Search neil gorsuch. We will take you live to the News Conference with Federal Reserve chair janet yellen. Good afternoon. Today the federal open Market Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter percentage point, bringing it to three quarters to 1 . Our decision to make another gradual reduction in the amount of policy accommodation reflects the economys continued progress toward the employment and price stability objectives assigned to us by law. For some time, the committee has judged that if Economic Conditions einvolved as anticipated, gradual increases in the federal fund rate would likely be appropriate it achieve and pain maintain our objectives. Todays decision is in line with that view and does not represent a reassessment of the Economic Outlook or of the appropriate course for Monetary Policy. Ill have more to say about Monetary Policy shortly but first ill review recent economic developments in the outlook. Thes con my continues to expand at a moderate pace. Solid income gains and relatively high levels of Consumer Sentiment and wealth have supported Household Spending fwroej. Growth. Business investment which was soft for much of last year has firmed somewhat. And Business Sentiment is at favorable levels. Over all we continue to expect the economy will expand at a moderate pace of the next few years. Job gains averaged about 200,000 per month over the past three months. Maintaining the solid pace we have seen over the past year. The Unemployment Rate was 4. 7 in february near its recent low. Broader measures of labor market underutilization also remain low. Participation in the labor force has been little changed on a net for about three years. Given the underlying downward trend in participation, stemming largely from the aging of the u. S. Population, a relatively steady participation is a further sign of improving conditions in the labor market. Looking ahead, we expect job conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Turning to inflation, the 12month change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures rose to nearly 2 in january. Up from less than 1 last summer. That rise was largely driven by Energy Prices which have been increasing recently after earlier designs. Core inflation which excludes volatile energy and food prices and intends to be a better indicator of future inflation has been little changed in recent months at about 1. 75 . We expect core inflation it move up and overall inflation to stabilize around 2 over the next couple of years in line with our longer run objective. Let me now turn to the Economic Projections that were submitted for this meeting by Committee Participants. As always, participants condition their projections on their own individual views of appropriate Monetary Policy. Which in turn depend on each participants assessment of the many factors that shape the outlook. The Gross Domestic Product is 2. 1 this year and next and edges down in 2019, slightly above its estimated longer run rate. The median projection for the Unemployment Rate stands at 4. 5 in the Fourth Quarter of this year and remains at that level over the next two years modestly below the median estimate ofity longer run normal rate. Finally, the median inflation projection is 1. 9 this year and rises to 2 in 2018 and 2019. These Economic Projections are very little changed from those made in december. Returning to Monetary Policy, the committee judged that a modest increase in the federal funds race is appropriate in light of the economys solid progress toward our goals of maximum employment and price stability. Even after this increase, Monetary Policy remains accommodative, thus supporting some further strengthening in the job market and sustained return to 2 inflation. Todays decision also reflects our view that waiting too long to scale back some accommodation could potentially require us to raise rates rapidly some time down the road. Which in turn could risk disrupting Financial Markets and pushing the economy into recession. We continue to expect that the ongoing strength of the economy will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate to achieve and maintain our objectives. Thats based on our view that the neutral nominal federal funds rate that is the Interest Rate that is neither expansion airy nor contraction airy and keeps things operating on an even keel is currently quite low by historical standards, that means that the federal fund rate does not have to rise by all that much to get to a neutral policy stance. We also expect the federal funds rate it rise over time meaning an additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion. Even so, the committee continues to anticipate that the longer run neutral level of the federal funds rate is still likely to remain below levels that prevailed in previous decades. This view is consistent with participants projections of appropriate Monetary Policy. The median projections to the federal funds rate is 1. 4 at the end of this year. 2. 