21 Burst results for "Richard Fisher"

"richard fisher" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:40 min | 2 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"To head to a bureau in Atlanta because we've got one of the smart voices when it comes to Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve. Chief Jay Powell as you know, speaking at brookings taking questions. So let's bring in Bloomberg news economic reporter Steve Matthews. He is in our Atlanta bureau. So Steve, good to have you here. Let's talk about Jay Powell. What was the most important thing he said today, whether it was in his speech or in his Q&A? Well, I think a couple of things. I mean, what the markets took away from this was obviously kind of locked in on December. You're going to get a 50 basis point hike. You didn't say that specifically, but if you read between the lines, he all but said that, yes, we're going to get 50. It's time to start slowing the pace of rate hikes. But he also said, you know, he repeated in these are themes from the past press conference at the November meeting that you could have rights that are higher than what they had been expecting before. So you could have an dot plot in December rights moving up a bit from where they were in September. To me, the thing that jumped out was the way he was framing the fight against inflation. He said they're basically three types of inflation. You have goods inflation where there's been a lot of progress. There was COVID disruption. Now that is easing, you have housing inflation. And that's going to continue. But if you look at new leases that they've already started to come down, so there was a lot of optimism there. And then the third area was services, inflation, and that was the area where there was a very uncertain outlook that whether things are going to get better or not. And that often was that was where I was talking about the labor market. They were being too tight labor market and that contributing to wage pressures and inflation. Well, that's exactly where I want to go, Steve. Because something that stuck out to me from paulus comments was what he said about the labor market. The idea that immigration is well below pre-pandemic levels. We still got workers on the sidelines due to COVID. And then there was this. The what? Millions of Americans who left the workforce early during the pandemic, these so called pandemic era retirements. What stuck out to you from the perspective of the supply side here because it seems like he needs to bring down demand rather than increase supply when it comes to labor because that's just not happening. Yeah, that was really fascinating because he was saying, if you look at where the congressional budget office was projecting, the size of the labor force before the COVID pandemic that where they are right now is several million jobs short of where they were expected to be. And there are lots of reasons for that early retirement was one the amount of COVID deaths and long COVID was another area. But that and the immigration, as you pointed out, has been disappointing and he was kind of called on Congress to fiscal policy makers to do something. He said, we can affect the demand we can affect labor supply and I'm not going to endorse any specific idea, but it's something that would really help the economy if fiscal policy makers would address the supply of labor. So we'll see if that happens. Steve, you and I have been around the block a few times. Tim has two a little bit. A little bit. But I do think, but I do think the immigration story is something we've talked about for years in terms of change it make it legal, bring them into the economy. There are a lot of jobs that immigrants coming into the United States would love to have that we're not able to fill at this point. So it's been an old thing, but it requires legislation and policy. And I don't know if we're going to get that. Yeah, you know, we all have been around for quite a long time because this has been a constant theme. I mean, I remember Ben Bernanke talking about it and the Richard Fisher, the former Dallas fed president, made controversial remarks, basically calling for more immigration and clearly there are jobs that are going unfilled because they're not being filled by American workers, Americans don't want these particular jobs or not skilled for them. And why we're not bringing more people in is just it's not a mystery. It's because Congress is decided not to do anything about it and right now it's just continuing debate. All right, so I know it's like, you know, what have you done for me today or what have you done for me lately? We got through J pal, very important. We saw the markets react. How important is Friday's jobs report based on what we heard from Jay Powell today? I think it is important and it's not important for the December rate hike. It's really now they're setting expectations for what happens in February. The next big debate you're going to hear at the fed is not about December. That's pretty much a done deal. They're being some shock. But it's about do you do 50 basis points in February or do you do 25? And if you do 25, then that kind of sets the at least the possibility that you could pause for a while or do another 25. So the next debate is going to be very much about the early February meeting. All right, I got to dig into something you said pause for a while. It makes me think of what Jay Powell said, you know, staying at restrictive levels for some time. And the way he ended his speech. We still have more work to do. What does sometimes mean? Yeah, that's a good that's a really good question because it's like they are setting up the idea that rate hikes are going to slow, but they're going to continue and what's important is how high do they go and for how long and they're kind of trying to set the narrative that it's going to be higher for longer, but they're not really defining that. But you will get some definition in the December dot plot, which will suggest that they plan to hold rates very high for at least all of 2023. So I think that that is how they are looking at it. A difference to what Gina Martin Adams told us yesterday where she thinks that they'll see a cut in 50 basis points due to a recession in 2023, Carol. Yeah, and that's interesting. So where do we go with that, Steve? What are you hearing about

Jay Powell COVID Chief Jay Powell Steve Matthews Steve Atlanta Federal Reserve Bloomberg paulus Dallas fed congressional budget office Congress Richard Fisher Ben Bernanke Tim United States Gina Martin Adams Carol
"richard fisher" Discussed on Bankless

Bankless

05:28 min | 2 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Bankless

"Opponent of this stuff in 2012 and 2013? To be in a huge public supporter of it. I interviewed him in 2012 and he told me, quote, my views evolve with the evidence, which is probably what you'd want to hear from a fed chair. It also doesn't tell me a whole lot. No, and okay, and I interviewed his colleague of former Dallas regional bank president Richard Fisher, who worked really closely with Jay Powell for years. And Fisher said on the record, which is pretty extraordinary. He said there was no new evidence, like there was no study that came out when Powell switched to support this stuff. No new study said, oh, quantitative easing does not stoke asset bubbles and increase wealth inequality and really Fisher's conclusion, I think, is very rational, which is that J Powell, accommodated himself to the leadership culture of the fed. I mean, the group think. He stepped into a circle of people that had engaged in practice in groupthink and stepped into the septum to the groupthink. But doesn't it just like select for that? If his goal was to actually be the chair at some point, you have to conform. There's no way you're going to make it to the chair. Is that also true, Chris, so does the executive branch appoints the actual fed chair? Correct? Correct. The president appoints the fed chair and then they're approved by the Senate. Okay, so they're not going to pick someone who is quantitative tightening. We got to take the hard medicine to swallow. They're not going to, are they going to pick someone that are bad for their political outcomes, right? So if you're trying to get elected, you're trying to have an economy that is going up and to the right, then you don't want a fed chair coming in and spoiling the party, do you. So the political machine just sort of select for people like Powell. And if they're not on board with that, then they have to get on board or they never rise to that position. Yes. Let me say a couple things. First is that when President Biden reappointed Jay Powell to be the fed chairperson, there was this sort of mini competition between J Powell and another governor named lael brainard, and it was like, oh, who's Biden gonna appoint? The difference between lael brainard and Jay Powell on monetary policy was nonexistent.

Jay Powell Dallas regional bank J Powell Fisher Richard Fisher fed Powell Chris Senate President Biden lael brainard Biden
Richard Fisher Calls out Nancy Pelosi's Insider Trading

Mark Levin

00:59 sec | 6 months ago

Richard Fisher Calls out Nancy Pelosi's Insider Trading

"Richard Fisher Federal Reserve bank president was on CNBC yesterday I had tipped daily caller He's taken a look at this And here's what he says Cut 11 go With regard to the House and the Senate clearly people have taken advantage of inside information forever I'm not against their Tapping that down And I'm sorry to see that Paul Pelosi of Nancy Pelosi and others are appear it's all up here it's right now We don't know the facts to have taken advantage of inside information So something needs to be done Yes perhaps they should be taken out in handcuffs I'm sure the Democrat hack U.S. attorney in Washington D.C. will take a very close look at this I mean it is staring him in the face It is right there in his jurisdiction You don't even need to S.W.A.T. team Now we need a S.W.A.T. team

Richard Fisher Federal Reserve Paul Pelosi Cnbc Nancy Pelosi Senate Washington D.C. House U.S.
"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money

