能会将美国经济推入衰退期。虽然美国经济比其他国家对全球力量更具防御能力，但我们最终还是看到其增长轨迹在放慢。此时此刻，处于脆弱的状态，可能会有一些事情将经济推向崩溃。不过，也有一些积极的因素，比如巨额财政赤字为美国经济注入资金，还有美联储愿意且有能力大幅降息，这些都是有利的。因此，现在来看整个趋势，未来几个月可能会有很大的不确定性。

But earlier in the year when we spoke, I didn't feel like we were going to be in recession. We still aren't. But I think in the coming months, that is more of a possibility. Right. And just to explain to people, keeping a scorecard at home, you know, if someone forecasts recession in 2021, and it eventually happens at the end of 2024, yes, they were right, but they missed all the stocks going up along the way. And it's a moving target. So you weren't wrong to say you didn't take the review session six months ago, because we haven't had a recession. There is a chance that we could already be in one based on the Somme rule. That is possible. But now you think that recession chance is elevated, and it could appear as early as this year.

但在今年早些时候我们谈话时，我并不觉得我们会陷入经济衰退。现在我们还没有。但是我认为在接下来的几个月里，这种可能性会更大。对了，为了让大家更明白一点，如果有人在2021年预测经济衰退，而最终在2024年底发生了，是的，他预测对了，但是他错过了这期间所有股票的上涨。这是一个不断变化的目标。所以你六个月前说没有进行评审并没有错，因为我们还没有经历经济衰退。根据Somme规则，我们可能已经在衰退中了，这确实有可能。不过现在你认为经济衰退的概率增加了，而且可能在今年就会出现。

Think about it from a policy perspective as well. Let's say that we have a present Harris, and although unlikely, let's say that we have a democratic control of Congress, raising the corporate tax rates, raising income taxes, taxing unrealized gains, those are things that I think everyone would agree. Maybe they're good for the debt. Maybe they're good for wealth inequality, equality, things like that. But that's obviously not very good for business or growth. So, you know, again, I think policy is the most important driver of the economy and markets. And we're heading into this event where we could have very different outcomes of policy. So I think that is reason. I mean, we could be in such a world where we just have higher taxes. And I think that that would not be good for growth. And do you think that the deficit will be bigger under Trump and therefore the economy will be stronger and the stock market will be higher under Trump?

从政策角度考虑这个问题吧。假设我们目前有一个拜登政府（Harris被理解为拜登政府），虽然不太可能，但假设国会也由民主党掌控，提高企业税率、提高个人所得税、对未实现的收益征税，这些政策我认为大家都会同意。也许有利于减少债务、促进财富平等等，但显然对商业或经济增长不利。所以，我认为政策是经济和市场的最重要驱动力。我们正面临一个可能出现非常不同的政策结果的事件。因此，我认为这就是原因所在。我们可能会生活在一个税收更高的世界里，而我认为那对经济增长不利。你认为在特朗普执政下，赤字会更大，因此经济会更强，股市表现会更好吗？

So the deficit is going to be pretty large, regardless of who who's president. If you look at the underlying drivers of the deficit, they are mandatory spending. So social security, Medicare, there are also things like the interest expense. Those things are the lines here of the deficit, and they are going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Now, the other stuff, the discretionary stuff, that is stuff like militaries, expenditures, or you could think of it as like green expenditures, industrial policy. That's a little bit harder to say. You know, President Trump is less inclined to have a big involvement in foreign wars and things like that. He didn't start any wars. But I'm not sure if that would be the case under a Harris administration.

所以，不管是谁当总统，赤字都会相当大。如果你看一下导致赤字的基本因素，主要是强制性支出，比如社会保障、医疗保险，还有利息支出。这些项目是赤字的主要来源，而不论谁在任，它们都会继续增长。至于其他部分，即可自由支配的开支，譬如军费开支或绿色能源开支、产业政策等，这就稍微复杂一些了。比如，特朗普总统不太热衷于参与国外战争，他任内没有发动任何战争。但在哈里斯政府的情况下，我就不确定会不会也是这样了。

Now, on the other hand, though, President Harris has been very local about raising taxes, right? So that would reduce the deficit. Whereas I think President Trump would just like to have even fewer taxes than we do now. So that would be, again, less revenue for the Treasury. And Joseph, I believe there was a time when you were quite bullish on the American home builders. I don't know how long you've had that position or that view. Home builders have gone up a lot, even as interest rates went up largely because the housing market just didn't go down as much as you would think when interest rates go from zero to 5.5% or mortgage rates go from 3% to 7%.