1 at the end of next year. And 3 at the end of 2019. In line with its estimated longer run value. Compared with the projections made in december, the median path for the federal funds rate is essentially unchanged. As always, the Economic Outlook is high lie uncertain and participants will adjust their assessments of the appropriate path for the federal funds rate in response to changes to their Economic Outlooks and views of the risks to their outlooks. Changes in economic policies including fiscal and other policies could potentially affect the Economic Outlook. Of course it is still too early to know how these policies will unfold. Moreover, fiscal policy is only one of many factors that can influence the outlook. In making our decisions we will continue as always to assess Economic Conditions relative ma. As ive noted previously, policy is not on the preset course. Finally, we will continue to reinvest proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgageback security. This policy by keeping the committees holdings of longer term security at sizeable levels has helped maintain accommodative financial conditions. As hatter of prudent planning, we discussed at this meeting a number of issues related to an eventual change to reinvestment policy. We made no decisions and we will continue our discussion at subsequent meetings. In keeping with the principle that normalizing our Balance Sheet will be predictable we will provide more information about our plans as it becomes available. Thank you. Id be happy to take your questions. [ inaudible ] picking up on the last topic, Balance Sheet normalization, you said you didnt want to stop pulling in until normalization is well under way. Can you give some sort of sense about what well under way is, at least in your sense . What kind of Economic Conditions would you like it see . Just a matter of the short term federal funds rate as being at main issue . And what kind of role do you see, role of the Balance Sheet playing in normalization process over the longer term . Is it an active tool or passive tool . Thanks. Let me start with the second question first. We have emphasized for quite some time that in the Feds Fund Rate target, short term Interest Rate target as our key active tool. Of policy. We think its much easier in using that tool to communicate the stance of policy. We have much more experience with it. And have a better idea of its impact on the economy. So while the balance asset purchases are a tool that we could conceivably resort to if we found ourselves in a serious downturn where we were up against the zero bound, and faced with substantial weakness in the economy, its not a tool that we would want to use as a routine tool of policy. You asked what well under way means. I cant give you a specific answer to that and i think the right way it look at it is in qualitative and not quantitative terms. It doesnt mean some particular cutoff level for the federal funds rate that when weve reached that level we would consider ourselves well under way. I think what we want to have is confidence in the economys trajectory, a sense that the economy will make progress, that were not overly worri about down side risks a adverse shocks that could hit the economy. That could quickly, after setting it off on the path to shrinking the Balance Sheet gradually over time, cause us to want to begin to add Monetary Policy accommodation. So i think it has to do with the balance of risks and confidence in the Economic Outlook and not simply the level of the federal funds rate. Thank you. Jason lang with reuters. You mentioned that you dont you want to not have to raise rates rapidly if you were to fall behind the curve. In the current context gradual has been very, very gradual. Could you describe what a rapid rate of increase, how that should be understood . So im not sure that i can tell what you a rapid rate of increase is. I think the trajectory that you see is the median in our projections, which this year looks to a total of three increases that certainly qualifies as gradual. My comfort in using the term gradual comes back in part to my judgment that the neutral level of the federal funds rate, namely the level of the federal funds rate, that would keep the economy operating on an even keel, that its a rate where we neither are pressing on the brake nor pushing down on the accelerator. That level of Interest Rates is quite low. So at present, i see Monetary Policy is accommodative. Namely the current level of the federal funds rate is below that neutral rate. But not very far below the neutral rate. Were closing in, i think, on our employment objective. Were coming closer on our inflation objective. As we reach those objectives and in particular, in light of the fact that we see the risks that the outlook as roughly balanced at this point, and thats been our assessment for the last several meetings. It looks to us to be appropriate to gradually raise the federal fund rate back in the direction of neutral. And exactly how many increases is that . You know, the sep give you a sense of what Committee Participants envision in the concrete sense, but you know, if its one more or one less, i think that still qualifies to my mind as gradual. I think if you compare it with any previous tightening cycle i remember when rates were raised at every meeting starting in mid 2004. I think people thought that was a gradual pace, measured pace, and were certainly not envisioning Something Like that. Steve liesman, cnbc. Both the ocd and imf raised their forecast in part because of for the u. S. Growth and in part because of the policies expected from the new administration. Yet, the fed has not, i cant get from your comment at the very beginning that these forecast today represent no reassessment. Has the committee discussed what policy might look like in the event that there are large tax cuts or Infrastructure Spending passed and what might policy look like if those policies become law . Finally, why did you remove the word only before the word gradual when you talked about future rate