저자: 제롬파월연준의장 · 외국인
요약 보기
파월 의장이 기준금리를 3.50~3.75%로 동결했다고 밝힘. 중동 분쟁에 따른 유가 급등으로 PCE 물가가 3.5%, 근원 PCE가 3.2%로 상승했으며 단기적으로 물가를 더 밀어올릴 것으로 봄. 고용은 실업률 4.3%로 안정적이나 일자리 증가는 둔화. 금리 방향은 회의별로 결정하며 인상·인하 모두 열어둔 중립적 입장. 이번이 의장으로서 마지막 기자회견이며 5월 15일 임기 종료 후 이사로 잔류 예정.
다듬은 글
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 goods 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 1/2 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-by-meeting basis.
This is my last press conference as chair, and I will close with a few thoughts. First, I want to congratulate Kevin Warsh 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 we about what we do and why. The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting. I welcomed the announcement [clears throat] 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.
[clears throat] 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's only ever one Chair [clears throat] of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Warsh 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 that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve American people.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [clears throat] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the kind words about the press. Often doesn't come from the podium in different places, but appreciate that. Um, can you talk about what has gone into your decision to remain on the board? What kind of criteria are you weighing, and uh how long might you stay?
Thank you. Sure. So, you [clears throat] know, my 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 I want to note here, this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials.
Uh I 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 uh of additional such actions. I 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 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 I will leave when I when I think it's appropriate to do so. Was that all your questions or was there 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 in denying President Trump the majority of the board which as president he would have if you left.
I I don't see that at all. As I mentioned I 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 the really in the last 3 months of I think left me no choice but to stay until until I see them through at least that long.
Um you know, in addition uh I don't see how this will interfere. I'm not my intention is not to interfere. You know, I was a governor for almost 6 years and the tradition is at the Fed that governors who understand how difficult the role of chair is and as a 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 you try to you try to uh 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. Uh Nick Uh 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 inter-meeting 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. Um for a long time we've been working on on the hypothesis really that tariff tariffs would 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 we need to really see that. With with energy it's it's so hard to say.
Um I I mentioned, you know, in you know, sort of the textbook you you would look through it 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. It's But the the question about about looking through energy really is not not in front of us right now. We 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 about reducing rates.
You are on Um so, the majority of the committee did not want to do that and and and I was I didn't think we needed to do it this meeting. It really was just a question of what's 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 what happens in the next 30 60 days even by the next meeting could really change the picture around that around that language.
So, you know, it was a it was a it's a close it's it's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March and you know, that makes all the sense in the world, seems to me. Claire. So, Claire Jones, Financial Times. Um just just going back to this issue of the the easing bias. Um we've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark, um Brent crude.
Um if it stays around those levels 6 weeks from now, what would be your guess best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement? Thank you. I I wouldn't want to guess. You know, we'll first of all, we're going to have new leadership in all likelihood by then and and new leadership's going to have a very important role to play in that.
So, uh I won't be standing here at this podium to answer your question. So, um I don't know. As I mentioned, that's all I can really say is that we had we had a great discussion about that today. It's a you know, it's got it's gotten to be a better question in the interim period. We had the discussion.
The majority are still on the page of of not feeling the need to move to that level and I I that's where I am. Uh I I get it though. You know, at a certain point you would move and that that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting. Thank you. Just a follow-up. Um [clears throat] the new leadership also seemed rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the dot plots.
What would your advice to him be on these communication tools? So, I'm I'm not going to give him any advice through you today here, but I've you know, I 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 it's very complex and uh you know, you can always be be looking at new things and and if that happens, feels like it's going to happen, that's completely appropriate thing.
Neil. Hi, Chair. Chair Powell, Neil Irwin with Axios. Um can you tell us if you've been in touch with with incoming Chairman Warsh? Any To what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around something unusual and and what can we expect when when he takes 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 nice chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't know what a normal process is. You know, the the last process was with Janet Yellen who with whom I had worked for six years and so it was you know, we were sitting down the hall from each other.