现在，另一方面，哈里斯总统在提高税收方面一直非常积极，对吧？这样可以减少赤字。而我认为，特朗普总统则希望减税，甚至比我们现在的税收水平还要少。所以这将导致国库收入减少。约瑟夫，我记得有段时间你对美国的住房建筑商非常看好。我不清楚你这种看法维持了多久。尽管利率上升了，住房建筑商的股票依然在上涨，主要是因为即便利率从零涨到5.5%，或者房贷利率从3%上涨到7%，房地产市场并没有像预期那样大幅下降。

Now mortgage rates are going down. Housing starts are going up. Are you still a bull on the housing American home builders, even though you're cautious and maybe even bearish on the overall stock market? I think the real estate is going to do well. I mean, the real estate, obviously, supply and demand, let's look at what that looks like under either administration. Now, under Harris administration, I think they've been very open. They would like to have more migration that's millions and millions of people wanting to have needing someplace to live, right, more demand. And I noticed the first thing Vice President Harris mentioned on the debates page was that she wants to give everyone a lot of money to buy new homes. That's a lot of demand as well. So that's a very strong policy that would be able to boost housing. I don't know if she could get all the say 25,000 tax credit to home buyers, but I know the White House, as we've seen over the past few years, can unilaterally decide migration policy.

现在房贷利率正在下降，房屋开工率在上升。即便你对整个股市持谨慎甚至看空的态度，你仍然看好美国住房建筑商吗？ 我认为房地产市场会表现良好。毕竟，房地产市场显然是供需关系的体现。无论是在任何政府管理下，我们都可以看看这种关系是什么样的。在哈里斯政府下，我认为他们非常开放。他们希望有更多的移民，这意味着有数百万人需要住房，需求会增加。而且我注意到，副总统哈里斯在辩论中提到的第一件事就是，她希望给每个人提供大量资金来购买新房。这也会带来大量需求。因此，这是一个可以促进住房市场非常强有力的政策。我不确定她是否能实现给购房者提供2.5万美元税收抵免的承诺，但我知道，正如我们在过去几年中所看到的那样，白宫可以单方面决定移民政策。

Now, President Trump, again, real estate guy, really open to low taxes, really open to fiscal spending, likes lower interest rates. And one of the things that I've noticed in the legislation during the Trump era is that there's a lot of stuff that was friendly for real estate developers and housing, like the Opportunity Zones, which really promoted new construction development. So yeah, I think that from a public policy standpoint, looking at a demographic standpoint and looking at the trend of interest rates, right now we've had the mortgage rate come down steadily over the past few weeks, that should be suggested strong housing market for the next few years.

现在，特朗普总统，一位房地产商，非常支持低税收和财政支出，他也喜欢低利率。我注意到，在特朗普执政期间的立法中，有很多对房地产开发商和住房友好的政策，比如机会区（Opportunity Zones），这项政策确实促进了新建项目的发展。所以，从公共政策的角度来看，结合人口趋势和利率变化来看，近几周抵押贷款利率持续下降，这预示着未来几年的住房市场将会强劲发展。

Thank you, Joseph. And earlier you referenced the risks you saw on the horizon. And I believe you had a plural risks. So one risk is definitely this dollar weakness stock sell off, but outside of the stock market, are there any other risks that we haven't mentioned so far that you are taking seriously? So one thing I think that we it's very difficult to price, but what we do clearly see is that there is higher geopolitical risk. Now today, what's on the news is that there was an operation where a lot of people with pagers exploded, right? And so that seems to be some escalation in Middle Eastern tensions.

谢谢你，Joseph。之前你提到了你所看到的潜在风险。我记得你提到了多个风险。其中一个风险显然是美元走弱导致的股票抛售，但是在股票市场之外，还有没有我们目前没有提到的、你认为需要认真对待的其他风险？ 我认为有一件事情我们很难评估，但显而易见的是地缘政治风险在上升。今天的新闻报道说有一次行动中，很多携带传呼机的人发生了爆炸，这似乎表明中东地区的紧张局势正在升级。

You know, just last week, one of the headline stories in Politico was that there was some talk of authorizing Ukraine to use long-range of missile strikes within Russia. And that was immediately followed by an interview from President Putin saying that if you guys do this, I'm going to think I'm going to think of Russia as being at war with NATO. Again, that is in the direction of escalation of conflict in Eastern Europe. So these geopolitical conflicts are I think things that are heating up. We've kind of gotten numb to them.