05:02 min | 8 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

"And zero cost money allowed them to be financed. And I am worried, by the way, by credit. We're going to see some serious failures here. And some serious corrections and some real stress, it's an opportunity for good investors like you guys. But it's going to create some real turbulence and volatility in the market and maybe a serious situation that someone's going to have to cure either through monetary policy regulatory policy, whatever it may be. Are we talking about a systemic issue Richard? I don't know if it's systemic, but I know this much. When money is free, you discount the present value of future cash flows, mathematically to infinity. So look at what happened in the crypto space in the FinTech space in the main space in the Emmy. I don't even know how to pronounce it anymore. But a lot of retail investors here, young people that just sought money was free forever. Particularly those retail investors, I think are going to be seriously hurt. And that will be interesting to see if it creates a major incident and whether or not the fed needs to react or someone else needs to react to cure it. I think there's some black swans out there. That's my point. All right. Richard, it's always great to get your thoughts. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Well, I'd love to show Melissa. I think you have a great panel and all I can say after this is have a great day. Thank you. I got the best panel in the business. That's for sure. Richard, thanks. Good to see you. Thanks. Richard Fisher. Karen, would you agree that in terms of black swan's credit maybe an issue, especially I mean, it is true. We have a whole cadre of companies that came up during a no cost of capital period. They borrowed up the wazoo. They went whatever it is. And now look, what's happening to rates. So quickly, too. Right. So what's happening to rates and also what's happening to valuations, of course, because rates go up and you discount infinity to a lot closer. You get a lot lower value for sure. But I think that that easy money's gone. We're going to, you know, this back thing is blown up. And so I think we're going to see a lot more of that reckoning, but also we had a lot of companies that took on debt post pandemic that are now having higher costs. We talked about this yesterday with airlines. I don't know if you watched the show, Melissa, when you're not on. But we talked about that and how the cost of capital will eat its way through a lot of companies, but I feel like that'll create some interesting opportunities. I'm sure high yield have been for a while. I'm deep in a 5 o'clock feeding during the shows are no idea I didn't watch. But Grasso, what do you think about in terms of black swans? I mean, you're the one who thinks the worst is to come for the economy. Yeah, I mean, trying to guess a black swan is probably a pointless endeavor, but if you're looking at a rising rate environment, you probably can't have a Super Bowl market to everything that Richard said to everything we know on this desk. You're going to have Karen pointed out at the end of the spac markets. You're going to have less IPOs, less deals. You probably could have more M and a, people bottom fishing, trying to pick companies that they think could be accretive. But you're not going to see a bull run. If you're not going to see a bull run, then you're going to see equity classes go away. And that could be or just lose their luster down the food chain. So as far as a black swan event, it doesn't have to be a black swan event. This just could be a deterioration of the market down to Tim set a couple of levels earlier. I pointed out that feb 2020 level of 33 50, maybe we go lower because we're in a rising rate environment. And I think that takes the Gusto out of all investors, whether you're retail or institutions that have been lulled to sleep thinking that these profits are forever. The day the market bottom is in is when people sell their apple. Not when people sell their zoom. Hasn't that been happening. And we just quickly, because we're out of time here in this segment guy, but we haven't talked about trading what is going on right now in response to the fed we talked about a short term rally. What do you trade in a short term rally? What we saw today at the sharpest gains in the NASDAQ 100 and the stuff that got bombed out and it was interesting to watch Apple basically do nothing as large cap tech moved higher earlier in the day and then finally it caught a bid after the fed decision. Yeah, I think Steve makes a good point about the general sort of the last to go down and apple's clearly one of those generals. And look, it's very hard to be tactical in this environment. I get a Tim talks about that all the time. And we try to do our best to help people navigate that. I think there's an opportunity here to be tactical in the form of some of these higher flying tech names for the next week or so where I think you're going to see a pretty violent rally. I think what's going to wind up happening and we're going to have this conversation quickly with Paul sankey. I think energy will sort of fall by the wayside, which will then theoretically be our opportunity to get back in there. I know that's a lot, but that's how I'd be looking at the next week and a half, two weeks. All right, coming up. A big warning for.

Richard Melissa Richard Fisher Karen fed Emmy Grasso Super Bowl Apple Tim Steve Paul sankey
"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money

05:09 min | 8 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

"Welcome back to fast money back to the top story of the day, the fed raising rates to the highest level since the pandemic stocks rallying on this historic move for our next guest warns the fed has a way to go because inflation has metastasized. Richard Fisher served as Dallas fed president and as a CNBC contributor. Richard, great to have you with us. Thank you, Melissa. So obviously this is I love the panel, by the way. You guys are tough. I mean, weed whacker sledgehammer. Bulldozer. Bulldozer. What do you think is the appropriate characterization of what the fed is doing considering a lot of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing across the economy is completely out of the fed's control. Well, I'm not sure it's completely out of the fed's control. I do disagree as much side by Jay chairman Powell. The idea we don't have a wage price spiral, talk to any CFO, any CEO of any business, public private, small, medium, or large. And they will tell you that they have trouble finding labor and they have to pay up for it. And once they get it, their productivity is lagging, and they have to work on it over time. So I do think we do have a wage price spiral, but what is required here is you mentioned I do believe that this cancer has of inflation is metastasized in our economy. It's going to take very harsh, but also precise surgery. I think pal is very Frank and I like his honesty in the way he so many of you call it uncertainty, but the fact that he has basically said, look, we're just going to have to watch this carefully. They're admitting their decision model, which is what I call the horse out of the Bard model. That is, you wait to see if inflation is actually there and then you act. It takes 18 months to work its way through the economy. The real economy, markets react instantaneously. A businesses can not do that. You have to figure out everything from lagging your payables accelerator receivables all the way up through CAPEX, HR policy, but works. And every company I talk to and I listen, every earnings report that I can get in the hands on her. My ear on her saying they're going to take more pricing. And they're going to project this as long as they can to protect their margins. Look at the NFIB survey that came out yesterday. More companies are talking about taking aggressive pricing. These are not listed companies or private companies. They employ half the people in this country that are workers. They create 80% of jobs historically. They're all saying going back 48 years of history. They're going to take more aggressive pricing action to protect their margins. So this is going to be a longer term process. I wonder if 4% is going to be the top. Because I think this is running longer, deeper, and the fed has a role to play, although he's right, that is college right. Thanks to Russia, Ukraine, COVID lockdowns and other things. Not everything senator control. But what is under their control? They should act on and they're going to have to act. And I think it's going to be harsh medicine. Radical surgery. Mister Fisher I admire, I'm sorry. No, please go ahead. No, I was going to say I apologize. There's a bit of a delay. I just want to say, first of all, I admire you a great deal. Your candor and your intellect for sure. This is a statement that a question. I think the wealth gap in this country that is undeniable, and it's in large part due to fed policy over the last few decades. At chasm, continues to grow. And inflation really only hurts the lower and the middle class, the upper class could sort of laugh about what they're paying for gas. It really doesn't matter. That's my statement. My question is sorted this. I'm not, I'm wrong all the time. If you watch fast money for the last 15 and a half years, you know I'm wrong a lot. So I have no problem with being wrong. My problem is the hubris associated with somehow thinking the inflation that they begged for for years they could somehow control once they got it because that to me is the height of hubris. Well, as I mentioned, it's a horse out of the barn. Approach, they adopted it at Jackson hole in the summer conference a little over two years ago. I criticized it then. I think it's a mistake. Because you wait to see whether or not inflation is transitory or not, you want to see the whites the eyes and inflation. And then you act now, we made mistakes in the past. I served under allegory span and under Ben Bernanke and under chanet Yellen. And we made mistakes in the past by projecting improperly. We sometimes got to write. Sometimes it got wrong, but we took preemptive measures. This is post measures. And therefore, it takes longer. So perhaps you and I are on the same wavelength here. It's going to be a very difficult thing to do. It hurts those dependent on fixed income as we all know. And the lower income groups. Although in terms of some of the very rich that has been made recently, remember, there are over 1500 companies have gone public in the last year that had nothing..

fed Jay chairman Powell Richard Fisher CNBC Mister Fisher Melissa NFIB Dallas Richard Frank cancer Ukraine Russia chanet Yellen Jackson Ben Bernanke
"richard fisher" Discussed on Kottke Ride Home

Kottke Ride Home

07:33 min | 10 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Kottke Ride Home

