5 bullish · 24 bearish · 9 hold · 58 neutral · exact words, dated and sourced
+46
The tape
Jul 27
Aug 03
bullishbearishclaims filed per week
What the people who move markets are saying about this, in their own
words. These are views on the record, not scored bets: when a call here grows a number
and a deadline, it moves to the scoreboard. Newest first.
Neutral2026-08-07
Bloomberg; the hike case rests on tariff/energy inflation the Fed cannot influence.
I think the argument for hiking seems to obviously rest on the shoulders of inflation and we would argue that this is not the kind of inflation that the Fed could actually impact. And so in
Apollo chief economist on CNBC; jobs report moved market pricing of the next hike from September to October.
Because at the moment, the market before the employment report was saying the Fed would hike in September. And now, of course, the market is saying, well, we pushed that out a month and now the hike It's likely going to come in October.
Closing recommendation to maintain exposure to energy and materials , explicitly 'not because I think they're absolutely going to have a great next 12 months' but for risk management.
The biggest risk right now is not necessarily economic growth. It's inflation. And if we're going to have runaway inflation, it's going to be because energy and materials basically prices went too far. And your best defense against that is to have the stocks that benefit from high prices.
Responding to host's note that Brian Moynihan's team sees possibly three rate hikes by end of the year.
Well, that's not impossible in my view. I mean, if inflation continues to move sideways or even get worse from here, then I think we're gonna have to start gradually adjusting interest rates to bring things back down.
After discussing whether balance-sheet shrinkage could substitute for hikes; he says the fed funds rate is the primary tool.
I'm not calling for a dramatic increase in interest rates. I'm simply saying, I don't see evidence that monetary policy is marginally restrictive right now, and I think we have more work to do to get inflation back down. And I would rather get going now in small steps than wait till later than we have a really entrenched inflation problem and have to raise rates aggressively then.
Asked if the product performs better if the market falls , 'it's not like a buffered ETF.'
I would say that it performs well in sideways markets Remember these income strategies. I mean these premium income strategies that benefit from the volatility in the market So if the market is just a smooth straight line up probably not as good as that jagged return
With 30Y above 5 percent for 27 sessions and $40T debt; expects QE targeting 10s and 30s. EVENT: will, hedged.
well, I think they're going to try to use financial repression and That means the Fed is going to come in that would mean if that's true If my guess is true, that would mean an expansion of quantitative easing and that means where the Fed directly purchases government bonds from the market to suppress interest rates
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.
'It's not the hyperscalers you married' exchange - massive AI capex funded by debt has changed the character of these stocks.
When you spend that much capex and then you issue that much debt, they're far more rates sensitive and they're far more sensitive when you think about that negative free cash flow. So it's not the same beast. And because of that, there really is a volatility regime shift and how volatile these stocks will be going forward that was not the same as the past.
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
Sub-100bp IG spreads vs ~150 historical as a government-health warning.
I mean, if you look at the spreads between, you know, the 10-year corporate investment grade instrument versus the 10-year, I think if historically it's 150 basis point spread, I think we're under 100 now, which could tell you one or two things. Either corporates are getting a lot more healthy or the government's getting a little less healthy. So I do think there is a race for capital.
The long-end selloff is Warsh's plan working; borrowing keeps getting pricier. EVENT: will.
So Kevin is saying, look, the market is doing my job. They're making the ability to borrow money out on the curve more and more expensive. It's going to continue to get more expensive.
Warsh uses August incl. Jackson Hole to bake a plan for September. EVENT: will, dated.
he's going to have the month of August before the September meeting to come out and deliver a relatively-baked plan in his mind. He's not going to give you the big plan, but he himself will have a highly-baked plan.
Base case: Iran deal, crude down, Fed done; next move a cut in 2027. EVENT: will, dated.
No. Again, going back to what we think Trump wants a deal. And therefore we don't expect that to play out and ultimately crude oil prices to come back down. And if that's the case, then I think Warsh has a little bit more leeway. And if we get through this window, which I would say is between, you know, the September meeting till the end of the year, then I think we're we're done. The next move is going to be a cut in twenty twenty seven.
Base case: PCE ~3.3 by year-end and Fed on hold all year; failure mode (hikes) stated on tape. EVENT: will, dated.
Our view is that inflation comes down to around 3.3 or so by the end of the year and could diminish further in 2027. And if that's right, then we think the Fed can stay on hold for the rest of the year.
Anti-consensus: no hike; next Fed move is a series of 50bp cuts triggered by an equity reversion. EVENT: will.
think the next move from the Fed will be a series of 50 basis point cuts, and a normal reversion cycle in the stock market, which means recession, but that
“If you're not going to do forward guidance then it's incumbent for the markets to have a broad understanding of how the central bank will react to data”
conditional warning: Fed credibility currently enormous and market inflation expectations tame; deficit on the credibility bank only if Warsh fails to put his money where his mouth is
defends withholding forward guidance; presser replay on Real Yield
“Market participants are learning to play the ball not the referee and market prices will continue to respond in the direction and magnitude they see fit.”
Warsh is abdicating the Fed's core job and will be forced back to guidance
“You've got to learn from the past. You have to interpret the present. You have to forecast the future. At the moment the chair is refusing to do all three.”
why a hike today would be unprecedented, BofA analysis since the early 90s. truncated referent: 'of a Fed moving in that direction'; his point is a hike would SHOCK, not that one comes
“we've never seen the market price less than a 60% probability”