你知道，就在上周，Politico（政客）的一篇头条新闻报道说，有人讨论是否授权乌克兰在俄罗斯境内进行远程导弹袭击。紧接着普京总统接受采访时表示，如果你们这样做，我会认为俄罗斯与北约处于战争状态。这明显是在朝着加剧东欧冲突的方向发展。所以我认为这些地缘政治冲突正在升温，而我们似乎对它们有些麻木了。

And we don't really think about them anymore, but they're not getting better. And so you could easily go to a point where it just pops out of nowhere. And the market suddenly begins to worry about it. Now, when I think back to, for example, the 2020 COVID days, we were seeing tremendous amounts of news flow in China about the virus and the market never cared. And then one day when I went to Italy, the markets started to caring and everything kind of fell apart. So again, the market is not really sensitive to things happening far away. And then one day it suddenly is. So I think that's something to be mindful of. That makes sense.

我们其实已经不再考虑这些问题了，但它们并没有变好。因此，很可能它们会突然爆发，让市场开始担忧。比如，当我回想2020年新冠疫情时期，我们在中国看到了大量关于病毒的新闻，但市场一点都不关心。然后有一天，当我去到意大利时，市场突然开始在意，一切都随之崩溃了。所以，市场对远方发生的事情通常不敏感，但某一天却突然变得敏感起来。我认为这点值得我们警惕。这是有道理的。

Just I now want to turn to something that you are a true expert on is just the Federal Reserve's balance sheet policy. Jay Powell today received one question about the balance sheet policy and its quantitative tightening, namely rolling off treasuries and mortgage-backed securities from the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. It had done it at a higher level earlier this year. It's tapered. And today it announced that it can will continue at the level. So it is not going to taper any further at least for now.

现在我想转向一个你真正擅长的话题——美联储的资产负债表政策。今天，有一个问题问到了杰伊·鲍威尔关于资产负债表政策和量化紧缩的问题，也就是将美国国债和抵押贷款支持证券从美联储的资产负债表上逐步减少。今年早些时候，他们在较高水平上进行了此操作，然后逐渐缩减。今天，美联储宣布将继续维持现有水平，不会进一步缩减，至少目前不会。

And Powell said that the reserves in the Federal Reserve system, namely the liabilities of the Federal Reserve and the assets of commercial banks is is ample. We are still in an ample reserve regime. And we are above the lowest comfortable level of reserves. Tough to say. What are your thoughts on this? And can you explain further these concepts for our new audience today? So the Fed is cutting rates today, but at the same time it continues to shrink its balance sheet. The Fed has two tools, interest rate policy and balance sheet policy. Now, historically, the Fed always wants its two tools to go in the same direction. So for example, when it's cutting rates, easing policy, it wants to also be expanding its balance sheet, like doing QE. And when it's tightening monetary policy, hiking rates, it also wants its balance sheet to shrink. It wants to do that because it feels like it's easier to communicate that. But one thing that is different under the Powell Fed is that as Powell has noted, these two tools are on independent tracks, whereas Powell is willing to cut rates, but at the same time continue to shrink its balance sheet, which many perceive to be a form of monetary tightening.

而鲍威尔表示，美联储系统中的准备金，即美联储的负债和商业银行的资产是充足的。我们仍处于充足准备金的环境中，目前的准备金水平高于最低的舒适线。不好说。对此你有什么看法？能为今天的新观众进一步解释这些概念吗？ 美联储今天在降息，但同时却在缩减资产负债表。美联储有两种工具：利率政策和资产负债表政策。历史上，美联储总是希望这两种工具朝同一个方向运作。例如，当它降息、放松政策时，它也希望通过量化宽松（QE）来扩张其资产负债表；而当它收紧货币政策、加息时，它也希望缩减资产负债表。这是因为这样做更容易传达政策意图。 不过，鲍威尔担任主席期间有一个不同之处，那就是如鲍威尔所言，这两种工具是独立运作的。鲍威尔愿意在降息的同时继续缩减资产负债表，而许多人认为这是一种货币紧缩的形式。

Now, the reason he wants to do that is because he wants the balance sheet to quote-unquote normalize such that it's small enough just so that the banking sector has enough reserves. Reserves are just cash for banks to function. Now, how much cash does the banking sector needs? That's what Jack, Jack, you were referring to, low-core, low-income, full level of reserves. Fed wants to shrink its balance sheet so the banks have just enough cash to function. Now, the problem is no one in the Fed knows what the lowest-income, full-level reserves is. There are a whole bunch of guesses, models, and things like that, but you really don't know.