"Have you ever thought about what will happen after you die? And I don't mean that in a is there an afterlife kind of way, or even the Keanu Reeves, the ones who love us will miss us kind of way. Today I'm talking about what will happen to your body after you die. If you're not cremated, might your body one day become a fossil that future generations could discover to learn about our present, spend enough time reading about fossils and archeological digs, and it's likely to be something that passes through your mind at least once. Lifelong fossil fan, Richard Fisher recently wondered the same thing and set out to figure out how exactly he might be able to make himself into a fossil. He wrote about his findings recently in BBC future, mostly getting insight from Professor of macroevolution at Jacob Venter, who, it turns out, has thought a lot about this subject and is even considering writing a book about it. So the first reality check in this whole mostly thought experiment is that it is highly highly unlikely that any of us will become fossils, even if we follow all these best practices. A previous BBC future article on the topic noted quote, every fossil is a small miracle, as author Bill Bryson notes in his book a short history of nearly everything, only an estimated one bone in a billion gets fossilized. By that calculation, the entire fossil legacy of the 320 odd million people alive in the U.S. today will equate to approximately 60 bones, or a little over a quarter of a human skeleton. But that's just the chance of getting fossilized in the first place, assuming this handful of bones could be buried anywhere in the U.S.'s 9.8 million km², then the chances of anyone finding these bones in the future are almost nonexistent. Fossilization is so unlikely that scientists estimate that less than one tenth of 1% of all the animal species that have ever lived have become fossils. Far fewer of them have been found. And Fisher reemphasizes that means the majority of species that have ever lived have not been preserved in the fossil record, not individual organisms entire species. The majority of species that ever lived on earth went away without leaving a single trace. Or at least we haven't discovered them yet. For a fossil to get discovered, depends hugely on location. Both in terms of future beans, ability to find it without having to drill deep beneath the earth and in terms of the specimen itself actually being preserved. If you were fine just being a sub fossil, anything under 50,000 years old, you could ensure your body is entombed somewhere frozen, like in the Alpine glaciers, or in a desert cave sealed off from predators, or even in a peat bog. But these would be short term sub fossilization in which you'd get discovered and studied within the coming decades maybe by future scientists. You might get lucky and last a few hundred or thousand years as human specimens have been discovered in those conditions, but winter explained that those conditions would not lead to the mineralization of your remains, or those conditions wouldn't last long enough themselves. Ice doesn't last millions of years, he points out. Winter says the key is picking somewhere you would get wet, buried and avoid getting eaten. The best place underwater. Specifically on the ocean floor, far enough out that you won't get moved around by waves or animals, but also not so deep that there's two little sediment to bury you. Vintner rather hauntingly says that there are probably humans in the process of being fossilized in this way right now since we've been sailing for so many centuries and there were a lot of shipwrecks and people being made to walk the plank and whatnot really gives me a whole new perspective on the our flag means death show that I've been watching. There's also this absolutely wild note. Quote, in such marine settings, there's also the small possibility of becoming a golden fossil. Fisher writes, if I got buried in iron rich mud and seawater that contained enough sulfate, along with sulfate reducing bacteria, then my body could be converted into pyrite. Your soft tissues can more or less become replaced by that in three dimensions, vintner says, end quote. So there could be pirates out there whose bodies are being fossilized into fool's gold. Seems almost too perfect to be true. But the bad news for scrawny white dudes like myself and Fisher, muscles and melanin are both helpful contributors to preservation. Melanin is less likely to break down over time and muscle tissue can be preserved by releasing phosphates. And the other thing, as pointed out by the previous BBC article, is that for any of this to work, you'd also have to bypass a coffin. That's pretty much the only way for your bones to interact with the minerals around you and eventually harden into a fossil. And this might prove to be tough as I recently learned from a mental floss article about why you can't actually keep a loved one's skull even if you got it in writing from them as their wish before dying. Most jurisdictions have abuse of corpse laws which prohibit funeral homes from handing over any parts of the body. They also have to submit a burial and transit permit for each body and the options on that form do not include gave one of the bones to late spouse or buried raw in hopes of becoming a fossil. So your best bet might be to go the root Fisher ultimately did. Covering some of his old toenail clippings in liquid epoxy, along with a note on a stone that reads hello from 2022. This is a similar method to preserving a specimen in amber, which we're all familiar with from Jurassic Park. Of course, if you really want to increase your odds, you'll probably want to drop that hardened epoxy specimen into the ocean, not just bury it in your backyard as Fisher ultimately ended up doing because quote, the ocean has far too much plastic in it already. The winter when asked if a human body completely covered in polyurethane and buried on the ocean floor would be preserved, pointed out that not only would it probably work, but also it would be quote morbidly emblematic of the plastic rich early Anthropocene. Harsh burn, but yeah, while the odds of many of us becoming fossils does seem pretty low, you know what probably will survive for eons, our cell phones, quoting again from that earlier article. Plastics, other oil derived products that don't biodegrade and inert metals like alloys gold and rare metals of the kind found in mobile phones all night last millions of years. Glass is durable too, and can withstand high temperatures and pressures. You can imagine finding the outlines or shapes of smartphones Caitlyn syme says paleontologist Mike archer notes that the durability of glass means you could chisel enjoy on a small sheet of glass in a concrete coffin with your body and it would be there to find with your fossil. Or you could use a laser to write out a whole letter. I'd go for some kind of practical joke, but maybe a better route would be an apology for how our species destroyed so much of the planets that is assuming beings, millions of years from now could even decode our writing,.

Jacob Venter Fisher BBC Alpine glaciers Richard Fisher Keanu Reeves Bill Bryson U.S. vintner Winter Jurassic Park Caitlyn syme Mike archer
"richard fisher" Discussed on The Larry Elder Show

The Larry Elder Show

04:54 min | 11 months ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on The Larry Elder Show

"That you did not vote for me? Yet. Peter doocy asked Jen Psaki how long are you going to blame other people for the rise in gas prices and the rise in inflation? So to that point, inflation goes up today, the president's statement blames the Putin price hike. Are you guys just going to start blaming Putin for everything? And tell the midterms? Well, we've seen the price of gas go up at least 75 cents since president Putin lines up troops on the border of Ukraine. And last month, the statement didn't mention the Putin price hike. It mentioned inflation because of the pandemic. Why is that? Well, Peter, last year, last two years, there was a global pandemic. Everyone who's a global economy. Well, Peter, the last two years that was a global pandemic, maybe you've read about it. Have all agreed that that has been the biggest contributor to date of inflation because of the impact on the supply chain. Obviously global events. Did she say all economists agree that that's the biggest contributor that was she said? Global pandemic, everyone who's a global economist. Everyone who's global economists. Okay, we're going to talk to a global economist in a few minutes. We'll find out. All agreed that that has the all agrees. It's been the biggest contributor to date of inflation because of the impact on the supply chain. Obviously, global events impact the economy, the global economy, as well as global inflation. And the price hikes as a result that have escalated over the course of time of president Putin's further invasion of the impact on the global oil markets are of course having an impact. In other words and now, second big reason for inflation is Vladimir Putin. And gas prices, not a joke. Not a joke, not a joke. We've seen the price of gas go up over a dollar just since he put his troops on. Not a joke. On the border. Come on, man. On the border of Ukraine. They went up a dollar and 5 cents. Big part of that reason is Putin began amassing troops along the border and then crossed. And guess what? The world took notice. Not a joke. The market anticipated prices went up. And then Putin invaded. Make no mistake. The current spiking gas prices largely default of Vladimir Putin has nothing to do with the American rescue plan. Current president former president or millions of illegal aliens are rushing across our borders from all over the world. Criminals, gang members, drug traffickers, human smugglers and people on terrorist watch lists are stampeding right into our country, the Biden administration has spent months and months obsessing over how to stop and invasion of a foreign country. I believe Americans deserve a president who will stop the invasion into our country. The former member of the Dallas Federal Reserve says maybe just maybe we ought to be producing more oil. Look, I'm a Texan. I don't understand why we wouldn't incentivize our own output sector here. Rather than just go and beg others to produce more. We do need to bring the prices down to best way to do it is to produce more. There's plenty of price incentive right now for the oil and gas operators here in the United States. And we are the large producer in the world when we are full four. So we're not dependent on anybody else. That's very important for our national security, especially at this moment with what's going on in Europe and the land war in Ukraine. Former Dallas Federal Reserve president Richard Fisher. Here is Jen Psaki being asked, well, how much are they going to go? When is it going to end? So it's a good question. We don't have. I don't have a prediction from here in terms of what it could look like. There are outside predictors, of course. And obviously what we're trying to do is mitigate the impact. And you've seen, of course, the price of oil goes down a little bit. This she's being honest, she has no prediction on when the gas prices are going to go down. And the president will continue to. Maybe when you change your policies and produce more oil and gas it just. Look at a range of steps that he can take, whether it is engaging through his team or through even himself personally with a big global producers, or it is looking at a range of domestic options. But we've seen it go up. I mean, we look at a lot of the same data you look at, triple-A and other data that it shows us how much it has gone up since the period of time when Russian troops lined up on the border. But in terms of how far all.