increases. So weve not discussed in detail potential policy changes that could be put into place and weve not tried to map out what our response would be to particular policy measures. We recognize that there is great uncertainty about the timing, size, character of policy changes that may be put in place and dont think that thats a decision or a set of decisions that we need to make until we know more about what policy changes will go into effect. Cy so i do want to emphasize that while some participants pens elled in some physical policy changed into their projections, that basis for todays decision is simply our assessment of the progress of the economy against our longest established goals of maximum employment and price stability. Our longest established goals of maximum employment and price stability. There is nothing we have done or anticipate that is a speculation. I think its fair to say theres nothing that is speculation about preemtive responses to future policy moves. We have plenty of time to see what happens. We did remove the word only in the Statement Today from gradual i think this is something that shouldnt be overinterpreted. I regard it as a relatively small change and think that its appropriate to consider it in the context, for example, the fact our economic projection are virtually eidentical to those that we issued in december. They are essentially unchanged both in terms of the path of the economy and the path of the federal funds rate. So weve carried out a modest adjust many of the federal fund rate because weve seen the economy progressing over the last several months. In ectly the way we anticipated. We havent in any way changed our view about where the economy is heading or the risks we had long said that if the economy progressed in its, you know, doing nicely and i think in making progress and in showing resilience and you know, have some confidence in the path the economy is on and if we continue to feel that we will likely regard it as appropriate to make some further moves to scale back acom la accommodation to move toward neutral along the lines in the sep. Obviously there is surprises. Our Economic Forecast can change. But at the word gradual, i think emphasizes that if things continue in the manner that weve been going as we have said now for quite sometime, we think the gradual, some gradual increases in the federal funds rate will be appropriate. And this is not a, you know, this is not a significant this is not a significant change. Peter marks. Speaking of fiscal policy, have you had the chance to meet with the new secretary treasurer yet, mr. Ma nuchin and have you had the chance to talk with President Trump yet or meet with him . And if not, would you like to and would what would you talk about is it. Ive met a couple of times with the treasury secretary and im getting to know him. I think you know its traditional for fed chairs and treasury secretaries to meet on a regular basis. And i fully expect to have a strongationship with secretary ma nuchin. Weve had very good discussions about the economy. About regulatory objectives, work of the Global Economic developments and i look forward to continuing to work with him. I was introduced to the president. I ahad a very brief meeting and appreciated that as well. Anna lawson, washington post. How close do you judge it to be to the inflation rate and what do you anticipate the force pushing up . The neutral Interest Rate over the next few years . Could fiscal policy be along those in. So ive given a number of recent speeches on this topic where ive developed my views more fully. I would say over the longer run that means going several years out. I think the evidence suggests that the neutral rate may be something in real terms that might be close to 1 or a little bit under that. That would be consistent with the median longerrun value of the federal fund rate in our Economic Projections for last several meetings. 3 is the longer run normal federal funds rate that participants estimate in real terms with the 2 inflation objective. Thats 1 in real terms. And why is it so low . Well, i think theres very strong evidence thats accumulated that this rate has been falling, not just in the United States, but in many advanced nations. And the decline probably predates the financial crisis. I think in part it reflects slowing population growth and also slow productivity growth here and in many other advanced nations. But some recent work suggests that at the present time the neutral real rate is yet lower than that and some estimates place it around zero in real terms. So i think the lower current rate arguably reflects head winds that are left over from the financial crisis. One form of head wind, i think, has been caution and restraint and risk aversion on the part of households and businesses thats held back spending decisions. And i suppose my judgment that will move up over time reflects a notion that part of that will gradually dissipate over the years. So thats a sense of where i think. Now, there is uncertainty about the neutral rate and as you mentioned, it is it can be effected by shifts in fiscal policy. How the neutral rates affected by fiscal policy that really depend importantly on the nature, the size of the fiscal shift and the effect it has both on demand and supply and the economy. Thank you. Nick timerose of the wall street journal. Between the release of the minutes of the previous meeting late last month and your speech in chicago earlier this month, Market Expectations about an increase if rates