现在，他想要这么做的原因是因为他希望资产负债表可以“正常化”，规模缩小到银行业只需足够的储备金即可运作的程度。储备金就是银行用来运作的现金。那么，银行业需要多少现金呢？Jack，你之前所说的，是最低限度的储备金。美联储希望缩减其资产负债表，让银行有足够的现金维持运作。问题是，美联储内部没有人确切知道最低限度的储备金是多少。虽然有很多猜测和模型，但是并没有明确答案。

So, what the way that they look at this is that they look at market signals to know whether or not that they're close to having lowest-income, full-level reserves being breached. When they look at a number of things, one of the common things to look at is to look at balances in the reverse repo facility. As long as there's money in that facility, the Fed thinks that there's extra money in the financial markets, and it doesn't think that they're anywhere near some degree of scarcity. Another thing that they look at is just market rates, where are repo rates, where's the federal funds rate and so forth. And so far, repo rates are trading below interest on reserves.

他们的看法是，通过观察市场信号来判断他们是否接近触及最低收入储备。当他们观察多个因素时，一个常见的做法是查看逆回购工具中的余额。只要这个工具里有资金，美联储就认为金融市场上有多余的钱，不认为存在任何程度的稀缺。另外他们还会关注市场利率，比如回购利率、联邦基金利率等。目前来看，回购利率的交易价格低于存款利率。

Now, if repo rates were to trade above, consistently above interest on reserves, that would suggest that there's some degree of scarcity, and that could be a signal for the Fed to stop shrinking their balance sheet. However, the Fed right now doesn't think that they need to stop shrinking their balance sheet. They've already tapered QT, so they're shrinking it at a very slow pace. And it looks like they'll be able to continue that for at least a few more months. A few more months.

现在，如果回购利率持续高于准备金利率，那就意味着市场上有一定程度的稀缺性。这可能是一个信号，提示美联储应该停止缩减其资产负债表。然而，目前美联储认为没有必要停止缩表。他们已经放慢了量化紧缩（QT）的速度，所以现在缩表的速度非常慢。看起来他们至少还能继续几个月。

So the reserves of the Federal Reserve have been going down since February of 2024. I guess they went up a little bit. Why did they go up from February 2023 to December 2023? I know that some of that was the bank term funding program, but why did reserves go up for most of last year? A lot of that would be that money coming out of the reverse repo facility and going into the banking sector. What could be happening is say, a money market fund takes money out of the reverse repo facility and buys a treasury bill, and then that money then goes into the Treasury's account. And then when the Treasury spends that money down, maybe to pay contractors to pay Social Security and so forth, then that money then goes into the banking sector.

自2024年2月以来，美联储的储备一直在下降。我猜它们涨了一点。为什么它们从2023年2月到2023年12月上涨了？我知道其中一部分是因为银行期限融资计划，但为什么去年大部分时间里储备会上升？这很大程度上是因为资金从反向回购工具流出，进入银行部门。比如说，一个货币市场基金从反向回购工具中取出资金，然后购买国库券，那么这些资金就进入了财政部的账户。当财政部花费这些资金，比如支付承包商或社保费用时，这些钱就进入了银行部门。

So you have a lot of moving parts, but at the end of the day, the Fed, and I don't, I agree that we don't really need to stop QT. It seems like the bank sector has tons of reserves. Now, going forward though, of course, I mean, we could get into a place where the banks become more reserve constrained. But I think before we get into that, we will probably go into some kind of economic slowdown and the Fed would stop QT, not because of reserves, but because they want to adjust their policy, maybe to even continue growing their balance sheet. But that's something that could happen next year rather than immediately. Got it.

