← Leaderboard
AP
Anna Paulson
Philadelphia Fed President
First call on the ledger
No calls filed yet. Quotes in curly quotation marks are verbatim; everything
else is a labeled paraphrase. Every call links its original source. Before you trust the call, check the record.
Where they stand
Views on the record but not scoreable bets: no single number and deadline to grade. Shown in their exact words, never scored.
Opening framing of the dual-mandate trade-off in an interview marking her first year as Philadelphia Fed president.
We've got an economy that's pretty strong, right? We had, you know, second quarter growth came in, you know, and the top line number wasn't so awesome, but when you look at investment, you look at the consumer, you know, it looks really strong. You've got a labor market that's stable, and you've got inflation that's too high.
Her core policy position, stated immediately after describing a strong economy with too-high inflation - the headline 'mildly restrictive' line of the interview.
And so I think we need, you know, policy that's mildly restrictive, and I think policy has been mildly restrictive to get underlying inflation back down to 2% in an acceptable time period.
Interviewer asks whether the nine-to-three meeting vote was a close call for her; she says it was not.
So for me, it was, it was not a close call. I think that, you know, we're, to me, we've, you know, the evidence so far suggests we're in a mildly restrictive stance.
Uses her 'measuring the depth of water in a pool with rocks being thrown in' analogy - tariffs and energy shocks obscure the underlying inflation level.
When I look at underlying inflation, when you try to strip out the effects of, of those things, you know, I see it somewhere in the range of two, four, two, eight, maybe there was a little bit of, you know, mild progress over the last several months, but I want to see more progress on that.
Responding to the 'Superman monetary policy' question and Neel Kashkari's ('Neil Kaskari' in transcript) view that the Fed has a role addressing supply shocks; she adds the Fed must guard against second-round effects [267960-282800].
So I have definitely been in the, of the view that you should look through supply shocks. I think that, you know, the June PC inflation data, you know, kind of validate that, right? We saw there that when we had the lull in the conflict in the Middle East, oil prices came down, we got inflation relief, right?
WTI crude since this was said: ▼ -1.5% · 75.77 → 74.66 · as of 2026-08-05
BearFed
hedged · 2026-08-04
Immediately follows her 2.4-2.8% underlying-inflation estimate; interviewer interjects 'And that means higher rates in that sense, right?'; quote joins non-contiguous passages within the same answer (verified part-by-part)
You know, I think if we don't see that progress, then we have to be open to recalibrating monetary policy. You know, we need to get to 2%. ... Could be higher rates, could be, you know, same rates for longer
Follow Anna Paulson
One short email when Anna puts a new call on the record, and when a verdict lands on one. Plain words, free.