Putin Vladimir Putin Jen Psaki Peter doocy Ukraine Dallas Federal Reserve Peter Biden administration Richard Fisher United States Europe
"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money

07:16 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

"What the hell is my life? I had a second chance. There's no going back. Kelly, streaming now. Only on peacock. Richard, thanks so much for joining us. We've been all wondering whether or not geopolitics, whether or not the situation, the impact on oil and gas and inflation, will that all factor in to the fed's thinking? What do you think? Probably very little. Obviously what's happening in Ukraine is going to add to some supply and inflationary forces. I mean, they produce 2.3 billion tons of manganese or the third largest oil reserves in Europe with 30 billion tons, mercury ore, shale gas reserves, 22 trillion m³. It's got the third largest arable land black soil land in the world. Lots of wheat, lots of commodities, et cetera, et cetera. So short term, I would assume, by the way, that Putin wants to exploit all that, but short term, we're going to get price pops. We're seeing it in terms of markets for commodities. And but the fed can't donate take about what the fed can do is begin to reverse course. They made it clear they're going to do it. I think what a task on the list of though is they'll be gentle. And we're going to have probably most likely the odds are 85 to 90%, the 25 basis point move in March. I don't think that'll be deterred. And whatever as a Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis is talking about, I don't think will occur. But it's the beginning of a process. They need to go in this direction. They've been hyper accommodative. I don't think this changes. Mister Fisher it's Karen, thanks for being on. So we have inflation number 7 handle 8, maybe. I know the fed has talked about having some room over 2%. Where do you realistically think they could get tried to get down to in, let's say, a year and a half? I don't know. Look, you guys were better than I am looking at earnest course, but over 70% of the ones I've seen, almost 80%. Our CEOs and CFOs talking about the fact they're going to phase in their pricing to protect their margins. Almost across the board, whether it's services are particularly goods. You don't just move overnight as you know. You guys are great security Alice. You don't just change the ecosystem of the company in one fell swoop. You have to worry about how you protect your margins. Everything from how you pace your payables, you lag them, accelerate your all the way up through CAPEX inventory management, everything that goes in between. So everyone I'm listening to and I'm sure that you are listening to are saying pretty much the same thing. They're going to go as far as they can go. They don't want to turn off their customers. They want to protect their margins however. Cost of laborers got very rich all in. So I don't think this phase at the end of the year, I think it continues on for 2023, at least for the first half. And then maybe we can get inflation down to the three and a half percent range, still pretty rich. At what point, Richard, do you think or at any point does the fed actually factor this in? If we see sustained inflation, you know, they go ahead with the rate hike. Let's say 25 basis points for argument's sake slow and steady. But inflation remains stubbornly high and is given that extra boost because of what is going on in Ukraine. At what point does the fed say, you know, maybe we need to reexamine things. Well, I think they're just beginning this process. I don't think they know, to be honest with you. What they do know is they need to shift gears. That's the signal the question is the speed with which they do it. They are going to stop expanding the balance sheet. They're going to try to figure out whether or not they should be reducing the balance sheet. You only have over almost a trillion and a half of short term treasuries that is one year or less maturing as of last Thursday. Within one year, you'd have to go out longer. The fed doesn't sell anything. You've got almost all your mortgage backed security is ten years or longer. They're going to have to discuss that. And all these things have to be done at once, that is, it has to project the market, what they've talked about, reflected in the minutes, the signals will come out, but I don't think they're quite ready to come out yet. And we'll get more during the march meeting. But it's not just spent months. It's also the balance sheet. And what are they going to do with it? How can they do it at what speed? There's a lot of uncertainty here. And I think that uncertainty is roiling the markets just as Ukraine is really the markets. High volatility. Look at what we saw with a absolutely astonishing. I think that will continue for a while. Last quick question, Richard, and my producer is going to be screaming in my ear for this, but do you think do you think is a fed put dead? Did you ever think it really existed? Has it been dead for a while? I got in trouble and the committee when I told Bernanke, we were just adding a foot. With QE and making it clear we'd stay there forever, which we pretty much did until we tried 2013. We had the taper tantrum. So that was pretty clear it was on. I think there is one at begins to royal the economy. But I would put it this way. This is probably my cheap way out. The strike price is different now. And it's not quite where it was before. Yeah. I think that's what most people think. Richard, great to get your thoughts. As always, Richard Fisher, former Dallas fed president. Guy, what do you think? I love Richard Fisher and, you know, that's the thing about him. That's him being parsing his words. So if you then read between the lines, what will tell you is we've made ourselves a slave to the market. We should never have been, and that fed put did you think is there it's not. And he's right. And again, I love his candor in this, and I don't think the fed put exist. You know, I've said it a hundred times. David tepper correctly has said for years, don't fight the fed, and he said that when they were adding liquidity and being accommodative to the system. And if you were bearish, you were fighting the fed, well now effectively when they've changed course if you're long-term bullish or at least short term, you are effectively fighting that same Federal Reserve. Agree. And Richard Fisher calls it as he sees it. And I believe he did. And I think one of the great things about this country is we truly do have a Central Bank that's independent. And this is not the case for other countries in the world. So I applaud the fed for hanging in there. I do think there was a long line of central banks around the world that have been much more aggressive against inflation than we have. And it's amazing to me how quickly we flipped on a dime. And it almost seems like it did coincide with Powell's reappointment. I mean, this is a fed that said transitory transitory transitory, then one day you had everybody in the fed lining up telling you not only do we have inflation, but we're concerned and here we are. Yeah. Pete. I would agree with what Tim just said as a matter of fact, because that's exactly right. And the one thing I would say is that Powell has been very clear. He's been very transparent. He's been right up in front and he really hasn't stepped down from that. So if you're willing to listen to the fed and don't want to fight the fed, you have a pretty good idea of exactly what their plans are for the future. But, you know, I still think everybody wants to just try to figure things out and try to get in between everything. That's really not the right way to do it. I think Paul has been very, very clear. All right, let's take a look at this live look at Washington, The.

fed Mister Fisher Ukraine Richard Richard Fisher Federal Reserve bank Putin Kelly St. Louis Karen Dallas fed Alice
"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money

01:54 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

"Coordinated Central Bank hikes and our view had been that the U.S. was an island of growth because the U.S. is only one of the one of the only major economies in the world that has this cushion of $6 trillion in stimulus that it effectively been created more or less out of thin air over the course of the last 22 months or so and that sits on household and corporate balance sheets and it means that the U.S. has this tremendous cushion for growth as the rest of the world faces these headwinds. So I think there are risks that we'll see higher inflationary numbers not only from higher oil prices, but also commodities. And I think that presents a greater headwind to the rest of the world. We don't expect the rest of the world or G 7 countries or Europe to enter a recession as a result of the higher oil prices, but we think it will be a headwind to growth. And I think the U.S. is one of the most insulated from those headwinds. Jay-Z, it's Tim, thanks for joining us. And I don't want to ask you about the fed because we're going to have a great conversation with Richard Fisher in a second, but I do want to ask you about the fed in the context of a housing market you're very bullish on. And if I'm going to listen to anyone, I'm going to listen to Blackstone on housing. What part of this market are do you get so build up on? We had toll earnings a couple of nights ago. We've had a lot of the home builders that are essentially trading at multiyear lows at this point, or at least through the lows of the crisis. And you have a case where housing conditions still on the demand side for them looks very good. Input prices are a problem. What part do you want to invest in? Sure, it's a great question. And when most people think about housing, you know, they're thinking about it two dimensionally, which is the price of a house, the meeting home price, and rising mortgage rates. And you see median home prices thing in all time high. You saw mortgage rates backing up the 30 year mortgage recently and hit as high as about 3.93 .95%. And so for most people, they look at the median home price and they look at rising mortgage rates and they think about affordability. Well, I think it's a little bit more than just that two dimensional calculation because you also have to factor in rising wages..

Coordinated Central Bank U.S. Richard Fisher Blackstone Jay Tim fed Europe
"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money

