It is FOMC meeting day today. There is no rate cut. We'll be breaking it down for you guys and get into all of what is happening over at the Fed. And guess what? It's Powell's last FOMC meeting. So you guys don't want to miss it. I do want to thank our sponsor today and that is BTCC. Of course, you guys can get a 10% bonus on your first time deposit over there. All you have to use is our link down below. It's going to get you that 10% bonus. And there's a lot of other things that you get along with this. You get the deposit bonus. You also get some extra bonuses as well as a little bit of a lower trading fee. So, there are some options here for you as the market volatility heats up. Check out BTCC. Use our link down below to get started. All right, let's lead off with this right here. As I said, we're going to be doing a full live stream today. The way that if you if this is your first FOMC meeting and your first live stream with us, first of all, make sure and hit the like button right now. Make a comment because that helps generate a little bit more algorithm for the live stream. But the key thing here is that when Powell addresses the press, he will address the forward-looking statements that give us a little bit of an indication of where he's heading because we already know what's happened today. Now, we want to see what is next for the Fed rate cuts and/or a potential rate hike going forward. So, let's take a look at this right here. Powell could stay at the Fed even after his chair is over. This is his last one. Kevin Walsh has been confirmed. It is official today as we're literally recording. That confirmation is underway. The DOJ just dropped its criminal probe into the Fed. That was one of the key things that had to occur and I think to get washed through and that did occur. I'll talk about that in a second. And then of course, we've got Powell's term as chair ends May 15th, just around the corner, but his board seat runs until 2028. So, what do you guys think? Do you think he's going to stick around? Let me know in the comments down below. Or do you think he's just going to say, 'Man, I've had it. I'm out of here. This was a nice ride and moving along.' Well, we'll find out because it's going to probably come up very soon after because literally it's next week when his actual board or his chair membership stops and of course he will move into just being a Fed governor. Let's go over to a clip here because this will bring in a little bit of narrative around is the Fed and its transparency in play and this is a unique clip because it kind of talks about how Powell did something that was very different. Take a look. After the press conference today, that will be the 65th press conference that Jay Powell has had. And so he's revolutionized the way Fed chairs communicate with the public. Historically, Fed chairs did not talk after FOMC meetings and so you had to guess a little bit about what the Fed was doing. JPAL has brought transparency to the Fed and I think that's a good thing. He's obviously had to struggle with the president of the United States criticizing him for many years, but he's overcome that in my view. During JPAL's tenure as Fed chair, he's had 15 rate increases and 12 rate decreases. So more or less about even. But what he had to deal with was one of the hardest problems any Fed chair has ever had. When he became Fed chair, not long thereafter, we went into COVID. And as a result, the Trump administration and the Biden administration injected about $5 trillion into the economy with no corresponding tax increases. That obviously produced inflation which went as high as 9%. JPAL had to engineer a situation where we did not go into a recession. So I think he deserves credit for engineering that. All right, so some interesting things there. First, I didn't even realize that he was the guy that started the FOMC meetings. Sometimes I wonder if those are a bit of a curse though because you look at what happens after the Fed meeting. He now goes in front of the press and you get speculation of all sorts, including our own, about what's going to happen next. That creates market turmoil in most cases and it creates a lot of fluff around the entire issue of Fed rate cuts. Maybe the previous Fed chairs were right in kind of hiding from the camera to kind of slow down the market reactions. I don't know. I'm kind of mixed on whether or not this was a good thing or a bad thing. I'm glad they're doing it. I like transparency more than I like closed doors, but I just wonder what kind of market impact would have been the case if he had not been doing those. And I wonder if Kevin Walsh will continue these. I'm assuming he will, but could he completely blindside us and just kind of remember that the BIS was starting to close down data from the public. Could we see this coming from the new Fed? We'll see in a few weeks. Now, Zack Pandle hit on this right here, which is domino number two. And if you guys didn't know, this is the layer of the dominoes that he predicted here. Simple but true. Trump takes the offramp for the Fed investigation, meaning Powell's out of the clear or in the clear. That of course clears the way for the confirmation that occurred today. And now here we go with the banking committee who is going to be moving ahead on Clarity markup. And I think that is the next major move here for everyone is that the Senate is now no longer tied up with this. So they have a chance to get in front of Clarity with all of the issues that are happening around Clarity right now. This is a much needed and especially with the timing because remember timing is very key as we go into the summer break just here in a few months. If it just doesn't get done that could mean some bad things for crypto guys. I'm just looking this overall. Speaking of one of the guys who is in front of this, we've got Senator Tom Tillis warns he will vote against the Senate crypto bill unless it includes ethics language restricting officials use of digital assets. Now this is interesting because we don't have those such restrictions for trading for government officials. This is interesting that we're applying it to me. This