美联储9月会议纪要：19票全票加息，预计年底前再加息一次

Let's toss to Michael McKee. He is outside the Federal Reserve, though. Well, guys, the decision to raise interest rates at the September meeting was unanimous, not just among the voting members of the Open Market Committee, but all 19 members of the Open Market Committee supported the rate move, the minutes show. Inflation remained elevated and risks were tilted to the upside, while the labor market appeared to be near full employment.

Based on the outlook and the changing balance of risks, all participants viewed a higher target range for the federal funds rate as appropriate. Goes on to say many participants emphasized that a higher rate path would be prudent on risk management grounds, while a number of participants viewed a higher path as necessary based on their modal outlooks rather than on risk management grounds. Some saw raising rates as a way to prevent inflation expectations from becoming an anchored, while others felt it would keep inflation from broadening out.

Many also noted that financial conditions appeared to be supportive of economic growth, and several noted that they viewed the current policy rate as not restrictive or only mildly restrictive. Which leads us to the important quote with regard to the outlook for monetary policy beyond the current meeting. Most participants assessed that another increase in the target rate for the federal funds rate would likely be appropriate by year end.

Along with affirming labor, market participants saw the economy expanding at a solid pace, driven by robust business investment and by resilient consumer spending. One negative. Agriculture is strained because of worsening drought and higher prices for diesel and other inputs. The minutes say the K shaped economy came in for a mention. Some participants observed the strong demand for skilled workers in sectors related to the ongoing AI.

Buildout had been driving strong wage gains, but aggregate wage growth was moderate and not a source of inflationary pressures. So while all of this was three weeks ago, it underscores that recent comments by senior Open Market Committee officials about not moving October 28th does not mean they will not move before the end of the year. Going into the next set of meetings, it looks like they've got one more, at least on the books.

And this is what investors are looking for. Mike, you're going to stay with us. I just want to do a quick check on the markets are not seeing much movement, maybe a little bit of a tilt to the downside but not really. S&P was down about 19. That's where it is right now. Uh Nasdaq 100 was down about 116 points before the fed minutes. It's still just down about 113. More importantly we got to look at the yield curve, uh, in terms of what we've seen in treasuries and throughout the morning, we've seen them back off their highs.

Um, the ten year note, which was at about 5 to 8, that's exactly where we find it. Uh, same story for the two. No changes there. Uh, same story, uh, for the five year. So, Mike. Bah, humbug. Not interesting. I don't know what we say. Um, we thought this was going to be kind of stale because of some of the new data that we've gotten since, but it is. I does sound like it's pretty important that we now have an indication from the fed that they are thinking we need one more rate increase.

Definitely. That comes out in the minutes. And the idea that all of the participants, all 19 of them, agreed with the rate hike. And that means even people who might have been dovish but not voting suggests that they do see, uh, as a unit the need for higher rates. And they did see essentially a need for higher rates by the end of the year. Now, we have heard from John Williams and Philip Jefferson in recent days, suggesting maybe not at the October meeting.

A lot of that will depend on what happens next Wednesday when we get the CPI report. But, uh, it does look like that, unless there's some surprise downward move in inflation that they are teeing up right now for a December 9th move. Hey, my question for you. So is that the dominant explanation for the higher rates? Is that still inflation or is has it shifted a bit more due to labor market data? Oh, it's definitely inflation.

Labor market data. They noted with wages uh, not moving up very much in the aggregate. It doesn't produce any wage pressures. But the inflation numbers, the geopolitical situation, uh, what's happening with the I build out and the fact that that's pushing up prices and also some of them noting that service industry prices were still elevated. All of that together suggests that they are not making enough progress on inflation.

It comes down to what do they think the neutral rate is? And they all in their, uh, said they thought that the neutral rate had moved up. And that requires higher interest rates. So they're comfortable with where they are now, but think that they might need to do more in order to keep inflation on a downward path. Hey, Mike. Um, Chairman Kevin Warsh told reporters following that September 16th decision that the move was aimed at removing a dose of accommodation as inflation remains stubbornly high.

His comments fuelled market pets at the time for another increase in October. But we have two more meetings. Um, is it safe to say Kevin Warsh is truly looking at the data and there's nothing political here based on what we maybe are gleaning from some of the minutes? Oh, absolutely. It looks like Kevin Warsh is going back to his, uh, shall we say, old normal self, uh, to steal Mohamed El-Erian line. He has always been a hawk, and he sees the inflation problem now as, uh, just needing higher rates.

That's what he said at the news conference. We haven't heard from him lately, but he is speaking next week, so we may get a reaffirmation of that. I don't think, and I have talked to several fed officials in recent days who vociferously argue that the election doesn't play a role, but it would be easier for them not to raise rates right before the election if they can avoid it. And they don't have to get caught up in all of the politics about it.

So if we get a reasonable CPI and PPI report next week, then they can follow through with the idea that they're not going to move at this meeting, but they still see inflation pressures strong enough that they need to raise rates one more time. And they did emphasize by the end of the year. Hey, Mike, you just mentioned you are talking to fed officials. You're always talking to fed officials. You sit in the row right behind me, and I know you're always in touch and you're working on things for Wall Street Week and, and other parts of the Bloomberg universe.

But I am curious. Um, does it feel like fed officials are much more optimistic about the outlook in terms of growth and not worrying about the rate increases, slowing down growth or creating problems when it comes to equity valuations or other parts of the market? I mean, it's, you know, higher rates can certainly it takes a while for them to be felt through, but it can create certainly some slowdowns longer term. Well, they are looking six months, eight months, 12 months out in terms of when their rate moves will hit the economy, but they don't seem to be worried about it having an impact on the stock market right now or on economic activity.

They note in the minutes that credit remains widely available, that spreads remain relatively tight. And even with the I bailed out, there doesn't seem to be a problem with people getting loans, so they don't seem to be having an impact overall. On the outlook for continued growth. Now the question is how high would they have to go to have some sort of impact and what kind of impact are they looking for? Because normally you raise rates to crimp demand and demand falls.

Employers let workers go and the economy slows down. Right now, we're seeing what some fed officials have described to me as incrementally increased demand for workers. A lot of th