06:27 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on CNBC's Fast Money

"We are following all the late breaking developments out of Ukraine, investors on edge is Russian troops move in, but the market holding strong. Stocks staging a massive comeback today. We're breaking down this turnaround. Plus, the Russian invasion putting the fed front and center were policymakers rethink plans for aggressive rate hikes this year. Former Dallas fed president Richard Fisher is standing by. And we're all over the action of the energy market crude oil skyrocketing but oil stocks were falling. We're breaking down that action as well straight ahead. But first we start off with a stunning market reversal on the street stock starting the day deep in the red as investors digested Russia's full blown invasion of Ukraine. The S&P 500 down more than a 110 points at its low, and then things started to turn stocks rallying into the close with the S&P finishing up. One and a half percent, but the real standout story was in tech, the NASDAQ erasing a three and a half percent drop to close out the day with a massive 3.3% gain and the moves within tech were staggering. Kathy Woods ark innovation ETF soaring as names like Roku, Teladoc, DraftKings, Roblox flipped into rally mode, the IGB software ETF surging 6% to finish at the highs of the day, so as Russia declares war in Ukraine, Wall Street rallies. What do you make of this action? Guy? Yeah, I don't think it's over. I'm going to be clear with that, but you mentioned it today is really interesting. And the three things that I took away amongst the many obvious things, and I'm glad you mentioned the IGV, we don't talk about it the software ETF, heavy Microsoft, probably 9 and a half percent Microsoft Adobe Salesforce, but that stock or that ETF round trip. Three O 5 or so in November, up to four 48 back down to three O 5 today and bounce. That's a really good sign number one. Second sign and I'm sure everybody on the show tonight would agree. Apple literally traded down to the 200 day moving average. Close enough for government work. One 51 60 to 200 day traded down to one 52 in reversed on decent volume. Great sign and I mentioned the HYG last night Karen mentioned it the night before, not a big deal today. I get it, but the fact that obviously that reversed as well in the short term all three really good things. Extraordinary. I hear you guys. And if you think about the moving Apple, this was the day where we started out where it actually looked like we talked about the market that's been held up by 5 stocks. This was the day we were actually going to see the market follow through and in fact, really, from 9 30, 9 45, you actually hit a bottom. If you talk about that triple Q, which got all the way back to April 2021 levels and you could actually draw a line back to even January 2021 at that level. We were almost 7% off the intraday low, but to that intraday low, it was down 22 and a half percent from the high. So absolutely bear market territory. I thought the turnaround was as much in high multiple tech. So it was fascinating is that first of all, look, in a world where suddenly everyone today is questioning global growth differently than they did a couple of days ago, whether that's appropriate or not, that's one of the ramifications of this invasion, how we're assessing that in the context of the fed and we'll talk about that later on the show. But I do think big cap mega cap tech always outperforms in that environment when we actually see some question about growth. And look, we found a way to call Microsoft and certainly Google absolutely Facebook. Valuations that people can get excited about. So very interesting day. But it was high multiple tech that actually also look at that arc ARK. Got down to April 2020 lows. That's right. So basically, almost the lows of not the lows, but the April move of COVID. And it was extraordinary move. Karen, you always talk about the pendulum swinging too far. And so where are we in that pendulum swing you think when it comes to these higher valuation names? I guess some of them I was looking like at a Salesforce, which is coming a lot. It's not absolutely cheap. It's certainly relatively cheap to where it had been and relatively cheap compared to others. But I think, I mean, maybe guys right, maybe that three O 5, I'm sure the IGV, I didn't cover any today. Against that, I'm long a number of FANG Stocks, which did pretty well today, not as well as the high flyers that have been decimated. The fangs haven't been hit nearly as hard. It was you called it a stunning reversal today. It was stunning. I mean, the 6.8% move is enormous. And so I really didn't do a lot. I felt like, you know, I watched the vix closely. It did hit up to, I don't know, 38, maybe Pete, you probably know exactly where it was. I thought actually maybe it could go a little bit higher, but that wasn't the case. And then I'm not even sure, was it just this down 20 plus, and that's it. It buyers came in, and then I don't know if there was something Biden said that people were really excited about that accelerated or if it was just the rally I was sort of off to the races and didn't really matter what Biden said. I don't know. I've actually kind of perplexed and I didn't do anything today. Yeah, I mean, that's a smart thing to do if you don't know what is driving the market action. Pete, you know, we spoke on a halftime report earlier today and the F swing was sort of in play, but not to the extent to which the markets actually rally through the close. And so I'm wondering what your take, what happened in your view in the second part of the training session. Well, I think it directly was what President Biden had to say and his delivery on how he said it. And I think all you've got to do now is look at the final two hours of the day and you look at the Dow that actually went up 700 points in that final two hours. As a matter of fact, almost all the gains that we've gotten in the NASDAQ happened in those final two hours and that coincided with about the time that the president was up there giving us, you know, exactly what the United States was going to do and the stance that we were going to take. And it certainly did flip very fast. I'll tell you what, guy had his three. I got three stocks that I'll throw out at you that I thought were unbelievable turns today. One of them was navy. The other one was AMD and the third one would be Tesla. And Tesla has been my barometer Mel for a while now in terms of the NASDAQ itself. And certainly all you've got to do is watch Tesla and how it's moving, oftentimes it's moving in front of the NASDAQ and the rest of the NASDAQ seems to follow along. But that was an incredible reversal today there in that individual name, along with so many other names where we saw a lot of different reversals going on. But you're exactly right, Karen, that volatility was extraordinary. It was almost up to 38, and then here we actually closed below 30..

Ukraine Dallas fed Kathy Woods Richard Fisher Microsoft Salesforce Russia fed Roku Karen Apple Biden S Pete
"richard fisher" Discussed on Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

03:20 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

"Amazing exchange before they were about to pass quantitative easing three. When Richard Fisher said, during the meeting, he said, look, all we're going to be doing by printing this money is enriching the Carlyle groups of the world, the private equity firms. He said people like me, okay, who have all this money who are going to be investing in it. We're not going to be helping employees. And Richard Fisher said, I just got off the phone with the chief financial officer of Texas Instruments, who told me that the super low interest rates are not encouraging that company to build factories, but only encouraging it to borrow money to do stock buybacks. And that if we keep interest rates lower or do another round of QE, it is not going to incentivize this company to hire a single another person. It's going to incentivize them to do more stock buybacks. And Ben Bernanke's response to that was please stop quoting people at this table if those people don't have a PhD in economics. That's true. It's in black and white. It's in the book. It's from the transcript. And what Bernanke's point seemed to be was that this chief financial officer isn't smart enough to understand what we're doing through quantitative easing. So please don't listen to that individual. And to me, it highlighted something I've kind of noticed in this space, which is that you've got these two spheres of people who care about fed policy. One would be the PhD economists and theorists who staff up the fed and who promote these theories and talk about it. And the other sphere is the actual people in the financial markets. The hedge fund traders, the speculators, the credit people at Credit Suisse bank who are packaging and selling collateralized loan obligations. And as a report, you kind of have the luxury of going back and forth between these worlds. And I think it's when you talk to people in both worlds that you can really get a much more clear understanding of the effects of what the fed is doing. I mean, yeah, the Wall Street folks are not sentimental about this stuff at all. They just understand what 0% interest and quantitative easing cash does in the investments. The landscape, which is, you know, massive search for yield. Yeah. One of my abiding complaints about the fed and its attitudes towards the world outside its windows is that the fed is preoccupied with a quantitative present. It has no taste for or knowledge of the financial pass. So this line that if you don't know the past, you're committed to blah blah. And now, that is not helpful. But what is helpful is the knowledge that financials ever cyclical that it has ever conducted by mortal human beings, who, in the presence of large sums of money, lose their wits much as a teenager does in the person in the presence of the person of romantic interest. The idea that there is an efficient market that is perfectly calibrated that can be calibrated from the vantage point of a Central Bank. This is all inherently implausible, but it is disproven passively by the record of financial history. And 200 years ago, the then prime minister of Britain was responding, I guess, in question time at the House of Commons to some latest eruption in the City of London..

Richard Fisher fed Carlyle Credit Suisse bank Texas Instruments Ben Bernanke Bernanke Central Bank Britain House of Commons London
"richard fisher" Discussed on Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

02:40 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Grant’s Current Yield Podcast

"I said, doesn't know what it doesn't know. It has the imperiousness of a technocrat without the technology. And there was a wonderful book that I have tested to our leadership years of grants and to call them. Washington mass and she is a physicist is the author. And she was her book was a lamentation on how a physics has meandered from rigor into the beauties of physics for the sake of the beauty of the physics. That is to say art for the sake of art and more specifically mathematical physics for the sake of the quite fetching mathematics. And that in a way could sum up the conceit of the physicist monkey who analytical positions at the fed or 800 or so PhDs in economics and all of them have come through the highly quantitative programs of today's modern neo keynesian programs is called and they're all I think would be happier at NASA, but they haven't quite got that horsepower. So there you are in the fed, but they still believe that their mathematics can help them see into the future and improve that future before it can come to pass. And then getting back to the book, the author of lost in math says that once she was despairing of making a good living in a physics and she said, oh, maybe economics. I can certainly handle the quantitative part. And she investigated, she said that the math was none too appealing or rigorous and altogether. Unimpressive. So there's a physicist look inside the footnotes and the mathematical appendices of the kind of stuff that we're not turns out. And Ben Bernanke was want to tell us, I daresay he told Tom Holland at one point or another, perhaps over and over, quote, it takes a model to beat a model. That was one of the favorite things. So he would answer every mere mortal, not member of the clarity of PhD harvests that they didn't have what it takes. Anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt. Sorry. No, please carry on. No, no, you're making me think of one of the most striking debates. I read inside the FOMC. Which was fascinating. I'm sure you're very familiar with Richard Fisher, the former president of the Dallas fed. And internal fed critic, a former investment industry kind of guy, a real thorn in Bernanke's side in a lot of ways..

fed Washington NASA Tom Holland Ben Bernanke FOMC Dallas fed Richard Fisher Bernanke
"richard fisher" Discussed on FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