applies simply because of the Trump family, what has been implemented over the last few months, years. Had they not done this, you know, prior to Clarity, you know, who knows what would have happened. They would maybe could have just continued on. But because it was done prior to Clarity, I think this becomes the one red line in the sand that could cause this Clarity Act to become an issue. And listen, there's not a lot of people talking about this right now. I mean, we've had several guests on that we've asked the question, do you think this? Even Warren Davidson was on with me a few weeks back and I asked him point blank, is this a problem? And he said yes, but the industry has not complied with saying, yeah, this is a problem and we need to get the Trumps to kind of play and get on board here. But inflation is the big one right now. And energy is going to be one of the core things as oil prices extend to 105 a barrel. Trump of course is prepared to extend the US blockade which of course is the blockade on the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and this is a concern that we continue to see these whipsaw numbers as you guys have heard me talk about before we've seen it all the way back down to $85 a barrel. Prior to what we were dealing with with the situation in Iran is around 75 bucks a barrel that's kind of the sweet spot of the oil industry of not necessarily high gas prices. But the oil industry is still making money. But once you get into these kind of situations and remember this is a market that even our US oil companies are making money handover fist on. And the reason is because as the market goes up which is a global market. The value of this oil is could be whether it's Europe or it's Asia. It drives that market price up which of course the oil companies just like any other business will create that demand to meet that market price. That of course creates the issue that we're dealing with here which is higher gas prices. Walsh is coming into a buzzsaw and I think this is an issue that he is going to have to face pretty quickly. Now, one thing that could start to move the markets after this, and there's been speculation that after a Fed chair comes in, markets dump, especially on Bitcoin, but the market is talking a different stick. Here is Tom Lee breaking down a portfolio to just relax on. Take a look.
Well, I think the market at the start of this year maybe had three risks it had to get comfortable with. One is Iran. A second was private credit and the third is a new Fed chair. And what we've seen, I think, is that we've come out the other side of this Iran war with the economy showing remarkable strength. In fact, earnings estimates have been going up. So, I think we passed that test. And so, to me, this means I think for stocks for the year, the upside case is strengthening. I think S&P above 7,700 is very probable. A better portfolio positioning right now would be what he calls the sleep like a baby portfolio. It's an equal weight allocation across stocks, bonds, cash, and commodities. According to Hartnet, this four-way split is having its best year since 1933 and delivering one of its largest relative wins ever versus the traditional 60/40. I mean, there's a lot of logic to that because one, we know that gold's been a really good total return performer, and so I think gold should sit in portfolios, which probably sits in commodities along with crypto. And then I did hear someone earlier this year point out NASDAQ and oil are actually good counter hedges. So, in some ways a 25% portfolio does make a lot of sense.
This is all separating from the 60/40 portfolios that have been of, you know, kind of the favorite of the past. This moving to 25/25. Are you guys doing that right now? Is that a portfolio alignment that works with you? Are you all in on commodities, crypto, or are you looking at gold, which really falls in commodities as well? Are you in securities, you know, stocks and bonds? Are you there? Let me know in the comments because I'm always curious as to how the current audience is breaking this down because we've seen, you know, the crypto all-in audience that has been really here on the channel for a long time but now we're starting to see a little bit more of a much more diversified investor coming in. So maybe it is a change in the markets for sure. Let's continue to take a look at what is happening in Iran. Here is a breakdown from Muhammad Alarin who is from CNBC. US-Israeli war against Iran threatens to disrupt global dealmaking as Gulf investors have now bankrolled transactions worth billions of dollars reassesses their spending priorities. So simply put, you've got all these GCC nations including Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. Qatar to a certain extent that have a large amount of their investment portfolios built into mostly tech, biotech and even finance to a certain extent here in the US. If the GCC continues to see the decline, not only in the oil sector because of the amount of loss in oil revenue that's happening to the GCC right now, that could have a lingering effect on traditional markets here in the US because of the investment that's going into that. Let me kind of zoom out on this and I'll show you just an example. Gulf nations accounted for nearly half of all sovereign investments globally in 2025. So that's half, 126 billion deployed across sectors from AI, entertainment, financial services as I was referring to there. And I think that's the point here. Will they pull the plug and simply say today is not the day we're going to be investing in the United States. It's going to be a big thing to watch. We're going to be heading into Chair Powell's speech and his address to the press here momentarily. We will go live. As I said, the way it works, just to kind of give everybody a heads up on this is, it's very simple. We'll stream it live. Normally, we will stream the whole thing or as much as we can that we think is relevant. We may cut out of it and I'll just give you guys some final comments. But that's how it works. Of course, you guys can continue to comment and all that as we go into the live. Let's cut to Chair Powell.
Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people. The US economy has been expanding at a solid pace. While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months. Inflation has moved up and is elevated in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices. Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged. We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment and 2% inflation goals. Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook and we will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate. I'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Consumer spending has been resilient and business fixed investment has continued to expand at a brisk pace. In contrast, activity in the housing sector has remained weak. In the labor market, the unemployment rate was 4.3% in March and has changed little in recent months. Job gains have remained low. A good part of the slowing in the pace of the job growth over the past year reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation, though labor demand has clearly softened as well. Other indicators, including job openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal wage growth, generally show little change in recent months. Inflation has moved up recently and is elevated relative to our 2% longer-run goal. Estimates based on the consumer price index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12 months ending in March. Boosted by the significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in March. This relatively high rate largely reflects the effects of tariffs on prices in the good sector. Near-term measures of inflation expectations have risen this year, likely because of the substantial rise in oil prices. Most measures of longer-term expectations remain consistent with our 2% inflation goal. Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. At today's meeting, the committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3 and a half to 3 and 3/4%. The economic outlook remains highly uncertain and the conflict in the Middle East has added to this uncertainty. In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation. Beyond that, the scope and duration of potential effects on the economy remain unclear, as does the future course of the conflict itself. We will continue to monitor the risks to both sides of our dual mandate. We are well positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments to our policy rate based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks. Monetary policy is not on a preset course and we will make our decisions on a meeting basis. This is my last press conference as chair and I will close with a few thoughts. First, I want to congratulate Kevin Walsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. This is an important step forward and I wish him well as that process continues. The Federal Reserve exists for one fundamental purpose: to foster the economic conditions in which American families and businesses can thrive. Stable prices, a strong job market, and a financial system they can depend on. Every decision we make, whether about interest rates or regulatory and supervisory matters or other issues, is made in service of that purpose. Our decisions reflect the collective judgment of the board of governors and the federal open market committee. Colleagues who demonstrate analytical rigor, principled judgment, and a genuine commitment to the public interest. Our collaborative and deliberative process has long reflected a shared commitment to finding common ground in service to our mission. This institution is resilient, capable, and staffed by professionals of extraordinary talent and exceptional dedication. It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many great public servants at the board of governors and around the Federal Reserve system. The Fed's work is only as effective as the public's understanding of it. And you, the press, are essential to keeping the public informed about what we do and why. The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting. I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation. Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there's a criminal referral from the Fed's inspector general. And absent such a referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal, to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas. I've said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that. I'm encouraged by recent developments, and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully. My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve. After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. There is only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Walsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair. Once sworn in as board chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well. As I regularly point out from this podium, our success in delivering our goals matters for all Americans. I'm confident that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the kind words about the press. Often doesn't come from the podium in different places, but appreciate that. Can you talk about what has gone into your decision to remain on the board? What kind of criteria are you weighing and how long might you stay? Thank you.
Sure. So, you know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. And I want to note here this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials. I've never suggested that such verbal criticism is a problem and neither has anyone else here. But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. It is so important for our economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way free of political influence. It's part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have. It's just one of the many reasons why the US economy is the envy of the world. That piece of institutional architecture separates successful countries from unsuccessful countries. It is extremely important, not for the people who work at the Fed at any given time, but for the people that we serve, that the Fed remain able to conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled into politics trying to help or hurt any particular politician or political party. It's critical for the people that we serve. In terms of when I would leave, I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so. Was that all your questions or was that...
