He served as Federal Reserve chair from 1979 to 1987. He accomplished many things during his long and distinguished career and elsewhere and best known for leading the fight to detain them placement that he inherited as chair the foundation for the prosperity and price stability we enjoy today. But what is most admirable, more than his accomplishments is his character. He believed there is no higher calling than Public Service and he dedicated the lion share of his life. With courage, integrity and tenacity he pursued the policy that he believed would ultimately benefit all americans. My colleagues and i draw inspiration from his example. Turning to todays meeting my colleagues and i decided to leave the policy rate of lowering it three quarters of a rate of the previously three meetings. We base our decisions on judgment of how best to achieve the goal congress has given x mom employment of price stability. It remains a favorable one despite Global Developments in ongoing risks, with the decisions of the course of the past year we believe Monetary Policy can serve the people with a job market and the inflation of 2 goal. The economic expansion is a the 11th year, the longest on the record, Household Spending has been strong supported by rising incomes and confidence. In contrast, the under Business Experts remain weak in manufacturing output has declined over the past year. As has been the case for some time, sluggish development on those sectors, even so the overall economy has been growing moderately. And with a strong household sector and supportive monetary and Financial Condition we expect moderate growth to continue. The median expectation for gdp growth slows slightly over the next few years but remains near 2 . The Unemployment Rate has been near halfcentury lows for more than a year. In the pace of job gain remains solid. Participation in labor force by ages 25 54 has been increasing. In wages have been rising for lower paying jobs. People who live and work in low and middle income communities tell us that many who struggle to find work or find new opportunities. These developments underscore the entry important subjects sustaining the strong job market left behind. We expect the job market to remain strong, the median upper disparate projection for the appointment rate remains below 4 over the next four years. Inflation continues round below the 2 objective. Over the 12 months through october, total pce inflation was 1. 3 in core inflation which excludes volatile prices and a better indicator of future inflation was 1. 6 . While low and stable inflation is a good thing, inflation that runs persistently below our objective can lead to an unhealthy dynamic in which longerterm expectation drift down in inflation growing lower. In term Interest Rates will be lower as well and closer to the effective closer bound. As a result the scope for industry rejection who support the economy would be diminished resulting in worse economic outcomes for families and businesses. The backdrop of a Strong Economy and supportive Monetary Policy, we expect inflation will rise to 2 . The media participate to 1. 9 next year end 2 in 2021. We are committed to achieving our 2 inflation goal. Over the course of the past year our views of Interest Rates that would best achieve our employment and inflation injective change significantly as the economy faces challenges of trade developer. We adjusted the Monetary Policy to cushion the economy from these developments and to provide insurance against the associated risks. In addition, inflation pressures were expectedly muted strengthening the case for better policy. Rather than modestly increasing the target rate or the federal funds rate as seemed appropriate a year ago, we reduced it by three quarters of a percentage point. This shift has supported the economy and kept the outlook on track. The median of Economic Growth and Unemployment Rate in inflation are little changed from a year ago beside for the lower inflation injection of 2019. That is a function of Monetary Policy to adjust Interest Rates for employment and price stability in response to forces acting on the economy. We believe the current stance of Monetary Policy will support sustained growth, strong labor market and inflation 2 objective. As long as income information about the economy remains, consistent with the outlook the current stance of Monetary Policy will remain appropriate. Looking ahead, we will be monitoring the effects of our recent policy action along with other information as we assess the appropriate tab of the federal funds rate. Of course of developments emerge that cause assessment of our outlook we would respond accordingly. Policy is not on a preset course. Finally, i want to note that we were purchasing treasury bills and conducting consistent with the plan that we not the summer. The operations are aimed of an ample level of reserves and money market pressures that could affect the implementation of Monetary Policy. Our operations are going well so far, pressure and money market over recent weeks have been to do. To address pressure and money market over the year end weve been conducting term report operation spanning urine, we stand rate to adjuster operations has appropriate to keep the federal funds rate in the target range. Thank you all be happy to take your questions. What is happening there isthp between utilization or on a moment and inflation has gotten weaker and weaker over the years. If you go back 50 years, you would see when labor markets were tight and unemployment was low, inflation moved up. As the fed got control, the connection got weaker and weaker to the point where theres still a connection but is a very faint and what that suggest is you would need to keep policy somewhat accommodative and we believe policy is accommodated and we think thats appropriate place for to be to drive up inflation. To follow up on that, it seems nonexistent. So the suggested earlier policy is not influencing prices at all. What do you do to reach your target. I dont think that is right. Again the relationship between slack in the economy and inflation has been weak and the coefficient is something like. 1, it is much lower than it used to be but i dont know its gone down anymore in the last decade. But its still there. If you look at where wages were three or four years ago the running around 2 in the whole group of different wage measures that we monitor has moved up to 3 3. 