WASHINGTON (MaceNews) – The transcript of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s post-FOMC meeting news conference Wednesday follows:
>> Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and employment prices for the American people. The economy has made considerable progress towards that objective. That is good news. But inflation is still high. The ongoing progress in bringing it down is ... and the path forward is unsure.
We are committed to our 2% goal. Our goal is to reach a labor market that benefits all. Today the Fed leaves the policy unchanged. Our restrictive stance has put downward pressure on economic activity and inflation. As economic tightness has eased and tightness on inflation has continued, employment and inflation goals are moving into better balance.
I will 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. GDP growth in the fourth quarter of last year came in at 3.2% for 2023 as a whole. GDP expanded 3.1% bolstered by strong consumer demand as well as improving the supply conditions.
Activity in the housing sector was subdued over the past year, largely reflecting high mortgage rates. High interest rates also appear to avoid on business fixed investment. On projections, committee participants expect GDP growth to slow in growth with 2.1% this year and 2% over the next two years. Participants generally revised up their growth projections since December reflecting the strength of incoming data including data on labor supply.
The labor market remains relatively tight but supply and demand condition has continued to come into better balance. Over the past three months, payroll job gains totaled 263,000 jobs per month. The employment edge edged up but remains low at 3.9%. Strong job creation has increased by the supply of workers, reflecting increase in participation among individuals aged 25-54 years and a continued strong pace of immigration.
Now more wage growth has been easing and job vacancies has declined. Labor demand still exceeds the supply of available workers. Participants expect the rebalance in the labor market to continue easing upward pressure on inflation.
The median unemployment rate projection is 4.0% at the end of this year and 4.1% at the end of next year.
Inflation has eased notably over the past year but remains above our longer-run goal of 2%. Estimates based on consumer price index indicate that total PCE prices ended at 2.5% at the end of February. Core CPC prices rose 8%. Longer-term inflation expectations remain unanchored as reflected in a broad range of services, businesses and forecasters as well as measures from financial markets.
The median projection in the SCP for total PCE inflation falls to 2.4% this year and 2% in 2026.
The Feds monetary policy are guided by maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation imposes significant hardship as it erodes purchasing power, especially for those who struggle to meet the high cost essentials like food, gas and utilities. We are strongly committed to our 2% objective. The committee decided to retain the target rate for 5.25 to 5.5% and to continue the process of reducing our securities holdings. As labor market tightness eases, the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals are coming into better balance.
We believe that our policy rate is likely at its peak for this time in the cycle and if the economy evolves broadly as expected, it will likely be appropriate to begin dialing back policy restraint at some point this year.
The economic outlook is uncertain, however, and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. We are prepared to maintain the current target range for longer if appropriate.
We know that reducing policy restraint too soon or too much could result in a reversal in the progress we've seen in inflation and require tighter policy to get inflation back to 2%. At the same time, reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly -- employment -- considering any -- evolving outlook and a balance of risks. The committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained confidence that inflation is moving sustainably down towards 2%. Of course we're committed to both sides of our dual mandate and an unexpected weakening in the labor market could warrant a policy response. We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting.
In our SEP, participants wrote down their individual assessments for a path for the Federal funds rate based on what each participant judges to be the likely scenario going forward. If the economy evolves going forward, the appropriate level of the fed rl funds rate will be 4.6% at the end of this year, 3.9% at the end of 2025 and 3.1% at the end of 2026. Still above the median longer-term funds rate.
These projections are not a committee decision or plan if the economy does not evolve as projected. The path of policy will adjust to foster maximum employment and price stability goals.
The balance sheet. Securities have declined by nearly 1.5 trillion since the committee began reducing our portfolio. At this meeting we discussed issues related to slowing the pace of decline in our securities holdings. While we did not make any decisions today on this, the general sense of the committee is that it will be appropriate to slow the pace of run-off fairly soon. Consistent with the plans we previously issued.
The decision to slow the pace of run-off does not mean our balance sheet will shrink but allows us to approach that ultimate level more gradually. In particular, slowing the pace of run-off will help ensure the transition reducing the possibility of money markets and facilitating the ongoing decline in security holdings, increasing the ample reserves.
We remain committed to bringing inflation down to our 2% goal and keeping longer-term inflation expectations anchored. Price stability is essential for achieving maximum employment and price stability over the longer term.
We understand our actions include businesses and families across the country. Everything we do is in service of our public mission. We at the fed will do everything we can to achieve our maximum employment and price stability goals. Thank you.