Well, I just have a follow-up which is what would you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board, you're actually taking a political act and denying President Trump the majority of the board which as president he would have if you left.
I don't see that at all. As I mentioned, you know, I'm literally staying because of the actions that have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring. And you know, the things that have happened in really in the last 3 months have I think left me no choice but to stay until I see them through at least that long. You know, in addition, I don't see how this will interfere. My intention is not to interfere. You know, I was a governor for almost six years, and the tradition is at the Fed that governors who understand how difficult the role of chair is, and as a soon-to-be former chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong-minded people, you work with the chair. You try to be heard, but also collaborate with the chair and try to support the chair when you can. When you can't, you can't. And I think that's the attitude that people generally take. And that's the attitude that I'll take.
Chair Powell, if I could ask about the inflation outlook. In March, you described the standard practice of looking through energy shocks as conditional on inflation expectations staying anchored. Since that meeting, there has been very little progress reopening key energy trade corridors. Can you help us understand how the inflation outlook has changed in the intervening period beginning with the prospects for tariff pass-through resolving on the timeline that you had outlined in March before getting to the energy shock that is now on top?
So, you know, I would look at it this way. For a long time, we've been working on the hypothesis really that tariffs would lead to a one-time price increase and that that would go away over time. In other words, that there would be no further change. So, measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more. And it's time for that to happen. You know, we really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters. So, we'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen. That's the kind of critical part of the forecast. We need to really see that. With energy, it's so hard to say. I mentioned, you know, in the textbook, you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be short-lived and they tend to revert and monetary policy works with long and variable lags. So you know, you wouldn't necessarily react right away. I think that is all the more true given that we're several years above 2% inflation and that we're already looking through the tariff shock. So, I think we're going to be very cautious about that. But the question about looking through energy really is not in front of us right now. It hasn't even peaked yet. And I think we'd want to see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about reducing rates.
So, if I could follow up, the statement today preserves language that has taken on some meaning as it was socialized when the committee was actively lowering rates. Why is that easing bias still ripe given how different the inflation outlook is now versus a meeting or two ago and what more would have to happen for it to get evicted?
So that was, as you will recall, we had a discussion about that at the last meeting and we talked about it in the press conference after the March meeting. We had the same today. We had quite a vigorous discussion about that very issue and the guidance and is it still appropriate and that kind of thing. And I would say that the number of people on the committee who either could support that language change to a more neutral stance so that a hike is as likely as a cut, that number has increased over the intervening period and it's easy to see why. I mean, it's a good question, right? You see inflation has moved up over the interim a bit, core inflation's 3.2 now moving albeit just a little bit in the wrong direction and we know that there will be headline inflation coming out of the Gulf and we don't know how much that will be. We're going to need to see. So, it makes all the sense in the world that people would look at that and we'd have a vigorous discussion about that. You saw that three people dissented over the language. I think all of those people agreed with the rate decision. So, the majority of the committee did not want to do that and I didn't think we needed to do it at this meeting. It really was just a question of why do we need to do that now? You know, we have so much to learn. There's so much uncertainty about the path ahead. There doesn't need to be any rush to make that decision now because you know what happens in the next 30, 60 days even by the next meeting could really change the picture around that language. So, it's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March and that makes all the sense in the world it seems to me.
Claire Jones, Financial Times. Just going back to this issue of the easing bias. We've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark, Brent crude. If it stays around those levels, six weeks from now, what would be your best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement? Thank you.
I wouldn't want to guess, you know, well, first of all, we're going to have new leadership in all likelihood by then and new leadership is going to have a very important role to play in that. So, I won't be standing here at this podium to answer your question. So, I don't know. As I mentioned, that's all I can really say is that we had a great discussion about that today. It's gotten to be a better question in the intervening period. We had the discussion, a majority are still on the page of not feeling the need to move to that level. And that's where I am. I get it though, you know, at a certain point you would move and that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting.
Thank you. And just to follow on, the new leadership also seem rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the dot plots. What would your advice to him be on these communication tools?