5 and that suggest tightening. The same thing is true but much less true of inflation, the relationship in a way that its curved at the higher coefficient. But we see some relationship and thats what you see in those numbers. Youve use the analogy of 1998 to describe the rate cuts we went there. I am wondering if we could continue the analogy within seven months of rate cuts, the fed took them back and then some. The so were these those rate cuts that you need to take back or are we had a place where were at a neutral rate if those risks that you say were cushioning dont materialize. Or is this a new steady state for the economy at this rate, the rate rate for the economy that you see Going Forward and dont take those rate cuts back. There is similarities, conceptual similarities between the two instances during the long expansion and 95 and 98 where they cut three times only to resume raising rates. The notion is the economy needed slightly more accommodative policy but it was not the end of the expansion. That the same situation we believe. We did in fact turn out to do three rate cuts, that was not in the plan in any weight at the beginning. So that is the same, what is different, you have a very different structural characteristics in the economy around inflation. So now you can see, inflation is barely moving up, notwithstanding the unemployment is at 50 year lows and expected to remain there. So the need for rate increases is less and by the way its a good thing, with warren, unemployment can remain at low levels for an extended period of time without unwanted upward pressure on inflation. We need some pressure on inflation to get back to 2 . Its different and 95 and 98 when there was two adjustments. I would say similarities and differences. I think i concluded the bias concluded in september that the repo spike was not a oneoff confluence of random events but reflected structural and regulatory issues that could lead to a recurrence. Do you agree with the findings and given were approaching year end for the market, will you take any extra steps to ensure that funding is available in the markets there was a report yesterday suggesting theres a good chance we will see disruption in one of the reasons they put forth is that the fed is at this point buying only tbills in the market wants to sell coupons. Do you have any plans to sell coupons . All take a step back and ill get your question on urine. I want to start by stressing, these are very important operational matters and not likely to have any implication. We decided in january to remain an ample reserve regime and that means will set the federal funds rate through our minister rate and not through the level of reserve, were committed to implementing the framework and as you can see bar actions. The purpose of this is to assure our Monetary Policy decisions will be transferred to the federal funds rate which affects other rates. We have the tools to a couple sat and we will use them. The purpose of this is not to eliminate all volatility in the repo market. So taking you back, as you know, we very gradually allowed the Balance Sheet to shrink and we slowed that by half in march and ended in july, we surveyed all the banks and the large banks who hold the lot of reserves which are lowest comfortable level of reserves, we added them up and a buffer and it came out at a level well below where we were in september. But we saw in september the reserves became scarce. What happened, liquidity which existed did not flow into the repo market and had effect on the federal funds rate. The other question, why did that happen, we been carefully looking at the reasons why that happened, their payment issues, a number of supervisory and liquor under regulatory issues, were looking carefully at those and open to ideas of modifying regulatory practice rates but dont undermine safety and soundness in a number of ideas are under examination. To go to the time, we started off on september 17 with overnight operations and by october 11 we had created and put in effect a plan in its an impact and it is working, for the last couple months repo markets have been functioning well, shortterm rates are stable and markets are functioning. So you asked about yearend, temporary upward pressure on shortterm money market rates are not unusual around year end in both the repo operation and treasury are intended to mitigate the risk try federal funds rate. We think that the pressure appears to be manageable and we stand ready to adjust our operations as necessary to keep the federal funds rate and the target range. Our strategy has been essentially the key to our strategy is to supply reserves in the nearterm there overnight in term repo and at the same time we are raising the underlying level of reserves through bill purchases. We have said bill purchases and said were willing to adopt a strategy, were not at this place but it becomes appropriate for us to purchase other shortterm coupon securities then we would be prepared to do that if it arises. But were not in that place that looks like those bill purchases are going well according to expectations. The other thing, we have regular contact with Market Participants all the time and will be providing in continuing that and were prepared to adjust our tactics and were focused on yearend as well to adjust our operation as appropriate. Where are we with repo facility. As you know weve had a couple of meetings where we