所以说，情况很复杂，但归根结底，美联储——我同意我们其实不需要停止量化紧缩（QT）。看来银行部门有大量的准备金。不过，未来我们可能会遇到银行准备金变得更紧张的情况。但我认为，在那之前，我们可能会经历某种经济放缓，美联储会因调整政策而停止QT，不是因为准备金问题，而是因为他们希望调整政策，甚至可能会继续扩张资产负债表。不过这可能是在明年发生，而不是立刻发生。明白了吗？

So the reverse repo facility where the Fed Reserve is technically borrowing money from banks, it doesn't, not that it needs the money, it's just so banks can have a effective deposit facility again for our audience. I learned almost all this entirely from Joseph. But that facility peaked at close to 2.5, around $2.5 trillion in 2022, it has steadily been going down. So that is a measure of just how much excess cash is in the system. And it went down a lot until April of this year, but it's kind of leveled off at around $300 billion. Do you think the reverse repo facility will ultimately go to zero? And if and when it goes goes down to zero, will that be the point at which the lowest comfortable level of reserves level is reached? And there would be a trouble a lack of reserves. But again, I just want to radiate for your audience that it sounds like you think the bigger threat is an economic threat that would cause the quantitative tightening to stop rather than a lack of reserves. Yeah, I agree. So I think it will get to zero.

所以，美联储的逆回购工具实际上是向银行借钱，不是因为美联储需要这些钱，而是为了让银行有一个有效的存款设施。这一点我是几乎完全从Joseph那里学到的。该工具在2022年接近峰值，达到约2.5万亿美元，然后逐渐下降。这反映了系统中多余现金的数量。直到今年4月，它已经大幅下降，但随后稳定在大约3000亿美元左右。你认为逆回购工具最终会降至零吗？如果它确实降至零，那是否意味着银行的准备金已经达到了最低的舒适水平，并且可能会出现准备金不足的问题？不过，我想为你的观众再强调一点，你认为更大的威胁是经济问题，这会导致停止量化紧缩，而不是准备金不足。是的，我同意。我认为它最终会降至零。

So the way that this would happen is that over time, the US government will continue to issue treasury bills and money market funds will continue to take money out of the reverse repo facility and buy treasury bills. And as that continues, the RFP will go down and eventually get to something close to zero. Now, I remember we had a conversation with Lucrando once, and he suggested that, you know, some money market funds, no matter what, want to reinvest in the RFP, because they feel like it's a safe counterparty. You're basically putting a deposit at the New York Fed. What could be safer than that? And so it could be that we have a bottom of say 20, 30, 40 billion in the RFP that's possible. But I think the trajectory continues to be lower simply because most money market funds, happy to buy bills if they have a good yield over the RFP. Got it.

所以，这种情况会逐渐发生：美国政府会继续发行国库券，货币市场基金会继续从反向回购设施中提取资金购买国库券。随着这一过程的持续，反向回购（RFP）的余额会逐渐减少，最终接近于零。记得我们曾经和Lucrando讨论过一次，他指出，无论如何，一些货币市场基金仍然想要继续投资于反向回购，因为他们觉得这是一个非常安全的对手方——毕竟，相当于把钱存入纽约联邦储备银行，还有什么比这更安全的呢？所以，反向回购的余额很可能会有一个下限，大约是200亿、300亿或400亿的水平。但我认为，反向回购的余额整体上还是会继续减少，因为大多数货币市场基金愿意在国库券收益率好的情况下购买国库券，而不是选择反向回购。明白了。

And I actually today had an interaction with, you know, very, not money market funds, but very short term bond funds. And I actually got into some. Do you know if there's ultra like one to three month treasury bill ETFs, you know, not saying that that's the ones that I got into, but do they, can they access the federal reverse repo facility or is that only money market only money market funds can do that. So to be clear, if you are an FHLB and Jack, you spoke to many of those guys have access to, to the RFP as well, commercial bank scan. But of course, it makes no sense for them to do that because interest on reserves is higher than the RFP offering rates. Got it. And yes, another fascinating detail. Is that the actual interest rate that matters to affect policy or where all the volume is is in the reverse repo rate and the interest on reserve rate or on excess reserves. And that the what the Fed Reserve changed today, the actual policy rate, the Fed funds market kind of is a very, you know, the volume is much, much smaller. So that's just another tidbit I learned from you. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