So, it was a very different thing. I think I think this is and will be a very normal standard kind of a kind of a transition process. So, that's that's what I expect. I've 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. Chris. Hi. Thanks for taking our question. I wanted to ask a question about your tenure and uh Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. Um during your tenure as chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment.
Uh and the new framework the Fed adopted in 2020, some economists say elevated the Fed's employment mandate. Uh are you worried that the the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market, and should they be? Um, I don't know the answer to that.
I mean, what we So, what we experienced, um, in in uh in the teens, the mid-teens, was uh really low low levels of unemployment for a long period of time, and no reaction from inflation. And we all took 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 many reports of uh I mean, it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium, and a lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the uh income spectrum, including companies were, you know, setting up in um in you know, people who were confined, and and like training them before they got out, and it was it was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics.
So, of course, I think anybody would love to get back to that. Um, I I don't think that anything that happened to create the the global pandemic inflation was in any any way related to overweighting the employment market. I mean, it was it was a global shock that it happened essentially very very similarly all over the world that had to do with closing, reopening, stimulus, and all that.
And I mean, you could you could look at it 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 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.
Uh Uh you you've got to you've got to be strong on both of our dual mandates, and we we just we for example, now we 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 during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight.
And that's when we had to worry about it. But but not now. And just on the other issue, um are you 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 for the for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency.
And I'm I'm waiting for that. And I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so. Michael McKee 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.
Uh is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up or was this just a setup to sort of uh warn people that you're worried about the war impacts? So, nobody the three dissenters and and others who could have supported that and others who were you know, who were voters and prefer non-voters who preferred it.
They all supported the right 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 our markets What are markets doing? People argued that's this is consistent with markets are doing. And again, it's a it's a very fair question.
But you know, these these changes there is you know, it's a form of forward guidance. And you want to make you don't want to make them you want to make them in a way that that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back uh you know fairly quickly. So, I I think we just a group of us including me didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that 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 as I mentioned. It's 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 uh three dissents [clears throat] uh in favor of uh two-sided uh warning.
Uh you've got yourself staying on the board. You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials. Uh and you've got a lot of uh critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow 2021 with inflation. Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this? Is that one reason that you want to stay on?
Not not driving my my thinking now. I mean, monetary policy is going to get made by, you know, 19 people. There's a lot of stability there. Uh I mean, if you think about it, any every new fair Fed chair has the same situation, which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC, 11 of them vote during any year, and you have to your job is to create consensus.
It's It's to talk to them, understand them, you know, be inside their thinking, and be able to pull them together, and and get consensus, and move. And that's that's what every Fed chair has to do. And I I think Kevin Warsh is actually quite well. He has the capabilities, skills to be to be very good at that, and I would think.
So, I think I I'm not so worried about that process. You know, uh I think that'll that'll work itself out. [clears throat] Powell. Uh thank you, Chair Powell. Howard Schneider with Reuters. You you mentioned that uh 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 Touche.
Um, what that Yeah, walk down the steps. Uh, what that looks like and particularly around the policy discussion how you're able to uh, to have your intervention and not be a shadow chair and not have a 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.
You know, I it's it's 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, you know, I was a chair. I was a a governor for 6 years and I know what that's like. I know and I I had a you know, pretty front row seat with particularly with with Chair Yellen to whom I I was close when I when I I was worked with Chairman Bernanke for 2 years, but um, you know, I I I was brand new at that time.
So, I got a 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, you know, I don't want to add to that unnecessarily and that means try to support the chairs where the chair the direction the chair wants to go and if you can. If you can't, you can't, but and I think that's that's the way it's always worked there cuz the chair only has one vote plus the ability to develop consensus and if people won't be, you know, they 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 and then put something forward that has consensus. And I you know, I I I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process. In association with SBI, the banker to every Indian truly. Mhm.
Comments 0