07:41 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

"Do to drive one hundred miles an hour. Okay your judgment call a year later. They're still driving hundred miles an hour and you ask them. Why exactly you driving hundred miles an hour now idea last march and we don't want to change things too quickly and so yeah. We're just think it's a really good idea. Peter fisher spent years at the new york federal reserve and at blackrock the largest asset management firm in the world. It's pretty basic in in medicine. That are doctor may give us a drug which in a small punt punchy dose for brief period of time might help us recover from whatever ails us but at the same medicine the same drug taken a massive doses over long periods of time might kill us or make us ill or have perverse side effects. Corporate america has taken on even more debt. Investors are gobbling it up the housing market and the millions of people who own some stocks and bonds are seen a boom moscow's added over ten billion to as well just this week sickened for the richest americans. It's been a bonanza debone. Just the billionaires in the united states from march twenty twenty two february twenty twenty one have grown their wealth by one point three trillion dollars one point three trillion dollars billionaires now whole two-thirds more in wealth than the bottom half of the us population thing about wealth is what creates wealth is wealth when you have one hundred million dollars to invest. It's much more easy to become a billionaire. Then when you have one hundred dollars to invest your trading stocks but that hasn't stopped many hundred dollar investors from trying to get a piece of the action people like us can trade just like the biggest with robin all. These brokerage platforms saw the largest growth of new users. They'd ever seen because people said now's opportunity. I'm gonna invest my money in the stock. I made an understand what the feds doing or how it works. Or what exactly is going on. Dow rising nearly eighteen percent best performance. Nine hundred eighty seven understand. The fed takes action stock prices. Go up this people get rich and it became a very clear mandate for people. If i wanna get in on this economic recovery were having. I've got buy stocks. I'm going to take stimulus check on the stock market. So they're online. Trading stocks are buying and selling and putting money into the stock accounts. They started creating their community. Welcome declan michael lee People jerome powell has become a kind of cult figure master of the money printer. Money printer go four. Tickers put putting right above. Billions have been piling into so-called memes stocks. This game stop situation. We will never encounter setup like this new financial assets like nf. T's non fungible tokens from music to sports. It's a new phenomenon that is moving quickly and with big numbers and crypto-currencies. Bitcoin has been on a wild ride during the past. Few months doesn't really matter if something is a good buyer. It's fundamentally sound money is crazy and awesome and there's been so much money injected into the economy that people just need things to buy what you're describing is mania. Yeah yeah you could call it mania. Certainly we are in a mainly because again. The fed has put a floor underneath asset prices. There's only one direction that things can go and that's up otherwise the fed will step in and act so things can only go up. Why wouldn't you just buy when i look at what's been going on the last six months. I see financial. Mania heater fisher. I don't know what the right value of some companies when they changed by fifty percent. Six months i think we should all recognize is boy. That's hard to estimate the value of that if it's fifty percent higher now than it was six months ago i guess we were pretty bad on estimating its value six months ago. I assume you're somebody who has assets who's invested and that this has been a good period for someone like you in part because you own assets the fad having pumped asset prices to starkly high levels. Doesn't make me feel comfortable. I feel as anxious today as i've ever felt about the financial world because of my belief that the fed has been pumping up asset prices in a way that is creating a bit of illusion. I think the odds are now sort of one in three very high. We will look at this as an epic mistake and one of the great financial calamity. Of all time. Jeremy grantham they have the housing market the stock market and the bond market all over priced at the same time and they will not be able to prevent sooner or later the asset prices. Coming back out so we are playing with fire because we have the three great asset classes moving into bubble territory. Simaltaneously there is a growing conversation right now about the fed's role about whether it's driving wealth inequality whether it's driving asset prices into dangerous territory. That could pop right in our faces and whether the whether the financial system can withstand that. I mean there are these seemingly legitimate questions about being in. What seems to be uncharted territory. Neel kashkari these questions come from people who are keen wall street observers or wall street i never have once heard this line of questioning for a member of congress that represents a low income minority district never once they come to us and they say. Why can't you do more. They never say. Oh my gosh you're just benefiting wall street you raise interest rates because i want to keep wall street in check. They say helped my constituents find work so that's why i mean. I find these questions amusing. Because i hear all the time from wall street and these are folks who don't care about what's actually happening on main street. I don't hear from main street. i certainly don't hear from low income communities. And i've heard all of these questions before. The price of everything seems to be going on from these cars. Two plane tickets to furniture. If you're gonna get in your car and drive to work. Your gas costs more. There are now signs of inflation percolating through the economy. Annual inflation is expected to top three and a half percent in the fourth quarter. So now there's speculation. The fed may speed up. Its interest rate plans. The fed insists temporary but as signaled it may taper quantitative easing and raise interest rates as early as two thousand twenty three. That chair jerome. Powell said while the economy has rebounded the job market is still hurting federal. Reserve chair jerome. Powell announced that tweaks to monetary policy may still be needed. Richard fisher at is awfully.

Peter fisher new york federal reserve fed declan michael lee People jero us blackrock moscow Bitcoin robin Jeremy grantham Neel kashkari fisher congress jerome
"richard fisher" Discussed on FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

07:54 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on FRONTLINE: Audiocast | PBS

"We were building the plane while we were flying it. Everything in markets is a confidence games so the fed exists to restore confidence when all confidence is lost. William cohen is a writer and former banker. Who worked with us. During our months reporting the story. The idea of lowering interest rates in the idea of quantitative easing was basically pulling out all the stops cheaper to borrow basically by making money so inexpensive by suddenly being abundant and cheap and easy to get the just flooded the zone with capital easy money easy money trillions of dollars of easy money like the greatest experiment in easy money in history. All that easy money sparked a rally in the stock market. We saw it take. Its effect almost immediately. Richard fisher. The market reacted. I was a little bit surprised at took off that fast. How is that. Viewed inside of the boardroom. Was that cena's success. Yes validated what we thought would have. That's what we thought would happen when you drive. Stretch down all the way out. It forces investors into taking bigger steps on the risk spectrum. Cheap money is the fuel for financial speculator in for financial investor. What fisher and other former fed insiders told me is that the stock market rally was no accident by design the feds. Qe program effectively lower long-term interest rates making safer investments like bonds less attractive and riskier assets like stocks more attractive. It was hard to argue with the results. Stock prices kept going up old saying is. Don't fight the fat. don't fight. The fed don't fight the fed taunus. Don't fight the fed. I don't know what the hangovers go. Look like down the road and all this extrordinary stimulus but for now the market love. It don't fight the fence role one. You look at me so approximating an in person interview. It'll work at work. Muhammed laurean remembers it. Well he was running the largest bond fund in the world at the time and made a fortune for his firm following the feds lead. Don't fight the fed. The fed is the one institution that has a printing press in the basement. And there's no limits to how much can use that is. What makes the fed such an influential player in the marketplace. Keep an eye on the treasury. Market hilarious firm helped advise the fed on its qe experiment. He told me the expectation was that the low interest rates and qe would have a strong knock on effect on the wider economy. That was the theory in practice. The fed was very successful in terms of moving asset prices less successful in moving the economy and the result of that is we got dude largest disconnect ever between main street and wall street between the economy and finance banks are sitting on their butts. And they're still not lending money and until one of the problems was that the banks were holding onto a lot of the money instead of making it available to borrowers the banking sector is broken at the fed andrew. Who sar was disappointed by what he was seeing. I have great respect for the fed. I never questioned to stale whenever question. The intention what. I question rather is whether their tools are able to help the american people in the way that they believe. I came out of two one hundred percent believing that it was necessary because we actually helped to stabilize the economy but wondering if there wasn't a fundamental problem with the approach in that the tools the fed worked through the wall street banks and in so doing were disproportionately benefiting the wrong people. The people who didn't really need the help so basically what you're saying is that you are seeing in practice. Something very different than what was supposed to happen. Theoretically yeah i saw. I saw that wall street is the private sector actor and wall street has its own interests and wall street can do what wall street wants. And the fed was on some level at the mercy of wall street. Who saw another is inside. The fed had been counting on congress to step in and help correct the imbalance target more money to main street and the wider economy but then politics took a sharp turn tea party. Supporters put republicans in charge of the house need to restore fiscal sanity to this nation. Dimming prospects for congress in the white house to work together to stimulate the economy. The fed was on. Its own correspondent. James jacoby again. With richard fisher. Was it palpable. That the fed was sort of the only game in town here. Yes the fact was we. Were carrying the load all by ourselves forty the day. After the midterm elections the fed announced it would do another round of quantitative easing. Not just to stabilize the economy but boosted fed chair banenky promoted the plan writing that it would create a virtuous circle with lower mortgage rates making housing more affordable and higher stock prices. Boosting consumer wealth. He went on television to counter critics. Who are warning. The decision risked causing inflation the risks and uncertainties associated with doing this policy action. What i think they're not doing is looking at the risk of not acting. I wanted to talk to banenky but he would not agree to an interview. But i did speak to. Sarah bloom raskin. Who is on the board of governors at the time so many of these tools had not been tried before they were definitely like break. The glass kind of tools. Like what are we going to do in order to restart the economy here. You voted for quantitative easing to. What was your thinking there right. So my thinking was that we still had an economy that was far from its potential as qe began. It showed great promise We started to see that people's sense of Economic well-being was ticking up somewhat People were finding jobs. People were finding homes The foreclosure rate had slowed So there was a sense that something was working and for that reason. It was in my mind worth supporting but outside the fed. Some are saying that the cost of quantitative easing might already outweigh the benefits. Talk about quantitative easing. Qe to the likelihood that will have a significant effect is close to zero juicy stieglitz one of the most well known economists in america and a winner of the nobel prize. So you're doing a a documentary on the fed and monetary policy. We are trying to okay. Are we insane no no. I think it's a great idea. Okay stieglitz told me that. While the fed was doing some good he had greater.

