Fed Chair Powell finally sent markets the right message, says Mohamed El-Erian

요약 보기

파월 연준 의장의 8분짜리 발언이 물가 최우선 메시지를 명확히 전달해 시장에 긍정적이라는 결론. 파월은 인플레이션을 45번 언급하며 단일 책무(물가 안정)를 강조했고, 이는 시장이 예상한 것보다 경제적 고통을 더 크게 줄 수 있다고 경고했다. 다만 지난 18개월간의 정책 실수를 다루지 않았고, 통화 정책 체계가 목적에 맞지 않는다는 점은 여전히 해결되지 않았다. 파월이 스크립트를 고수하면 향후 더 매파적 발언이 나올 것으로 예상되나, 그가 이를 지킬지는 불확실하다. 연준 관계자들은 이미 수개월간 완화로의 전환은 없으며, 인플레이션이 여러 달 하락해야 정책을 바꿀 것이라고 말해왔다. 제레미 시겔은 파월이 너무 공격적으로 나가지 말고 데이터 의존적이어야 하며 70년대식 인플레 싸움에 매달리지 말라고 조언했다. 이에 대해 출연진은 연준이 이전 '일시적' 판단의 실수에 이어 이번에는 과거에 대응하는 두 번째 매파적 실수를 할 위험이 있다고 봤다. 주식시장은 발언 직후 하락해 S&P500이 약 4,000 부근으로 내려왔다. 출연자들은 3,600 또는 4,400을 두고 내기를 했으며, 시장이 이미 어느 정도 리스크를 반영했는지에 대해 의견이 갈렸다. 2년물 금리는 6월 고점을 경신했지만 주식은 저점을 깨지 않았다. 금융 여건이 파월이 긴축하려던 시점에 오히려 크게 완화되어 있었기 때문에, 그는 기대치를 재정렬해야 했고 이제 실행 여부가 관건이라는 평가. 가장 큰 쟁점은 파월이 시장이 기대하는 정책 경로를 실제로 따를 것인지 여부다.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. um in terms of what jay powell sought to do what the markets picked up from what he was saying which essentially was we have a sole mandate it is inflation it might cause more economic pain than maybe the markets have been pricing at least the stock market uh so get ready where is the issue in that did he did he send the correct message so he finally sent the correct message he should have done that months ago he was unambiguous he was clear he stuck to his script and he did it in eight minutes and the market is starting to realize that when your fat chair mentioned inflation 45 times in eight minutes something is changing that's the good news the less good news is he didn't deal with the policy errors of the last 18 months so you have jeremy siegel for example coming on and saying well what does this mean he should do it at some point and he hasn't dealt with the fact that they have a monetary framework that's not fit for purpose so if he sticks to his script we should expect more hawkish talk as we go forward but there are people who doubt that he will so that's where the ambiguity is and that's something that the market's going to have to navigate through i mean on some level it was really a reiteration of where he and other fed officials have already been for months right i mean they have said they're not looking for a moment to to reverse policy toward easing they have said we still have to uh have significant tightening moves from for the rest of this year they have said uh they need multiple months of inflation to come down before they they they change that that story so why do you think um this was lacking if he was essentially just in a more vociferous way saying what they've been already saying because of what he didn't say so as joe pointed out earlier he didn't talk about a softish landing yeah he didn't do the pivot that he did at his press conference when suddenly out of the blue he brings in the notion of neutral something that larry summers called analytically indefensible and inexplicable so the fact that he stuck to the script made him come across as consistently hawkish something that hasn't happened in the past although he hasn't had any pain yet the jobs numbers are still good still people still not convinced we're going to have a recession or or that we're in one it hasn't gotten hard yet for him to stick to his guns are you did you think jeremy siegel was dovish i thought he was dovah she was saying don't go crazy don't go crazy um jay powell be data dependent and you know don't get caught up fighting the battle of the 70s if it's not the battle of the 70s are you more hawkish than jeremy siegel so to be clear what jeremy said or what i heard him say is we already had one fed mistake which is the transitory being very late et cetera now we've risked a second fed mistake of being of being reacting as you said battling with the past not with the future um so that's what he said he didn't he wasn't dovish he said on the contrary we may end up with a two hawkish mistake do you um this is all front and center now for the market so we're going to have our our our old discussion now i want to ask you a question on that if we were to make the bet today well that we can that's what i was going to ask you too because we're right back where we started almost 39.98 but we're we're just a little bit above we're we're down 40 on the s ps this morning that'll put us at about four thousand so we can both take back our bets we can cover we can both cover and say let's let's just neither one of us was right you won't pay me the tacos i won't have to take you to a mets game should we do that at 4 000.

02. so what do you want to do i don't know do you still think we're going you might want to cover do you think we're going to 3 600s though so 3600 is the number you put out there and that's the one that was the 10 percent that was up or 10 down what comes where will we go lower before we go higher do we go to 3 600 first or that the bet is 3 600.

03. we go to 4 400. 400. you were you were sweating i was i was ready to declare defeat you were yep there's not but now now i'm ready to cover because i think are you ready to cover no because now i'm looking at the markets today do we know everything bad now mike well i think there's a there's a case to be made that the markets were already uncomfortable the market was already pricing at a certain probability that you'd have a rough patch in the economy uh i you can't say it's all in the market uh of course but i i wonder uh muhammad i mean you suggested that powell's you know the the entirety of his uh communication has not necessarily been complete um but you know the market if you look at the market-based inflation expectations they've responded right away to what he had to say in other words why should he care if he hasn't yet given a full uh you know kind of confession about how they missed signals on the way at this point when the market seems to be coming in line to what he's likely to do next so first you have to say which market yeah right i mean the two-year took out the highs of june the stocks have not taken out the lows sure right we all talked about disconnects turks connects between bonds and and stocks disconnect between the fed and the market disconnect between the economy and the markets all that was a function of communication not being clear so first of all the second thing he had to face is that financial conditions loosened significantly at a time when he was trying to tighten financial conditions so he had to realign expectations he had no choice now the question is does he follow through