今天我实际上与一些非常短期的债券基金进行了互动，不是货币市场基金，而是非常短期的债券基金。而且我确实参与了一些。你知道有没有那种超短期的，比如一到三个月的美国国库券ETF？我不是说我就买了这个，只是问一下它们能不能接触到联邦储备的逆回购操作，还是只有货币市场基金才能接触到这个？为了更清楚一点，如果你是联邦住房贷款银行（FHLB），Jack，你也和很多这类人谈过，他们也可以访问逆回购操作，商业银行也可以。但是，当然，对他们来说这样做没有意义，因为储备的利息比逆回购操作的利率更高。明白了。而且，另一个有趣的细节是，实际影响政策的利率或者说所有交易量集中的地方是在逆回购利率和超额准备金利率上。而今天美联储改变的实际政策利率，联邦基金市场的交易量非常非常小。所以这是我从你那里学到的另一个小知识。对，正是如此。

There we go. Well, Joseph, I think we're going to end it there. It's been a fascinating chance. Thank you so much for being on the first guest of monetary matters. You were a stalwart guest on four guidance. Definitely the guests you appeared the most times and you deserved it not only with the knowledge that you gave me and our audience, not only with your correct calls, but your your great demeanor and your great way of explaining things, your humility. So I'm really glad you were able to be our first guest today. It's an R to be your first guest. And I'm sure it's the first of many, many. I wish you the best in this channel and I encourage everyone to subscribe because I know I learned a ton of foreign guidance and I look forward to learning even more from monetary matters. That's very kind of you to say, Joseph, everyone watching this on YouTube should check us out on Apple podcast and Spotify.

好了，约瑟夫，我想我们就到这里吧。这次交流真的很有趣。非常感谢你作为“货币事务”节目的第一位嘉宾。你在前四次指导中都是非常坚实的嘉宾。你是出现次数最多的嘉宾，这是你应得的，不仅因为你为我和听众带来的知识和正确的判断，更因为你出色的态度和解释事情的能力，还有你的谦逊。所以，我真的很高兴你能成为我们今天的第一位嘉宾。这是一种荣幸成为你的第一位嘉宾，我相信这只是很多很多次中的第一次。我祝愿你这个频道取得成功，并且鼓励大家订阅，因为我在前几次指导中学到了很多东西，也期待从“货币事务”中学到更多。你这么说真是太好了，约瑟夫。所有在 YouTube 上观看这个视频的人都应该去 Apple Podcast 和 Spotify 上找我们。

Very important for us to get out of the gate early on these podcast apps, you know, YouTube kind of takes care of itself. Okay, everyone loves Joseph Wang, the algorithm feeds people Joseph Wang, but really important on these podcast apps for us to get as much attraction as possible. So if you're a fan of my work or even if you're a halfway fan of my work and you like what you see here, please subscribe to those Apple podcast and Spotify wherever you get your your podcast apps, subscribe to this YouTube channel and which and if you're listening us on the podcast, it is monetary matters at monetary dash matters. We'll include links to all of this on the on the description.

对我们来说，在这些播客应用中尽早抢占先机非常重要，你知道，YouTube上的情况比较好处理。大家都喜欢Joseph Wang，算法也会把Joseph Wang推荐给大家，但在这些播客应用上，尽可能多地吸引注意力真的很关键。所以，如果你是我的粉丝，或者即使你只是半个粉丝而且喜欢我在这里做的内容，请订阅那些苹果播客和Spotify等你获取播客应用的地方，订阅这个YouTube频道。如果你在播客上听我们，搜索 "Monetary Matters" 就能找到我们。所有链接我们都会在描述中附上。

And of course, I'm on Twitter at on Twitter at Jack Farley, 96, Joseph is on Twitter at Fed Guy 12. And his excellent work, which we referenced earlier today can be found at Fed Guy dot com. In about 10 minutes, I'll be speaking with my second guest of monetary matters, Daniel DiMartino Booth. That will come out on Thursday, September 19. So everyone should stay tuned for that.

当然，我在推特上的账号是Jack Farley, 96，Joseph的推特账号是Fed Guy 12。我们今天提到过他的优秀作品，可以在Fed Guy dot com 找到。大约10分钟后，我将与我的第二位嘉宾Daniel DiMartino Booth讨论货币问题。这个访谈会在9月19日星期四发布，请大家保持关注。

Thank you again for watching. I really mean that to everyone watching this. And I also really mean this. Thank you, Joseph, for being my first guest. Thank you, Jack.

再次感谢大家收看。我真的非常感谢每一位观众。我也要特别感谢约瑟夫，感谢你作为我的第一个嘉宾。谢谢你，杰克。