fed Muhammed laurean William cohen Richard fisher cena fisher James jacoby treasury congress richard fisher Sarah bloom raskin white house stieglitz america
"richard fisher" Discussed on Talk Radio 1190 KFXR

Talk Radio 1190 KFXR

09:26 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Talk Radio 1190 KFXR

"We're back on money sense at the opening bell on this August 31st the last day of August Tuesday. Morning, And here you go North Texas that Dow's down about 50 points, but that's no big deal. That's not volatility there. Let's just the market opening with sleepy eyes, nothing more. The NASDAQ and the S and P About the same looks like the NASDAQ's trying to get off with a little bit of green on the screen, but again, a very quiet Morning as we move forward here, we've been kind of slicing and dicing and digesting the interview we had with Mr Robert Kaplan, Our Dallas Fed president, who came on the presentation this morning and And stayed with us for full 30 minutes. We were able to do that. Jim, with no commercials. That's my favorite, snuck an extra three or four minutes out of him, Uh, to try to get as much info for the benefit of our listeners as we As we possibly could. You know, I hit him with a question that I want to chat with you about, uh, I I asked him about the makeup of the Federal Reserve. I'm really kind of interested in that because I think many of us right or wrong. You are all entitled to, you know, have an opine on these matters, but I tend to think the Fed needs more people with real. Business on the ground experience. Don't know if they need somebody. That's you know, Run a small business with 30 people. Maybe that's taking it a little bit too far. In terms of thinking how to care for 300 million But all right. I kind of took his answer. He seemed to agree that we don't have that much on the ground experience there. That's all academics are largely Maybe he thought there was more than I do. But what's your take on that? Do we need more of that? That makes up the fed more folks that have made a payroll as they say down there on the street. More people that have dealt with people problems down there on the street. More folks have had to hire and fire and deal with all it goes on with that. Do we need more people like that or some representation? Of that group on the Fed. I I think, um, we probably do. Uh, you know, I would stop short of saying this is how much it needs to be, uh, on Either. You know, on either side of that equation. But I do think that It wouldn't hurt if you talked to Danielle DiMartino Booth, which we need to catch up with her again. Who worked for Fisher, who worked for Robert Fisher. She would Richard Richard Fisher, I'm sorry. Um, she would argue that there is a a great need for more real world experience that a lot of the academics will take the work. Of the market, the those that have had some experience and the business world but not necessarily the PhD. And just kind of fully dismiss it without even evaluating it because it didn't come from a PhD and that their PhD models have failed us miserably. That's what she would argue, and we'll get her back on the show. She's she's got some Definite real world experience, and she has whether you agree whether or not She was part of the Fed and she was one of the people at the Fed that was pointing out that there was a real issue in the housing market and with the shadow banking system and I didn't listen to her. And that was before the financial crisis. So, um We'll get her back on. But yes, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is I don't know what that makes should be. What are your thoughts? My thoughts are. I think there's too much group think Mhm and many of the quote financial circles as it relates to New York and Washington and all the Centers of influence. It just appears to me when you read This is all easily to verify on the net if you just jump on there, But it seems to me that Harvard and Goldman Sachs kind of control the academic, intellectual financial world. You look around the room at a G seven meeting or a G 20 meeting and all the advisers You know, sitting around the leaders of countries that have been sent to the scene, they're all Goldman Sachs alumni. I I don't know some huge percentage all came out of the same the same tank. And that's often the case in the academic world of Harvard or Yale or the East Coast. The Ivy League schools. No offense to those Ladies and guys. They're all smart folks. I'm not arguing that. But most people aren't from there, and most people's real world experience isn't from there, and most people's very good. Street level credentials aren't from there. So why do we have to have so much representation from the same general school of thought? I think we need to spread it out. And I think that's what Richard Fisher who I admired so much represented. He wasn't an economist, he you know, And that doesn't diminish his content or his capabilities to me. So, yeah, I do Think We need more. If the question is specifically should it be? You know, as you keep in mind of what are their 17 fed members, not oil there, 12 the vote, But whatever the number of 17 80, should it be 14 3 or 16 1 or 10? 7? I don't know. I don't really care about that. But it needs to be more and enough. Representation. So that we can see it and we can feel it and we can understand it as the Fed explains what they're doing, and why that we get Well, you know, a a fed governor out on the speaking trail, which they all are. They all talk all the time these days, but so that when they're out on the speaking trail, we got a heavy dose of, um Bob and I ran a company that had four or 500 employees, and here's how I see it. We can. We can actually get our arms around it. So what's the actual number? I don't have a good answer for that. I don't know that there is one. But I can say more generally. Yeah. Give us more of that. You know what's the risk? We're going to have one less Harvard guy on there, right. That to me is zero risk. I don't see any risk in having one last Harvard person at the table or one less Goldman Sachs person. At the table out here at street level in the real world. Goldman Sachs does not control the game when you're managing money when you're talking to people about their you know their life savings and our retirement pretty sure about that. Am sure about that. Because I sit in those meetings. And so I've said in hundreds upon hundreds by Goldman Sachs controls every game. Well, yeah. What some would think but not? You know, not the game. I play. By the way. I have no problem with Goldman Guy. I don't need the table. Bring it. I'm just saying we don't need them to be at every meeting. What was it? Somebody told the story. One time of I've forgotten if it was G seven G eight g 21 of the G meetings. That they looked around the room and there were apparently 30 or so representatives of various countries there and and I forget the specific so please pardon me for that. But that 28 of the country's were, you know, head sitting at their elbow. Somebody that had a history through Goldman Sachs. Yeah, it was Goldman Sachs was all over that. Yeah. What's that about? It was like that. It was like that movie. You remember the movie in the eighties that starred Roddy Piper. It was called They live, and it was about aliens, but they look like us. But if you put a pair of sunglasses on, you could have special sunglasses. You can see which ones were actually the aliens. I think if we went into one of those meetings, and you could put on a special citizen glasses and see which ones came from Goldman Sachs, you would find very few That didn't okay. I don't want 28 months out from compliance, so I'm not going to stop sure to call them aliens. But I do. Goldman Sachs, Boys and girls. Come on. I enjoy competing with you. Very Very much, But I don't view you to be aliens. So you don't have to wear sunglasses to the meeting when we come back. Um well, we're gonna do a little commentary on what Ringo Starr had to say about Charlie Watch, and then we'll get back into the market. You're listening to money since at the opening bell. The website is money there since dot com. Dow Down 55 fact up Doing much better than its, uh, counterparts. NASDAQ Up almost 2%, the S and P 500 up 5000.43%. But the Dow down 0.16% of money since at the opening Bell Soil around Let him go finishes You better watch yourself. You will You'll say her symbols won't tell you. Life is from the talk radio 11 90 Traffic center.

Roddy Piper Richard Fisher Goldman Sachs 300 million Harvard 30 four 0.16% 30 people Ringo Starr Bob 12 5000.43% 55 28 months 500 employees Richard Richard Fisher Jim Robert Fisher Federal Reserve
"richard fisher" Discussed on The Peter Schiff Show Podcast

The Peter Schiff Show Podcast

05:21 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on The Peter Schiff Show Podcast

"That's why i mentioned the in this podcast. They didn't have anybody like me at this documentary. Who was blaming the fed for two thousand eight financial crisis because they wanted to place all the blame for the financial crisis on wall street and on the rich because that is part of their agenda so they pretend that the fed didn't really get involved in manipulating the economy or artificially lowering interest rates or creating moral hazard rate stuff. It all started brand new in two thousand and eight but it really started of course. In the greenspan era it really started after the stock market crash of one thousand nine hundred eighty seven. Alan greenspan had just become fed chair. It was his first year as fed chairman and he began the policy that ultimately is the same policy that was later adopted by tacky and then by yellen and now by powell it was all started by alan greenspan yet. He wasn't even mentioned once in this entire documentary. He wrote the playbook that everybody else is using yet somehow. His name didn't even come up in the entire documentary again because they want. Forget about all the mistakes to fed made under greenspan because they want to pretend that didn't start making those mistakes until after two thousand and eight when capitalism and the rich wreck the economy and the fed came in to save it. And then they mealy start interviewing with richard fisher and richard fisher was president of the bank of dallas in two thousand eight so he was right there when financial crisis hit. And here's what he said. What the federal reserve does is provide the blood supply for the body of our capitalist economy. And what happened. In two thousand eight is all of aids in the capillaries and the arteries collapsed so every financial function had failed. It had collapsed and we right meeting the fed had to restore them first of all. There's so much wrong with his statement. By dick fisher. First of all in a true capitalist comic there would be no fed rate so when you talk about the fed and capitalism. They don't go together. It's an oxymoron. The fed is a government creation. It's not a free market creation. Under capitalism interest rates are set by the market. they're not fixed by like a government entity so the federal reserve not part of capitalism. Right it is a parasite on the capitalist body. That's what it is and really what happened in two thousand eight isn't that the body of capitalism failed. It was that the government parasite which had been killing. It was under attack by.