discussed that, i think it is something that will take time to evaluate and create the parameters and put into place, at the moment what were focused on, were now focused on yearend and i should mention after yearend, the sense as underlying level of reserves moves up because of phil purchases, as that happens there will come a time where itll be appropriate for overnight and term repo to decline. We cannot know today with the timing of that will be. That is the way we see going overtime. Heather long from washington post. A member of your colleagues have said exclusively that they do not think the fmo and c should raise improv Interest Rates untk to 4 preyed where you stand on that. As a mention at the last press conference, we think our policy rate is appropriate and will remain appropriate as long as incoming data are broadly in keeping with their outlook. In order to move rates up, i would want to see inflation that is persistent and significant, a significant move and inflation before raising rates to address inflation concerns. That is my view. I guess im wondering why it is not codified in a statement . We have not tried to turn it into an official forward guidance. It happens to be my view that thats what it would take to walk to move Interest Rates up in order to be with inflation. Tina with the new york times, following up on heathers question, if you look at the sep today, it looks like inflation is never overshooting 2 and only getting 2 by the end of 2021 but rates are increasing at 2021. How do we square that circle with Interest Rates increasing before inflation moves up in a meaningful overshooting way. Which are saying is you have a full year of the medium being flat and its accommodative and inflation not moving up very much. That underscores a challenge of getting inflation to move up, the committee has wanted inflation to be a 2 ever since i write. In 2012, it has not happened. Their dish inflation or forces around the world and stronger than people understood them to be. In terms of the rate increases, what you look at is rate increase more than a year into the future and people have their own explanation for how they do that but none of us have a sense of what the economy will be like in 2021. What may be behind that is the thought that over time it would be appropriate if you believe the neutral rate is 2. 5 it would be appropriate for your rate to move up in that direction. I will also say a number of people wrote down, you cannot see it this detail but a number people did write down overshoot of inflation under appropriate policy. Given that inflation whichever measure you choose the has not increased over the past year as you been dropping the policy rates, what is it that gives you confidence that the fed has the tools to get inflation back up to target or overshoot as you indicated that some people are considering doing. There still empirically by many different analysts, there is a relationship between resource utilization and employment. It is relatively weak, thats not a bad thing, we can run at low level of unemployment and have historically good and subdimensions labor market without having to worry about labor market. Its not easy to move inflation. I would say theres more humility than there is confidence at this point. Its been very challenging to get inflation to be at target and if you look around the world the United States of all economies has been inclusive but has not been able to achieve it and i would point out that this year which is been a good year for the economy, inflation is running at 1. 6 wearing close to 2 last year. It is a real challenge but i think were using our tools as best as we can to meet the challenge. Nick with wall street journal. I want to ask about the framework review which obviously entails a debate around allowing and overshoot of the 2 target. In that contest its saying that you want inflation to rise above 2 of a sufficient strategy and forgetting inflation to state the target or would it compel a policy action beyond rate increases to achieve the outcome. Is that the direction in which the Committee Goes its one thing to accept inflation rising on its own but if inflatio infls not materialize does it make it easier to generate higher inflation . I think the answer to the question of whether saying it is enough for credibility the answer is no. I think you have to back that up with policy that supports the outcome. Thats what were trying to do. The changes that we look at to the framework, i think they take all of the onboard and what theyre designed to do is to strengthen the credibility of the inflation target but only if followed by policy. Ultimately it will take time to establish and move Inflation Expectations up which is a bit below 2 , it will not happen overnight it will be over time as cut ability is built. The fed has great inflation credibility but Inflation Expectations are anchored at 25 year average which is a few ticks below 2 . Edward lawrence with fox business network, i want to ask about uncertainty. With the house announcing they would ratify usmca in canada and mexico signing off, do you see that ezine so the Business Investment could pick up or the trade tension when china with the big elephant in the room where you might not see the Business Investments pick up. I did see the news today that it appears theres an agreement to move forward to vote on usmc and is not our role to comment on particular trade policies or criticize or evaluate them. I will say if the deal were to be enacted it would remove the tree policy uncertainty and that would be a positive for the economy. Also the same thing about the negotiations with china, we have not reached the point, we been hearing from people we talk to, the many people and businesses that we talk to through the reserve banks that are written up and they were telling us all year for a year end half that the tree policy is weighing on the outlook and i do think