>> Mr. Chairman, the projections show somewhat higher core inflation. They also show somewhat stronger growth. What should we infer from this on average? Rates were kept the same this year, but inflation is higher and growth is higher. Does it mean more tolerance for higher inflation and less of a way to slow the economy to achieve that target?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Well, it doesn't mean that. What it means is we -- we've seen incoming -- as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we did markup our growth forecast and so have many other forecasters. So the economy is performing well. The inflation data came in a little bit higher as a separate matter and I think that caused people to write up their inflation. But nonetheless, we continue to make good progress when rating inflation.
>> When you -- just a partnership -- you're saying you're willing to maintain the rate for longer -- what is the tolerance of the Federal Reserve for inflation coming in above its target?
>> We're strongly committed to bringing inflation down to 2% over time. That is our goal and we will achieve that goal. Markets believe we will achieve that goal and we should believe that. That is what will happen over time. We stress "over time." I think we're making projections that do show that happening and we're committed to that outcome and will bring it back.
>> You and others have said relief on housing inflation is coming. But it doesn't show up in the CPI or the PCE. Does that challenge your assumption about when the shift will finally break through since it hasn't at that point?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I think there's some confidence that the market rents that we're seeing will show up in measures of housing services inflation over time. There's a little bit of uncertainty about when that will happen but there's real confidence that they will show up. Uncertainty about the exact time.
>> Will you be able to get over-all inflation down to target if housing doesn't break through quickly and does that affect the time --
>> CHAIRPERSON: We will get aggregate inflation down to 2% over time. I will assume that we will continue to see goods prices coming in to a new equilibrium where they're going down perhaps not as quickly as they had been earlier this year. Where housing services inflation will come back down as current market rents are suggesting will happen. Where non-housing services will move back down. Some combination of those things. It may be different from the combination we had before the pandemic -- will be sustained and we'll bring inflation down to 2% sustainably.
>> During your congressional testimony this month, you said that your chance for making the first change to interest rates does not allow you to be comfortable that the inflation is at 2% because interest rates are well above neutral. You said at the last meeting that the first cut is highly consequential. Can you recognize the rates for me? If the rates are above neutral where would the cut be consequential? Is that because one cut would be followed by one or two more based on the re-calibration you made in 2019 which was remodeled after the 2025 cycle?
>> The risks are two sided here. We're in a situation where -- you know, if we ease too much or too soon, we could see inflation come back. If we ease too late, we can do unnecessary harm to employment and you know, people's working lives.
So you know, we do see the risks as two sided. It is consequential. We want to be careful -- unfortunately -- with the economy climbing, we can approach that carefully and let the data speak on that?
>> How much of that inflation have you seen this year can you chalk up to one-off calendar effects following a period of high inflation versus some change in the trend we saw in the second half of last year?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I want to start off by saying -- I try to be careful about dismissing data we don't like. So you need to check yourself on that and not do that.
I would say the January number -- which was very high -- the January CPI and PCE numbers were very high. There's reasonable seasonal effects there. We don't want to be dismissive of it. The Federal rate number was higher than expect ... but we have it well below 30 bases points so it's not like the January number.
I think the two of them together -- I think they haven't really changed the over-all story which is that of inflation moving down gradually on a sometimes-bumpy road toward 2%. I don't think that story has changed.
I also don't think that those -- those readings added to anyone's confidence that we're moving closer to -- to that point. But you know, we didn't -- the last thing I'll say is we didn't excessively celebrate the good ... rates we got in the last 7 months of last year. We didn't take too much signal out of that.
What you heard us saying was we needed to see more. We need to be careful about that decision and we're not going to over-react as well to these two months of data. We're not going to ignore them.
>> Hi, Chair Powell. Can you speak a little bit about the timing? Is there enough data between now and say May to be able to get the kind of confidence that you say that you still need or by June, is there enough data for you? Just give us a sense of your thinking there. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We make decisions meeting by meeting. We didn’t make any decisions about — about future meetings today. Those are going to depend on our ongoing assessment of the incoming data and risks. So I don’t really have anything for you on any specific meeting you’re looking for.
>> Just a question --
>> CHAIRPERSON: We'll take -- you know, things happen during an inter-meeting period if you look back -- unexpected things. I wouldn't want to dismiss anything.
I just would say that the committee wants to see more data that gives us higher confidence that inflation is moving down sustainably toward 2%. I also mentioned -- we don't see this in the data right now, but if there were a significant weakening in the data -- particularly in the labor market -- that could also be a reason for us to begin the process of raising rates again.