federal reserve Alan greenspan yellen greenspan richard fisher bank of dallas powell dick fisher aids
"richard fisher" Discussed on Sandy and Nora talk politics

Sandy and Nora talk politics

04:09 min | 1 year ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Sandy and Nora talk politics

"And i want to go back to the global mail article because it says a bunch of really interesting things that i'm that helped me kind of see through why this is just like a completely fucking vacant exercise in boosting our security apparatus so they they referenced an article that they wrote in mame on the university of alberta quote extensive scientific collaboration with china that involves sharing and transferring research in strategically important areas areas such as nanotechnology biotechnology and artificial intelligence. Stop right there so. It is impossible to be a researcher in this country and doing anything in those fields and not have collaboration in some way in china. China's like the globally emerging leader of scientific research. They've got some of the best universities in the world and they also have this program that pays for international students to study abroad. Imagine candidate did that. Imagine canada understood the the the the necessity to find graduate level research through the student themselves to go to whatever university around the world that they want to like. It's you can make it sound nefarious or you can make it sound what it is which is a really intelligent way to find your own into boost your own. Countries like research capacity And so they. The article goes on At the bottom and and it says that in any way as a result of this investigation the government of alberta has actually banned all four major universities to suspend quote the pursuit of new partnerships with individuals or organizations linked to the chinese government or the ruling chinese communist party which is also very suspect. What does that actually mean. Like our public universities or universities that are financed by the federal by the by. The chinese government considered then connected to the chinese communist party like in the same way. That western would be a fucking federal government. Funded institution although i mean. That's not exactly how it works. But it's just there's so little information and you're reading this if you've got no idea of how this works you can be like holy faulk like china's like really stealing all of our our information and the last kind of piece which is where they bring in these like intelligence fucking experts explaining why. This is all good normal. Is they say. There are rising concerns about western countries among western countries but china's efforts to scour the world for technology that has both civilian and military value. What richard fisher senior fellow on asian military affairs. Imagine that being your fucking title has called a global quote intelligence vacuum cleaner what that is really. This is such a weird way. What what press conference was directly quoted for that. Just i i. Just i sorry. I think the line in particular about like scouring the globe for technology that will benefit civilians like k. Doesn't everybody do that do they. How do literally do that. She didn't they say like no. You can't have our the way that we are going to. I dunno safe enough water from the sidewalks technology. Why wouldn't with. Wow you can really rhetoric is Really important here in in creating enemies cultural enemies and that this is full of that and so this is one of those things. Where not only do we need good coverage and public debate and so on but we also need journalists that are going to be sharp enough to like not just pair it out with the government is saying to say sorry you said what now like what why why would it be bad for a country to scour the globe for technology that benefits civilians. Please explain. just explain that to me like the military. Sure i get that. I get why. That's a concern but then can you also explain why canada does the same thing you know what i mean. It's like come on come.

chinese government chinese communist party china university of alberta faulk alberta richard fisher canada government
"richard fisher" Discussed on Biz Talk Radio

Biz Talk Radio

03:43 min | 2 years ago

"richard fisher" Discussed on Biz Talk Radio

"Everybody. And welcome to best seller TV. I'm Taryn Winter. Brill, We're here with Danielle DiMartino Booth. She's the author of Fed up an insider's Take on Why The Federal Reserve is bad for America. Great to have you with us. Thank you for having me today. Love the title first off. We were just talking behind the scenes it It's amazing you were able to get that title. It's a study in subtlety, isn't it? It really is. Let's get right into it before we get into why you feel the Federal Reserve is bad for America. Tell us how you're an insider. How is this an insider's Take? Are you the insider? I was the insider I was, and I said for nearly nine years, but more importantly, If you go further back into my background just a little bit. I was also an insider on Wall Street. So I took a much different perspective into the federal Reserve. That of somebody who saw the world through the prism of the financial markets. Okay on then I ended up being there. Prior to the financial crisis kind of as the housing bubble was. Erupting and the great financial crisis was descending upon the economy in the country and the global economy, for that matter, so I was able to really have a bird's eye view. On the carnage of the financial crisis from ground zero. The front lines of the federals are on the frontlines. Absolutely, and tell us in what capacity did you work? The Federal Reserve. I started out as an analyst and I ended up becoming an adviser to Richard Fisher on monetary policy, and before he would go after Washington. I would brief him on Every matter that seemed to be as concerned with the financial markets as opposed to just economic data flow, GDP growth inflation, etcetera. I really briefed him on what was happening in commercial real estate. What was happening in the corporate bond market, which affects a lot of your readers, Obviously sure every aspect of the financial markets that you could possibly name Was my responsibility and Daniel, you know, looking back at the 2008 financial crisis. Bring us back. Did you see it coming? You know I did, And that's I think the reason that I came onto Richard Fisher's radar screen in the first place was that before I joined the Fed, I was predicting that the housing bubble would not just present itself if you will. That it would present systemic risk as well. It would become a threat to the entire global financial system, and there weren't very many people saying that in 2005 in 2006, but I was and that really, you know, I think a lot of people at the Fed, including Richard Fisher himself weren't convinced. That what was happening in the subprime housing market was going to become this mammoth issue. To face down for central bankers all around the world, but they brought me on. They brought me into this said just in case just in case I was right. And they said Thanks, but no, thanks. No, no, no, no. There was definitely a point of validation after I came into the fed, But it wasn't very It wasn't really a cause for celebration because you're not celebrating. Millions of people beginning to lose their homes. The economy descending in the worst recession since the Great Depression, right, But how come no one took the threat more seriously? Well, it had been since the 19 thirties since the Great Depression that we had seen the phenomenon of nationwide price declines. Residential real estate was always kind of the local phenomena. And yet here we were, Despite the fact that Alan Greenspan and subsequently Ben Bernanke assured the American public This could never happen on a nationwide scale. And yet it did. So let's talk a little bit about the book specifically why now, why write this book? Now? Has this been a labor of love is it's been many years in the making. It has. It's certainly been a reason to pull myself away from my my family and my young Children, But by the same token, I felt that I had a responsibility.

Federal Reserve Richard Fisher Fed America Taryn Winter Danielle DiMartino Brill Alan Greenspan analyst Ben Bernanke Washington Daniel
Former Dallas Fed chief calls for people to return to work

Austin's Morning News

00:29 sec | 2 years ago

Former Dallas Fed chief calls for people to return to work

"Federal reserves as people have to get backto work, Richard Fisher says Texas has too much of a stake in the national economy for people to remain at home. We produced more than South Korea more than Australia, more than Spain more than Russia. More than Canada and more than Mexico 30 million people who produce and are the job creators in America, and we have to put them back to work when he says putting people back to work also generate more spending and tax revenue, all of which are important components and reigniting the state economy. The pandemic is not

Richard Fisher South Korea Russia Texas Spain Mexico America Canada Australia
Trump Calls for Fed’s ‘Boneheads’ to Slash Interest Rates Below Zero

KDWN Programming

00:29 sec | 3 years ago

Trump Calls for Fed’s ‘Boneheads’ to Slash Interest Rates Below Zero

"Is it a tribe says the U. S. is missing out economically because quote bone heads at the federal reserve will lower interest rates at his insistence now the fed is meeting next week it's expected trim its benchmark rate by another quarter point after cutting it for the first time in a decade in July president trump's been pressuring fed chair Jerome Powell to drop rates to zero or below former Dallas fed president Richard Fisher told CNBC he doesn't expect the pressure will work.

FED Donald Trump Jerome Powell Dallas Richard Fisher Cnbc President Trump
Fed’s Beige Book finds pockets of weaker growth

Mike Slater

00:25 sec | 4 years ago

Fed’s Beige Book finds pockets of weaker growth

"Drift narrowly all day and then fractionally higher. The Fed's beige book sees economy expanding at a moderate pace. So the feds friend, foreign snares, and recovery and rebuilding. We'll generate even more economic growth is up one and a half percent top seventy ahead of Florence blowing up eight points as China hopes and engine logjam resolution. And apple has its giant new politics. Show

Richard Fisher Mark Larson Heather Myers Bill Holland Daniel Amanda Michelle Medina San Diego County Mike Slater FED SKI Amoroso Assault President Trump Joey Lucchessi China ABC Seattle Oceanside Florence