without commenting on anyway in the process or the content of the agreement, i think the uncertainty around that would be a positive for the economy. One bigger than the other, do you see that on the deal themselves i think you can see thats whats been moving financial markets. Its been news about the negotiation with china, i think the difference between nafta and usmc is smaller than the difference between current was renegotiated. The fed policy review has largely been discussed in terms of the inflation side of the mandate and inflation expectation. It seems like the message you gave and also Something Else you recently acknowledged is that the fed has been systematically overestimating labor utilization. Im wondering if you can talk about the extent to which the review is looking at the employment side as well. Are there any possibilities for it systematic function. Thank you. The focus is on how to use the strategy tools and communication due to both sides. I think that more broadly we been learning that the naturally of unemployment is lower, and estimate not just the fed broadly among labor economists have seen their connection and we can sustain much lower levels of unemployment then have been taught. As i mentioned thats a good thing because we dont have to worry so much about inflation. And you see the benefits of that in todays labor market. This event is about inflation to a much lesser extent than maximum employment. If you listen to her the discussion, we focus on inflation and discussion around low and moderate communities and Small Businesses and i think you get a perspective in which we were getting that from our extensive outreach to Community Groups and such. It was helpful to get in the context of a Monetary Policy review and the fact that these communities have so much in high levels of unemployment and low levels of labor force meant participation tells you their slack out there and they will inform our understanding of what we mean by maximum employment. I went to the fed listen have been extraordinarily positive in something we will repeat. Also from the business perspective, companies are taking all kinds of majors to look through the things on peoples resume that would have disqualified them and other kinds of environments, there are a lot of things going on the suggested people at the margins of the labor force are being pulled in and given chances which is a great thing. Victoria,. Just following up is there any way to systematize these insights in terms of talking about makeup strategies on the inflation side is there anything similar you can do on the on a plymouth site. I think we have internalized, this is for today and we have been saying this for several years, you have seen moving down her estimates and attorney understood that there is more even the wet three and half unappointed theres more slack out there. In the risks of using a Monetary Policy or tool to explore that are relatively low. I think we know that and the review underscores that and its a very important part. Victoria with political. I want to ask about the rebuttal issues, are you currently telling the examiners not to prefer reserves over treasuries or supervisory purposes, are you talking to the Treasury Department of reducing the level of volatility with the feds. In understanding repo facility that you would be inclined to do it but you need to figure out the details or what kind of drives the decision on whether or not to do that . On treasury versus reserves, we have done a ton of work on that and talk to the superviso supervisors, if you look at the banks there all over the place on the competition of their buffer. You have a Business Model in that Business Model suggest what your numbers will be and what your buffer should be and you see them making different choices and some have lots of different reserves and pure treasuries and change your mind and switch. Its not obvious that theres one thing happening. We need to understand that talking to the supervisors. In terms of the pga, we have not tried to pull the pga into this yet, weve taken as misogynist and will have those discussions at some point but we want treasury to have the cash that it needs and will essentially take that to our work and there may come a time when we talk about that but we have not done much of that. Standing repo facility, your question is what are we thinking about . I think were more focused on the bill purchases, the year in and the review of supervisory and regulatory issues that were digging into because we think these are structural things where you could without sacrifice safety it allows the liquidity that is already there to flow perhaps by making straightforward noncontroversial changes. We think theres some of that so were working hard and fast so those are things if they take real changes, of take notice of public role changing and those things take times. These things were working on now like going through yearend with overnight facility and purchases and the term repo, those are things you have to do right now. I wanted to ask, the only change in the statement was in terms to uncertainty around the economy. You seem very confident or it implies theres a lot of confidence that those uncertainties have gone away. What caused you to make the change for the statement, what were you looking at . If you look at the statement youll notice we did call it Global Development and pressures. Lets later in the statement. Why do we do that, those of the things weve been monitoring all year, we put in place policies that we think are appropriate to address and were not revisiting that but those are key things that have not gone away so we thought it was appropriate to mention them there. Still subject to the idea that for us to change our stance we would want to see a material reassessment of outlook. Just to followup, the material reassessment, are you worried that that has set too high a bar for potential cuts