Nothing in the data pointing at that, but those are the things that we'll be looking@coming meetings without trying to refer to any specific meeting.
>> Hi. Chris Rugaber, Associated Press. Thank you. In the objections there's an increase in the neutral rate as you know and higher rates -- court-appointed higher rates in 2025-2026. Is there a sense here that the economy has perhaps changed in some way that higher rates will be needed in the future? Thank you.CHAIRPERSON: So you’re rate. They’re pretty modest changes. But you’re right. There’s an up tick in the longer run rate and a 25-basis increase in ’25 and ’26. In terms of — are rates going to be higher in the longer run — because that’s really your question. I don’t think we really know that.
I think it's -- we think that rates were generally low during the pre-pandemic post-financial crisis era for reasons that are mostly -- you know, important, slow-moving large things like demographics, productivity and that sort of thing. Things that don't move quickly. But I don't think we know.
My instinct is that rates will not go back to the very low levels. All around the world rates were at or below 0 in some cases. I don't see rates going back down to that level but I think there's tremendous uncertainty about that.
>> Great. Just a quick follow. On the projections you also have 2.6% core inflation for the end of this year. It's already -- you mentioned it being 2.8 in February. That doesn't sound like much disinflation at all. Are you I am still -- last press conference you said more confidence by the end of this year. Is it right to suggest you're not seeing a lot of disinflation this year compared to what we've seen in 2023 at some point?
>> I think the higher year-end number reflects the data we've seen so far this year. You're now in this year. Say the last part of your question again?
>> Are you still optimistic that you will get the confidence you need this year?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I -- I think if you look at -- if you look at the SEP, it is still likely in most people's view that we will achieve that confidence and that there will be rate cuts. But that is really going to depend on the incoming data. It is.
In the second half of the year you have some pretty low readings so it might be harder to make progress as you move that 12-month window forward. We're looking for data that confirm the low readings we had last year and give us a higher degree of confidence that what we saw was real any inflation moving sustainably down to 2% toward 2%.
>> A weakening in the labor market would be a reason to potentially cut rate or consideration making a rate cut would a restriction on the labor market increase labor cuts, if the market didn't rebound the way in 2024, what would stronger growth need for the path forward on policy?
>> CHAIRPERSON: If what we're getting is a lot of supply and a lot of demand, then that supply is actually feeding demand because workers are getting paid and they're spending and that's -- you know, what you would have is potentially kind of what you had last year which is a bigger economy where inflationary pressures are not increasing. In fact, they are decreasing. You cannot have that if you have a continued supply side activity that we had last year both with supply chains and also with -- with the size of the labor force.
>> So strong hiring in and of itself would not be a reason to hold off on rate cuts.CHAIRPERSON: Not in itself, no. You saw last year, strong hiring and inflation coming down quickly. We now have a better sense that a bigger part of that was supply-side healing particularly with growth in the labor force.
In and of itself strong job growth is not a reason for us to be concerned about inflation.
>> How do you assess the state of financial conditions right now and particularly -- in particular do you view the easing financial conditions in last fall compatible with what you're trying to achieve on the inflation mandate?
>> CHAIRPERSON: There are many indicators that you can kind of -- you know, see different answers to that question. Ultimately we think financial conditions are weighing on economic activity and we think you see that in -- a great place to see it is in the labor market when you see demand cooling off from the extremely high levels. There I would point to job openings, surveys, the hiring rate. Things like that are really demand. They're also supply-side things. I think those are demand-side things happening.
That's been a question for a while. We did see progress on inflation last year -- significant progress despite financial renditions sometimes being tighter or sometimes being looser.
>> Can you give us more color on how the committee is thinking about inflation dynamics now? What we've seen at the beginning of the year, one-off increases that will fade or is there more of a secular turn with good prices rising again and service prices staying sticky.
Also housing prices have been sort of a Godot of this cycle in that you keep expecting them to go down and they don't. How does the committee see this playing forward since you've raised your inflation forecast?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I've seen committees looking at the two months of data and asking the same question you're asking. We're just going to have to see what the data show.
As I mentioned, you can look at January and many people did see the possibility of seasonally adjustment problems there. You've got to be careful about dismissing the parts of the data that you don't like.
February wasn't as high, but it was higher. The question S.. What are we going to see? We tend to see a little bit stronger -- this is in the data -- a little bit stronger inflation earlier in the year. Less strong later in the year.