today changed quite dramatically. What happened over the course of those two weeks to make officials far more interested in signaling the idea of raising rates at todays meeting . And why do you think the market was so out of sync with where the central bank was . So, when i look at our sequence of communications, they seem to me to have been reasonably consistent over this entire period. We had indicated in december that we expect, we saw the risks as balanced, and if the economy continued to progress along the lines, we expected, that several rate increases would likely be appropriate. The minutes of our january meeting indicated that many participants thought that an increase in the funds rate would be appropriate fairly soon. If things continued along those lines. I indicated in my congressional testimony that i thought that indeed the economy was progressing in line with our expectations. And as i think all of us having that expectation and that if the economy continued to progress, along the lines that we expected and we continued to see the risks as balanced, do regard it as appropriate to gradually remove accommodation thats in place. And by having several Interest Rate increases this year, as we saw the date of continued to come in, in line with our expectations, my colleagues and i spoke out and indicated that indeed that had been and continued to be our expectations. You know, when you ask me, how did we get out of sync with the market, this is something i tried to reflect on a bit in the remarks i made in chicago. And of course, it is true that in 2015 and 2016, each, we raised the federal fund rate only once and perhaps Market Participants have been influenced by that pattern. The and perhaps Market Participants have been influenced by that pattern. I did try to explain the reasons why we had moved so slowly during those two years and it reflect, i think, a set of shocks partly emanating from the Global Economy and risks that we saw to the outlook as well as more fundamental assessments, reassessments pertaining to the neutral level of the federal fund rate. And the longer run normal level of the unem ratunemployment rat. So it is important for the public to understand that were getting closer to reaching our objectives, that policy is accommodative, that although the level of the neutral federal funds rate is probably quite low, we nevertheless have an accommodative stance of policy and itll be appropriate to gradually move toward a neutral stance. If we continue on the path were currently on. The new york times. The bank of National Settlements raised concerns that banks are insufficiently to asset Price Inflation and stock Market Investors in the United States dont seem to be waiting for the Trump Administration to implement fiscal policyes. Im curious to know how much after concern that is for you. And if not, why not, given the elevated level of stock price evaluations. We do look at financial conditions. And in formulating our view of the outlook. And stock prices do figure into financial conditions. So i think the higher level of stock prices is one factor that looks like its likely to somewhat consumption spending. We also notice that in the last several months that risk spreads particularly for corporate issuers have narrowed which is another signal that financial conditions have become somewhat easier. Now on the other side, longer term Interest Rates are up some in recent months and the dollar is a little stronger. How does that net out . There are private sector analyst that produce financial conditions ind sees that attempt to aggregate all these different factors, affecting financial conditions, and for some of the more prominent analysts and ind sees, i think what they have reach said that financial conditions on balance have eased and that is partly driven by the stock market. So that is an effect that affect the outlook. You and secretary ma ma nuchin will meet with colleagues. Do you think the assessment will be that the World Economy is finally out of the words and doing better or do you think there is still werely about risk and would one of those worries that the feds might raise rates too quickly . Well we always exchange views on the Economic Outlook and developments in our country and it will be my objectiveo explain u. S. Monetary policy and to try to make the same point to them that ive made here already today about what the outlook is form on the Monetary Policy on the United States. I think its fair to say that the Global Economy is doing better and growing strong like it was the last time i got together with my count are part in the g20 that the risks do look somewhat more balanced but there remains a set of very significant risks, median term facing the Global Economy and im sure those will be discussed as well. Hi, the los angeles times. You said you and your kcolleagus arent making assumptions. But many are. Are you concerned about the affects on the economy if some of the policies such as tax cuts and Infrastructure Spending dont get enacted or are delayed . So we recognize our statement actually last time noted that there had been an improvement, marked improvement in business and household sentiment. Its uncertain just how much sentiment actually impacts spending decisions and i wouldnt say at this point that i have seen hard evidence in any changing and based on expectations about the future. We exchange around the table what we learn from our many business contacts and i think its fair to say that many of my colleagues and i note a much more optimistic frame of mind among many businesses in recent months. But i would say most of the Business People that we have talked to also have a wait and see attitude and are very hopeful that they will be able to expand investment and are looking forward to doing that but are waiting to see what will happen. So we will watch that and of course if we were to see a major shift in spending reflecting those expectations that could very well affect the outlook. Im not seeing it im not seeing that at this point. But the shift in sentiment is obvious and notable. Kate davidson from dow jones. There is a perception that fed could somehow stand in the way of some of the Economic Growth policies that the new administration is pursuing. Given that fed is projecting 1. 