we were talking about rate heights but no fed policy maker sees cuts that she and some economists do. Does the material reassessment mean you need to see data worsen, reduce your ability to act preemptively arguably the way you did this year . One thing were mindful of, we cut rates three times since july, 75 basis points. And we do believe that Monetary Policy operates with long invariable legs and take some time before the full effect of those actions are seen in the economy. Thats one reason to hold back and we think we took strong majors and if you look more broadly at the treasury yield curve, its moved more than 75 basis points in your quite a significant move and in terms of what is material at the end of the day, i would say whether or not the change in the outlook mirror to response of a colectomy judgment and theres not a single factor that will determine our decisions and will look at a full range of data. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You started out by talking about paul volker who kept the long chowdeshadow. I wonder if the shadow was too long in the decades since his tenure and last year if the fed was too quick to raise Interest Rates to attack inflation bogeyman that did not materialize. My response will not be about volker. , if you look back in 2018, ill take you back to the beginning of 2018, we had an economy growing at 3 in inflation at 2 . And we had a trillion and a half dollars worth of stimulus arriving in the federal funds rate was 1. 4 . So it was not we move policy up during the course of the year, we never got the policy at the level of what we thought the neutral rate was at the time. There was no sense of it being restricted. We took steps to make it less accommodative which seemed to be the right thing and it still seems to be the right thing in hindsight. The idea that we were trying to slow the economy down and trying to get near neutral and with the last rate increase we were still meaningfully below the median estimate on the committee of what the neutral rate was so the policy was accommodative. What has happened, the facts on the ground have changed. Use all the Global Economic slowdown began in the middle of last year and continue to go on the share so you see the continual weakening. Look at the growth from the spring of 2018 and compare it to now. That does affect us. Also the trade situation was just beginning in the middle of 18 and i think there will be very wide range of estimates. But its had a meaningful effect on output for the uncertainty channel and a lesser extent the tariff effects. Thats not to make a judgment or us to make the judgment. That will be my story. To follow up on the trade question, can you talk about what you would imagine the economic effect would be if negotiations with china were to fall apart and how the fed might be able to support the economy. I would not want to speculate on a hypothetical, i would say we will just have to see. We look at a range of factors and as i said before we look through the volatility in trade news and negotiation for a we tradtry not to react. Monetary policy is not the right tool to act in the short term to volatility and things that can change back and forth and back and forth. Its probably typical of a large complex negotiation. So in terms i dont want to get into two hypothetical outcomes. Im wondering you met with the president last month, did you have any advice for him when it came to this and did you express concern about volatility and the impact of the economy given all this . I will stick with my predecessor longterm practice of not discussing private meetings with other officials. Thank you. Thank you. Yesterday Democratic Leaders in the house have launched an impeachment process against the president. Have you mentioned those as presenting no. We have not. We dont consider things like that. Does the fed plot still serve a useful communication purpose or do you feel in might be time to retire or change in some fashion . I think properly understood it could be useful. But thats been a challenge. Probably understood to me means looking at what it is and what is not. Its an expression of the thinking about individual Committee Members about appropriate Monetary Policy and the path of the economy. We write that down and send it in and it gets compiled. But we do not discuss at the meeting. Theres no agreement or plan and particularly at inflation points, it is hard to convey the reality which is policy is going to depend on Economic Outlook and changes in the Economic Outlook. When its changing the doctor not a consideration. We will do what we think is the right thing for the economy and the docs we did six months or three months ago dont agree with that, thats not even a conversation. It can be useful and i think as i said its been a challenge and i do like to say if you focus too much on the docs you can miss the broader picture. From market watch, many people seem worried that the framework that youre working on is going to be the result less rather than more. And people keep coming back and saying and asking why you took off a 4 inflation rate off the table even when it started. As you said, is going around the country, i dont think i heard anybody worry about a 4 inflation rate or think the higher inflation rate was going to be a problem. Where does the concern come from, is that members of the congress who have said this . No, we have been working on this all year and were just at the stage where we had a really interesting discussion about tools at the october meeting in this meeting we talked about the way Monetary Policy affects different groups in the economy and we talked about the fed and very interesting resources. Were just getting to the stage where were looking at conclusion, what do we take away from all of this. Many would wind up as changes in modification to the statement of Monetary Policy. I think the process will take until the middle of the