So I'm not going to give him any advice through you today here. But I think communications generally is, I think every incoming chair takes a look at communications and it's a very healthy thing. I mean communications is very complex and you can always be looking at new things and if that happens, feels like it's going to happen, that's a completely appropriate thing.
Hi, Chair Powell with Axios. Can you tell us if you've been in touch with incoming chairman Walsh? To what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around, something unusual? And what can we expect when he takes that podium in a few weeks?
I haven't seen him since seeing him at a dinner in January where I congratulated him and had a nice chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't know what a normal process is. You know, the last process was with Janet Yellen with whom I had worked for six years and so it was a, you know, we were sitting down the hall from each other. So, it was a very different thing. I think this is and will be a very normal standard kind of a transition process. So, that's what I expect. I have every reason to think it will be.
Quick follow up. Is the Supreme Court ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when you may leave as a governor?
I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no, not really. I mean, I'm thinking more of the other things I mentioned.
Hi. Thanks for taking our question. I wanted to ask a question about your tenure. Chris Ruggeri at Associated Press. During your tenure as chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment. And the new framework the Fed adopted in 2020, some economists say elevated the Fed's employment mandate. Are you worried that the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market and should they be?
I don't know the answer to that. I mean what we experienced in the mid-teens was really low levels of unemployment for a long period of time and no reaction from inflation and we all very much took notice of that. We also noticed that the biggest wage gains were going to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum. And we had many reports of, I mean it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium and a lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum including companies were, you know, setting up in, you know, people who were confined and training them before they got out and it was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics. So of course I think anybody would love to get back to that. I don't think that anything that happened to create the global pandemic inflation was in any way related to overweighting the employment market. I mean it was a global shock that happened essentially very similarly all over the world that had to do with closing, reopening, stimulus and all that. And I mean you could look at a graph of 10 big economies on the page and not know which was the US and which was Germany, France and things like that. So I don't think that that insight was in any way responsible for the high inflation that we experienced. So I mean I think it's always been a balance. You've got to be strong on both of our dual mandates and we just for example now we don't feel that the labor market is at all a source of inflation. So we don't need to be worrying about that. It's been a long time since we have had to worry about that. Well, actually during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight and that's when we had to worry about it, but not now.
And just on the other issue, would you need, do you need more assurance from the Justice Department before stepping down? Is that what you're waiting for or what else?
I'm waiting, you know, for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency and I'm waiting for that and I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so.
Michael McKee from Bloomberg Television and Radio. I'd like to ask you if you could explain a little more or characterize a little more the discussion about the two-sided view and interest rates because there were some members of the open market committee who've been suggesting that we may need to raise interest rates even absent the war because inflation was not coming down fast enough. Is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up or was this just a setup to sort of warn people that you're worried about the war impacts?
So nobody, the three dissenters and others who could have supported that and others who were voters and non-voters who preferred it, they all supported the rate decision, right? So people are not saying we need to hike now. It's more a question of, you know, don't we kind of feel that we should be neutral and markets are, what are markets doing? People argue that this is consistent what markets are doing. And again, it's a very fair question but you know, these changes, it's a form of forward guidance and you want to make them in a way that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back fairly quickly. So I think we just a group of us including me didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that.
that markets are not confused about our reaction function. We don't have a problem to solve on that. But the other side of the argument is a good argument too, as I mentioned. It's a perfectly good argument to be having, good discussion to be having. So, and it came out the way it came out.
Well, you've got three dissents in favor of two-sided warning. You've got yourself staying on the board. You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials and you've got a lot of critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow in 2021 with inflation. Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this? Is that one reason that you want to stay on?
Not driving my thinking now. I mean, monetary policy is going to get made by, you know, 19 people. There's a lot of stability there. I mean if you think about it, every new Fed chair has the same situation which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC, 11 of them vote during any year and your job is to create consensus. It's to talk to them, understand them, you know, be inside their thinking and be able to pull them together and get consensus and move. And that's what every Fed chair has to do. And I think Kevin Warsh is actually quite well. He has the capabilities, skills to be very good at that, I would think. So I think I'm not so worried about that process, you know. I think that'll work itself out.
Thank you, Chair Powell. Howard Schneider with Reuters. You mentioned that staying on as a governor, you intend to keep a low profile. I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can... what that looks like and particularly around the policy discussion, how you're able to have your intervention and not be a shadow chair and not have kind of an outsized influence over the process.