We're going to let the data show. I don't think we really know if this is a bump on the road or more. We will have to find out. In the meantime, the economy is strong. Inflation has come way down and that gives us the ability to evaluate this question carefully. Move confidently that inflation is moving down to 2% when we begin dialing back our restrictive pole si.
>> You talked about the desire to have confidence that inflation is continually moving down. Has the recent numbers we've gotten for inflation dented that confidence at all?
>> CHAIRPERSON: It certainly hasn't raised anyone's confidence, but I would say that the story is really essentially the same. And that is of inflation coming down gradually toward 2% on a sometimes-bumpy path as I mentioned. I think that is what you still see. We've got 9 months of 2.5% inflation now. We've had 2 months of bumpy inflation. It's going to be a bumpy ride. We've consistently said that. Now we have bumps. We can't know that. That is why we are approaching this question carefully. It is very important for everyone that we serve that we do get inflation sustainably down. Every situation is different but the historical record is you need to approach that carefully and not have to come back and raise rates again if you cut it prematurely.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask you, you received a letter from the Federal Reserve for understanding -- you receives letters from Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon White House to cut interest rates. "the potential that it may remain too high for too long has halted advances and delayed significant climate and economic benefits from these projects." Has higher interest rates caused that?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Have they -- well, first of all, I respect -- you know, in our system of Government, it is Congress that has oversight possibility over the Fed. We place a tremendous amount of confidence on our Congress and treat that with great respect.
In this case, our mandate is for maximum employment and price stability and the other things that we do and that is what we're trying to accomplish. We're trying to do that in a way that sustains the strong growth we're seeing, the strong labor market we're seeing, but allows us to make further progress with inflation that is how we can best serve the public and leave others to the people who have responsibility for those.
>> There's a letter from 2000 lawmakers saying the high rates are affecting working people. How does this affect you policy wise?
>> CHAIRPERSON: We receive these letters respect and write careful responses. We listen because we are talking to the people in the Government who have oversight in our activities. At the end of the day, we take that but we have to make our judgments and we have to stick with maximum employment, price stability, supervisor and regulate the banks, work on payment systems. Things that we do.
>> Thanks a lot for the opportunity to ask a question. As chair of the FOMC, would you want to see unanimity on the committee or something close to it, meaning no more than one decent before you begin cutting rates? Thank you.CHAIRPERSON: We are very consensus oriented organization and we do try to achieve consensus and ideally, unanimity. People do decent something that happens. Life goes on. It’s not a problem. We’ve always had decent. You respect thoughtful decents very much. You may not agree with some arguments but you may want to understand them. You may read a book that takes a position you may have long opposed. I treat them with real respect as well.
>> Can you hear me?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
>> Okay. Great. Obviously inflation is some ways away from target, unemployment though, if you look at the projection for the full year, 4.0% in February we were already at 3.9%. So quite close to the median projection. Are you concerned at all that notwithstanding the very strong jobs growth, that infect there may be some cracks appearing in the employment market. You talked about a significant deterioration in the labor market be for easing rates. What would constitute that in your books?
>> We of course monitor -- it's one of the two goal variables. We monitor the labor market carefully. We follow all the possible stories that are out there about there being cracks.
The over-all picture is strong labor market, the extreme imbalances we saw in the early parts of the pandemic recovery have mostly been resolved. You're seeing high job growth. You're seeing big increases in supply. You're seeing strong wage growth but wage growth is moderating down to more sustainable levels. In many many respects, the things are returning more to their state in 2019 as we can think of as normal for this purpose. That is job openings. Surveys of workers and businesses are always interesting on this -- how easy is it to find a job? How easy is it to find a worker? Those surveys have both come down.
The labor market is in good shape. You do see things like the low hiring rate and people have made the argument that if lay offs were to increase, that that would mean that the net would be fairly quick increases unemployment. That is something we're watching, but we're not seeing. Initial claims are very very low. If anything, you have to track down a little bit. So watching it carefully. Don't see it. When I say I use the term "unexpected weakening" of the market. We do expect the unemployment rate -- the forecast would move up to an unsustainable level. That is just people's individual forecast. But we're talking about something that is unexpected. That is where I'll leave it at that.