8 growth in the long run, is this a potential point of conflict for the fed in the new administration . So i dont believe it is a point of conflict. We would certainly welcome stronger Economic Growth in the context of price stability. And if policies were put in place to speed growth that ive certainly urged congress and the administration to consider policies that would boost productivity growth and raise the economies socalled speed limit or potential to grow. I think that those would be those would be very welcome changes that we would like to see. Kathleen hayes from bloomberg. I will try to take the opposite side of this. Because, and this question about Market Expectations and how the markets got things wrong and how you say the feds suddenly clarify what it already said. For example, if the, if you look at the atlanta feds ged tracker it is down to 0. 9 . A retail sales mixed. Upper divisions of previous months make it look better. But the consumer doesnt appear to be roaring in the first quarter. Can i underscore the wait and see attitude you just mentioned. You noted in the statement they are not moving up and in fact they are and if you look at average, there are so many things you look at. You yourself said in the past that the fact that that is happening is perhaps an indication there is still slack in the labor market. I guess my question is this, in another sense, what happened between december and march . Gdp is tracking very low. Measures of Labor Compensation are not boosting inflation any time fast. Consumer isnt picking up much. Fiscal, we dont know what happens with donald trump. And you have to raise rates now. What is the motivation here . Economy is so far from your forecast in terms of gdp, why does the fed have to move now . What is the signal about the rest of the year . Gdp is a pretty noisy indicator. If one averages through several quarters, i would describe our economy as one that has been growing around 2 per year. And as you can see from our projections, thats something we expect to continue over the next couple of years. Now that pace of growth has been consistent with a piece of job creation that is more rapid than what is sustainable if Labor Force Participation begins to move down in line with what we see as the longerrun trend with the age in population. Now unemployment hasnt moved that much in part because people have been drawn into the labor force. Labor force participation, as i mentioned in my remarks, has been about flat over the last three years. So in that sense, the economy has shown over the last several years that it may have had more room to run than some pple might have estimated and thats been good. Its meant weve add grehad a g deal of job creation over the years. And there could be room left for that to play out further. In fact, look, policy remains accommodative. We expect further improvement in the labor market. We expect the Unemployment Rate to move down further. And to stay down for the next several years. So we do expect that the path of policy we think is appropriate is one that is going to lead to some further strengthening in the labor market. Just quickly then, i want to underscore, so following on that, you expect it to move, what if it doesnt . What if you dont see wage measures rising. What if it is stuck at 1. 77 . Is it your view that if there is a risk in the median forecast, that fewer hikes rather than the consensus or more . Well, look, policy is not set in stone. It is dated dependent. Were not locked into any particular policy path. You know, as you said, the data have not notably strength thend. There is noise in the data from quarter to quarter. But we havent changed our view of the outlook. We think we are on the same path, we havent boosted the outlook projected faster growth. We think were moving along the same course weve been on. But it is one that involves gradual tightening in the labor market. I would describe some mash u youres of wage growth vs moved up some. Some measures havent moved up but there is some evidence that wage growth is gradually moving up. Which is also suggestive of a strengthening labor market. And we expect policy to remain accommodative now for some time. So were talking about a gradual path of removing policy accommodation as the econo makes progress. Moving toward neutral. But we are continuing to provide accommodation to the economy that is allowing it to grow at an abovetrend pace that is consistent with further improvement in the labor market. Hi, american banker. Regulatory question, if i may. The administration recently reiterated its support for reinstatement of glass steel. Secretary treasurer ma nuchin called for 21st Century Glass. Keeping in mind there is no specifics on the proposal, is the fundamental idea of separating