Yeah. You know, that's just something I would never do. You know, the shadow chair thing. I don't know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I'm going back to being a governor. I respect the role of chair. I was a chair. I was a governor for six years, and I know what that's like. I had a pretty front row seat particularly with Chair Yellen to whom I was close when I worked with Chairman Bernanke for two years. But I was brand new at that time. So I got a sense of what it was and I had real sympathy for how hard it is to get that group to consensus and I always felt like I don't want to add to that unnecessarily and that means try to support the chair where the direction the chair wants to go and if you can't, you can't. And I think that's the way it's always worked there because the chair only has one vote plus the ability to develop consensus and if people won't be, you know, they won't if they're not flexible at all then how do you ever do that. And so that's why the chair has the authority the chair has really is to develop relationships with people and work with them and then put something forward that has consensus. And I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process, really out of respect for the office of the chair.
And in your view as a soon-to-be governor, how do you see the risks of oil prices bleeding into core inflation in coming weeks? Because it seems like the commentary that was coming from particularly some of the Reserve Bank presidents, they were elevated concerns about the bleed into core and here we are with three dissents now. What do you see as the prospect of core inflation?
You know, those prospects are real. Remember though, they're real and the real thing is we're going to have to wait and see. We're going to need to see and the good news is we think our policy stance is in a very good place for us to wait and see. We're right kind of at the high end of neutral or perhaps mildly restrictive. The labor market shows more and more signs of stability whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving and so maybe a little bit of restriction or the high end of neutral is just the right place to be. So we can wait here and see how things work out before we act and we'll see how much that, you know, how much does come through into core. You see it already in airfares of course but you may see it in many other places. We just don't know yet and it's so unknowable because how long will the strait be closed? You can develop any number of scenarios that you want but we really won't know till we know. So fortunately we're in a good place to wait and let things develop.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You started holding post-meeting press conferences for every meeting as opposed to the ones with just with SCPs. Can you talk about why you see that as a net positive?
So we always said when we were doing quarterly press conferences, we always said we can move at any meeting, but we only ever moved at the quarterly SCP meetings where we had the press conference. So if you think about it, during the pandemic, we were moving like a lot at every meeting and sometimes between meetings and doing that without a press conference, I think would have been quite challenging. It's become the industry norm. It's the standard. I don't know whether that has to remain that way. I don't know. It's just something people have become used to and I do think it's quite helpful to, you know, I try to deliver a message on behalf of the committee rather than 18 other people going out and delivering their message and it's going to be all over the place because we do thankfully have widely disparate views.
Okay, thanks. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the communications review from last year. Could you describe the debate last year? What changes were considered, what you wanted, and what prevented any action on those changes.
So, I'm not going to go into the real small specifics, but what we found very quickly was that making changes, making really large changes, for example, to the dot plot or the SCP, we couldn't come up with anything that had really broad support on the committee and so we just moved on. We didn't really do as much on that as we might have. And I was never the world's biggest fan of the dot plot but you can't beat something with nothing. And we've looked at a bunch of things and it's something, like I said, I think every new chair is going to look at our suite of communications and think about what would be changes. We are the only major central bank that doesn't publish a forecast and that's because we have a 19-person committee and you try to do that at the board, that's hard, at the committee, that's hard, it's hard if you do it at the staff. So it works. I think our communications are fine but looking at doing it in a different and better way is the most natural thing in the world.
Thank you. Colby Smith with the New York Times. If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes, are we right to assume that the hawkish outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause in rate cuts? And to what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy really isn't just restrictive at all right now? The economy is holding up relatively well despite this major energy shock. The unemployment rate has ticked lower. Inflation was moving sideways even before the war and is now moving higher. So where is the committee at on that debate?
You know where we're at is we think our policy rate is in a good place. If we need to hike, we will certainly signal that and we will certainly do it. If we need to cut, then if it's appropriate to cut, then we'll signal the opposite. I think because we feel like we're in a good place to move in either direction. Nobody's calling for a hike right now. So it really is going to depend on how things evolve. And that's really where it is. As I mentioned, a much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance but ultimately we didn't.
And as it relates to the war, at what point do you think the risk to growth will be larger than the risk to inflation as this conflict drags on?