>> Steve Matthews with Bloomberg. You mentioned at the press conference that the committee thought it might be appropriate to slow the pace of asset run off fairly soon. I'm wondering, you say fairly soon, does that mean the committee would meet about this again in May, a decision could be reached that soon? I was wondering if you could describe the scope of what the committee is discussing. You're at $95 billion of caps right now. Would that be cut about in half or something in that nature? Thank you.CHAIRPERSON: So that is what we’re discussing essentially. We’re not discussing all the other balance sheet issues. We will discuss those in due course. But what we’re really looking at is slowing the pace of runoff … . We’re talking about going to a lower pace. I don’t want to give you a specific number because we haven’t made an agreement or a decision. That is the idea. That is what we’re looking at. In terms of the timing, I would say “fairly soon.” I don’t want to be more specific than that.
You get the idea -- this is in our longer-run plans, we may actually be able to get to a lower level because we would avoid the kind of fictions that can happen.
Liquidity is not distributed in the system. There can be times when, in the aggregate, reserves are ample or even abundant, but not in every part. Those parts where they're not ample, there can be stress. That can cause you to prematurely start the press. If something like that happened in '19 perhaps. So that's what we're doing.
We're looking at what would be a good time and a good structure. "Fairly soon" is words we use to mean fairly soon.
>> Will there be a discussion about moving back to health treasuries at some point?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Our longer-run goal is to return to a balance sheet that is mostly treasuries. I do expect that once we're through this, we will come back to the other issues about the composition and I am maturity and revisit those issues. It's not urgent right now. We want to get this decision made first and then we can -- when the time is right, come back to the other issues.
>> Hi, Victoria Guido with Politico. The balance sheet -- can you talk about the outlook for the banking sector, how that might affect your balance sheet plans. As deposits shrink we might see more turbulence?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Fairly soon, we will slow down -- we want to avoid any kind of turbulence. I wasn't thinking about banking sector turbulence -- we had some indicators the last time. This is our second time in doing this. I think we're going to be paying a lot of attention to things that started to happen, at the end of the cycle where we ended up in a short-reserve section. We have a better sense of what are the indicators. It wasn't so much in the banking system as it was -- for example, where Federal funds is trading relative to the administrative rates. We will always be watching the banking system for some other signs, though.
>> Is it also because you are not sure how the reserves will work once the over-night repo facility drops below 0?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I think we broadly think once the overnight repo stabilizes at 0 or close to 0, that as the balance sheet shrinks we should expect reserves would decline pretty close to dollar for dollar with that. That is what we think.
>> Hi Chair Powell. I wanted to ask also about the balance sheet. Will you -- you said that starting the taper sooner could get you to a smaller balance sheet size. Does that mean you don't have to make a decision on when to end QT at this point and will you be setting up the process for deciding that sooner or will you wait until we're close to the end?
>> CHAIRPERSON: It's sort of ironic that by going slower you can get farther. The idea is that with a smoother transition, you won't -- you'll run much less risk of kind of liquidity problems which can grow into shocks and cause you to drop the process prematurely. In terms of how it ends, we're going to be monitoring carefully market selections and what they're telling us about reserves. Right now we would characterize them as abundant. We're aiming for ample which is a little bit more than abundant. There's not a dollar amount or percent of GDP where we think we have a really pretty clear understanding that we're going to be looking at what these -- you know, what's happening in money markets in particular -- a bunch of different indicators including the ones I mentioned to tell us when we're getting close.
Then, though, you reach a point ultimately where you stop allowing the balance sheet to run off and you -- then, from that point, there's another period in which non-reserve liabilities grow organically like currency and that also shrinks the reserves at a slow pace. You have a slower pace of run off which we will have fairly soon and you have another time where you effectively hold the balance sheet constant and allow non-reserve liabilities to understand and that brings it in to a nice, easy landing at a level which is above what we think the lowest possible ample number would be. We're not trying for that. We want to have a cushion -- a buffer -- the demand for reserves can be volatile and we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where there's reserve turn around, buy assets and put reserves back in the banking system the way we did in 2019-'20.
>>
>> Hi, Nancy Marshall with marketplace. You said you're waiting to be more confident getting in getting to your 2% goal before cutting rates. Can you sum up what data you're looking at that will give you that confidence?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Sure. Most importantly we're looking at the incoming inflation data. That will be various components. More confidence than inflation is coming down sustainably toward 2%. I mean, of course we'll also be looking at all the other things that are happening in the economy. We will look at the totality of the data including everything essentially as we make that assessment. The most important thing will be the inflation data coming in.