commercial investment from Investment Banking a fru fruitful line of inquiry . Is this a successful path to be pursuing . I havent seen any concrete proposals along the line. I dont know what a 21st Century Glass steeg el would look like. I think my reading on the financial crisis is that that wasnt the major source of the financial crisis. In fact, many of the problems emanated from firms that were Investment Banking units. To me, an important reform in the aftermath of the crisis was to make sure that Investment Banking activities where that were a core part of the shadow Banking System where leverage had built, that those were appropriately capitalized, had appropriate liquidity, and their management was strengthened and thats what we have tried to do. But obviously we would look at any proposals that are put forward. Im not aware of anything concrete to react to. [ inaudible ] well, i dont think it is the cause of the financial crisis. And i do feel that we have significantly strengthened supervision of Bank Holding Companies that incorporate Investment Banking activities. Hi, im jolene with nbc news. I want to know, what message are you trying to send consumers with this particular rate hike . I think thats a great question. I appreciate your asking it. The simple message is the economy is doing well. We have confidence in the robustness of the economy and its resilience to shocks. Its performed well over the last several years. Weve created since the trough in ep ploimt after the financial crisis around 16 million jobs. Employment rate moved way dowun down. And many more people feel optimistic about their prospects in the labor market. Theres job security. Were seeing more people who are feeling free to quit their jobs, getting outside offers, looking for other opportunities. So i think the job market, which is an important focus for us, is certainly improving. Thats not to say that its good labor Market Conditions for every individual in the United States. We know there are problems that face particularly people with less skill and education. And in certain sectors of the economy. But Many Americans are enjoying a stronger labor market and feel very much better about that. And inflation is moving up, i think, toward our 2 objective and were operating in an environment where the u. S. Economy is performing well and pretty balanced. I think people can feel good about the Economic Outlook. [ inaudible ] hi, gina smiley, bloomberg news. You stated that fed target is symmetric. Would you be willing to expand a little bit on why you did that, how much is included, how much of an overshoot would the fed be willing to tolerate and for how long . A couple of years ago we included the wordcy met triblg in our statement of longer run goals. And this seemed like an appropriate time to introduce that word into the statement because we had previously indicated that there was a shortfall of inflation from our 2 objective. Now, headline inflation has moved almost back up to 2 . As i indicated better forward looking measure of inflation, core inflation, thats not our target but i think its worth looking at because its a better forward looking predictor of headline inflation. I think that is still earning a little bit under 2 but we expect it is moving up to 2. And this seemed like a good time to remind americans that what our objective is, is 2 inflation. And this seemed like time to remind americans that what our objective is, is 2 inflation. And this seemed like time to remind americans that what our objective is, is 2 inflation. And this seemed like e to remind americans that what our objective is, is 2 inflation. Inflation is not always going to be at 2 . Like other economic variables it fluctuates. Sometimes it is going to be below 2 . Sometimes it is going to be above 2 . Weve had a long period inhich inflation has run under 2 . As we move back to 2 , which is where were heading, there will be some times when its above 2 as well. And its a reminder, 2 is not a ceiling on inflation. It is a target. Its where we always want inflation to be heading and there will be some times when inflation is above 2 just like its been below 2 . Were not shooting for inflation above 2 . But its a reminder that there will be deviations above and below when were achieving our objective. [ inaudible ] well, if there were an overshoot and it appeared to be persistent, we would put in place policies to try to bring inflation back to 2 . Thats the core set of principles that we have adopted in our statement on longerrun goals and strategy. And exactly how long it would take to get back to 2 would depend in part on what was happening with respect to employment and our other objectives. So theres no hard and fast answer to that. Patrick gallespie with cnn. Some proposals such as border tax would cause the dollar to steng then over a short period of time i understand you cant comment on the proposal but if the dollar strengthens quickly, 20 for whatever reason, what do you think the impact would be on the u. S. Ian meconomy, particul in manufacturing and what do you think the impact would be for u. S. Policy. Thats difficult question to answer. You ask that question not in an isolated way, what would the impact of a larger appreciation of the dollar be. But as i understand it, you asked about it in the context of a border tax adjustment. Is that right . Because the argument that is made is that would a border tax would do without an Exchange Rate adjustment is to raise the price of imported goods into the ed and that