year. We want to approach it thoroughly and carefully and thats a framework document. I would not prejudge, i believe will be able to reach a successful conclusion and make improvements. In terms of 4 , i think its premature for people to say this is not going anywhere. If you define going anywhere as a 4 inflation target. Let me talk about the 4 . Ill go back to the point that its not itself credible, if you say were raising inflation target to four, what would be the effect, wheres the credibility, you have not been able to get it to two, so i think you need to lower your site and you have to ask the question, is 4 really priced to build it . I think its a fair question. So i think i like for this review to come out with a set of positive results. With meaningful improvements, it does not mean it has to solve every problem Going Forward and we want to have this be a successful exercise where we can improve our framework and these things dont tend to move in a way, they tend to involve. If we do this in a few years again and again, at least were moving in a good direction. I think we will be. Im confident we will be. Im with the los angeles times. Im wondering what you mightve done differently and what you take into dexter. My total focus is on right now and getting policy right in next year end what the economy will be doing, i like where we are in policy too long of a question, i dont know how to get after that. Theres a lot of learning that comes from the economy every year end the way we do our jobs and were always going to learn lessons. Are there any particular surprises whether the economy or how markets obviously i did not see or anybody saw coming the challenges that we face this year. I think that they were surprised, toward the end of 2018 there was a sense of the economy growing at 3 and we do not expect to face the challenges but i think we did face them and im pleased we moved to support the economy and the way that we did in a thicker moves will prove appropriate and again, i think the economy and Monetary Policy but i think were in a place. Why are we not seeing stronger wage gains, wages are growing more slowly now then toward the beginning of the year, why is that. Wage gains have moved up a bit if you look back three or four years wages were going to present another moving 3 3 and half percent. Why are they not growing at a faster rate . A couple of things, there were are a range of explanations. One would be that productivity has been low. Wages should go up to uncover inflation and productivity has been low and its very likely holding back wages. I also think there are other possible potential explanations such as globalization and the idea that you can make manufacturers or provide services anywhere in the world to end you were in the world that hangs over the wage setting process and everywhere, there is a attraction in the wage market that even in a tight labor market. The labor market might not be as tight as we thought it was and i think there are many, many possible explanations but if you look at nonsupervisory employees in the labor force, their wages are going up a 3. 7 . Wages are going up the most for people at the lower end thats been true for the last couple of years. You see wages moving up just not moving up a very high rate. At the end of the day that has a lot to do with productivity. As far as the market not being as tight as you thought, are there more people on the sidelines who could join the labor force . Yes i would say if you ask people what do you think of on appointment before writing down numbers and now unemployment has been in the threes for year end half and we still see wage inflation, the level has moved down and there may be affects and that number to some extent of the workers coming in at lower wages. That should not have much of an effect. I may just be that theres more slack in the economy and i think were seeing that, it showed up for her participation, for many years we thought there was a trend in declining participation. Against the trend we have seen participation moving up over the past were three years and its a very positive thing but it provides more labor supply. Im with american banker, thank you for being here today. I want to ask about the community reimbursement act since they may potentially join together for proposal without the fed. Are you concerned that this might cause infusion and how would the mechanics work if this is finalized without the fence . We know the cra is very important. Were committed to the commission of ensuring that banks provide credit throughout the community in addressing the needs of low to moderate income household. We think its time for modernization and we thought that for some time and we worked hard to try to get aligned with the occ on a proposal and my hope is we can still do that, i dont know if itll be possible or not we will just have to see. If we cant, im not sure what the path forward would be. We would not want to create confusion or tension between the regimes if they do turn out to be slightly different regimes. I hope we dont have the interface that but we will if you have to. Before the july meeting you said to call something hot you would need to see steam referring to the labor market. The what would you need to see to call the labor market hot. Would it be some change or the number of games or Unemployment Rate . Wages. There are so many other measures that suggest the labor market is strong, i dont want to say is tight, someone asked me a question about a hot labor market. Also you strong, i dont know its tight because you dont see wage increases. If its tight there should be reflected at a higher wage increase. It does come down to the, we look at countless measures the labor market and its too many to count, the one that is suggested that the healthy number ultimately we like to see into called hot weed want to see heat and higher wages. Thinkthanks. [inaudible conversations]