>> Are there things you would give more weight to like wages?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Wages one thing. Our target is not wages. It's really inflation. We would look to the fact that wages are still coming in very strong but they've been wage increases -- wage increases have been quite strong but they're gradually coming down to levels that are more sustainable over time. That is what we want. We don't think -- the inflation was not originally caused -- I don't think by -- mostly by wages. That wasn't really the story. But we do think that to get inflation back down to 2% sustainably we would like to see continuing gradual movement of wage increases at still high levels but back down to levels that are more sustainable over time.
>> Thank you. Did you say at this meeting whether there were more officials who wanted to be careful and go slower about rates than the last meeting? Was there that sense of maybe it's smart to wait? Thanks.
>> I guess I put it this way. The -- if you look at the incoming inflation data that we've had for January and February, I think very broadly that suggests that we were right to wait until we're more confident. So I think -- I think -- you know, I did not hear anyone dismissing it as not information. So I think generally speaking it does go in the direction of saying yes, it is appropriate for us being careful as we approach this question.
>> Thanks chair Powell. I wanted to ask you about central bank digital currency stuff. We've been hearing a lot from Republicans in Congress, is it doing a digital dollar? I know you have said to Congress that you're going to wait for approval before the fed launches anything. Folks like Tom Emmer said the Fed is actively researching or hiring personnel to study CBDC, can you give us any clarity on what the fed is doing right now on a digital dollar?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Sure. I think we've been pretty transparent on this but I'll try harder. We are not getting ready to -- we haven't proposed -- we haven't come to a conclusion that we should propose or anything like that that Congress consider legislation to authorize a digital dollar and it would take legislation by Congress signed by the President to give us the ability to do what we think of as a CBDC, which is a retail -- we're just a long long way from that. I think what every major central bank is doing is we're trying to stay in the front ears of digital finance. It has many different areas and applications in wholesale finance in the payment system. To serve the public, these issues have become very front burner in the last 5-6 years. We actually do have people trying to understand things that are -- but it's wrong to say that we're working on a CBDC, and we secretly have a lab we're going to spring on Congress we don't. I have not at all in my own mind made a decision that I think something the US should be doing. I think it's something we need to understand. We have people keeping up with that as part of the broader payments landscape. That is how I would characterize it.
>> Mr. Chairman, April 27th will mark the 13th anniversary since the medical started holding regular news conference. How high has the transparency been for you in the central bank? Accomplishing your mission? And is there more you and your colleagues can do on the transparency front and what might that look like?
>> CHAIRPERSON: I generally think -- this movement actually started 30 years ago -- 30 years ago when some academics posited that more transparent Federal bank. The markets will react to the data. There's been a march towards greater and greater transparency. We went from 4 p press conferences per year. Every meeting is live now. I think that is a good innovation. We won't turn it back. We've done a bunch of things. We have an annual supervision report, financial stability report. There's a long list of things we've done. I think you -- I mean nothing comes to mind as desperately needing doing at this point. We speak through to the public through the media. That channel has fallen.
I think it's generally broadly helped and made things better but not every day in every way.
>> Is there any day you want to put the Jeannie back in the bottle?
>> CHAIRPERSON: Of course ...not.
>> [Laughter]
>> Let's go to Jennifer for the last question.
>> Thank you, Chair Powell. Not to harp too much more on confidence and inflation but you did say earlier in this press conference that the recent inflation data hasn't raised confidence but when you testified before the senate a couple weeks ago you told lawmakers you are not far from cutting rates. Are you still in that belief or not? What are we to take by those words? Not far.
>> My main message in those days is that the committee needs to maintain confidence and we don't expect it will be appropriate to begin to reduce rates until we're more confident than that. I said that any number of times. Those are the main part of the message we repeated today in that statement. To the language you mentioned, I really pointed out that we had made significant progress over the past year and what we're looking for was confirmation that that progress will continue. We had a series of inflation readings over the second half of last year that were really much lower. We didn't over-react as I mentioned. But that is what I had in mind.
>> Given that you said PCE for February, 2.8%, the estimate, we have seen it coming down every month, wouldn't you be at about 2.4% this summer to a point where you could cut them?
>> We will have to see how the data come in. We would of course love to get really good inflation data. We got good inflation data at the second part of last year. We said we needed to see more and it would be bumpy. Now we have January and February which I talked about a couple times. We are looking for more and we will certainly welcome it.
>> Thank you.
--
Content may appear first or exclusively on the Mace News premium service. For real-time delivery in entirety contact tony@macenews.com. X (Twitter) headlines @macenewsmacro.