large movement in the dollar that analysts claim would occur would essentially, if it were complete, would fully offset the impact of the border tax on u. S. Import goods. So it wouldnt end up having an impact on u. S. Inflation or gdp growth. But a question that is a very different matter than if suddenly for some reason the dollar were simply to begin appreciating by a large amount, say because there were flight to safety flows into the dollar. I mean, if the latter were to occur, just a big boost in the dollar, it would tend to put downward pressure on inflation and would have a negative effect on u. S. Export growth and tend to boost imports. But thats a different that a different exercise. I would just say, its very uncertain exactly what would happen to the dollar there. Its been a lot of discussion of that and i think its complicated and uncertain. Hi. Victoria with politico. My question is about republicans on the House Financial Services committee wrote to you asking that fed not put forward any regulations until vice chairs provision is in place. If so i have a couple of questions about that. One is, are you all pulling back llat a on any regulations, maybe not all regutions. But maybe only Going Forward with ones that you see as more time sensitive. And during the hearing before that committee you mentioned the stress test rule would have to come out sometime before that next cycle. Are there any other timesensitive regulations . So at it point, we dont have a lot of timesensitive regulations. Theres nothing right now that we need to get out thats a significant rule. So we have a relatively light regulatory agenda at this point. We recognize of course that we do have an obligation to write the rules that congress, you know, dictates and laws that they pass. And so that is an ongoing obligation. Obligation that we have. But our calendar is relatively light at this point. [ inaudible ] nafrgs nancy with marketplace back here. Yes. Some fed critics have said it is too soon to raise Interest Rates because wages havent risen enough to justify a rate increase. What would you say to that . Well, i dont i would like to see wages increase and think theres some scope for them to increase somewhat further. But our objectives with maximum inflation and we need to consider what path of rates is appropriate to foster those objectives. Unfortunately, one of the things thats been holding down wage increases is very slow pro du productivity growth. And i think we are seeing upward pressure as the labor market tightens. I take that as a signal we are coming closer to maximum employment objectives. But productivity is, for those focussing on wage growth, productivity is an additional important factor. Thank you. President trump is on the road today rallying support for the republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care act. He was in detroit earlier and he will speak in tennessee later today. At a rally in nashville. We will have that live at 7. 30 p. M. Eastern over on cspan 2. And the House Republican Health Care Plan will get a look by the House Budget Committee thursday. Their meeting set to start at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. We will have that live as well on cspan 2. On monday, the president s pick to be the next Supreme Court justice, neil gorsuch, startspies confirmation process at 11 00 a. M. Eastern monday. Senate Judiciary Committee hears opening states with the nominees slated for next tuesday. Live coverage on cspan 3. Can you stream it live at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Raise your right hand. With the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee neil gorsuch starting next week, on thursday, at 8 wi 00 p. M. Easte we will look at all eight Supreme Court justices. Starting with Justice Anthony kennedy in 1987. Clearance thomas in 1981. Ruth gator ginsburg, 1993. Briar 1994. John roberts 2005. Samuel aleap looeto, 2006. Sonia sotomayor 2009 and elaina kagan 2010. Watch on cspan 2. Eaina kagan 2010. Watch on cspan 2. Ina kagan 2010. Watch on cspan 2. Na kagan 2010. Watch on cspan 2. Anyone working in any hedge fund, everyday coming in and trading stocks, all of those people want edge. Thats a common term in the industry. They want edge. And you know, theres this white edge that is useless for their purpose possess. There is the gray zone, and then black edge which is clearly inside information. Sunday night on q a, new yorker staff writer sheel sheelah kohhatkar talks about the case against Hedge Fund Manager and his firm. The two kind of central characters at the heart of the story, very central characters in my book are these two former pole folio managers, matthew martama is one and Matthew Steinburg is the other one. And martoma is serving a lengthy prison sentence. His case on appeal. Steinburg was convicted but his conviction was overturned that an Appeals Court made it harder to convict someone for insider trading. Sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. Now a discussion on the independent payment advisory board. A 15member agency created by the federal Health Care Law to recommend costcutting measures for medicare if projected spending exceeds a target growth rate. Between its 2010 creation through 2016 formation of the board had not been triggered, nor had its members been selected. But some experts believed it would be triggered this year. This discussion is about an hour. Good afternoon, and thank you everyone for joining us today. Im
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.