Balance of PowerBloomberg's Tom Keene, Jonathan Ferro and Lisa Abramowicz break down the Federal Reserve's latest policy decision on a special edition of Bloomberg Surveillance
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
The Federal Reserve decision we're looking for is an interest rate cut on the FMC of about twenty five basis points. With that decision is Mike mckayth you.
Got it, John, A quarter point cut in the Fed spencemark interest rate. A few changes to this statement, and that's about it from the Fed. The target range now four and a half to four and three quarters percent. There is no change to balance sheet policy. The decision this time unanimous, as September dissenter Mickey Bowman voted for this rate cut. Inflation, the statement says, has made progress, dropping the word further toward the two percent target, but remains somewhat elevated. No longer included the assertion that the Committee has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward two percent. The economic assessment suggests a slightly weaker labor market, noting that since earlier this year, labor market conditions have generally eased and the unemployment rate has moved up but remains low still. The statement repeats September's view that risks to achieving its employment and inflation goals are roughly in balance. The rate cut today is in support of its goals instead of September's in light of the progress on inflation and the balance of risks. Policymakers note again they will consider additional adjustments to their benchmark rate, but offer no further guidance beyond that. There is no mention of politics in the statement. That will be up to Chairman Powell in about a half hour.
Am I McKay. It'll be up to you, sir, to ask the questions. How many questions do you expect are going to be leading with the events of this week and not this decision? How much of this is going to be about the politics at two thirty, Mic, I.
Would imagine quite a bit would be, and maybe we want to check the law vegas over underline for that. But he's not going to say anything. He's not going to respond. So the question is how many different ways can we ask and how many different ways will he parry the question?
Sixty minutes of that looking forward to it, Michael McKee, you've got to run. I know that news conference begins in about twenty eight minutes time, So no big changes to the statement. Twenty five basis point Raika as expected, and when you see something like that, you're not looking for a big change in the market either. We stay higher on a SMP five hundred by about six tens of one percent, yields are still a little bit lower. On a ten year, we're still down by eight basis points four thirty five. And in foreign exchange, the euro gives up a little bit of the move, but still positive on the session at least, so one oh seven eighty four on euro dollar.
I think it's interesting that he that the Federal Reserve moved a reference to gaining confidence in inflation and saying that labor market conditions have generally eased. Honestly, to me, you're looking at this and on the margins, just setting the stage to potentially feel a little less dubvish. And that is a tone that I really curious to hear in the press conference.
With a surround the table by Michael of JPMUL and a man who's seen it oh before, the former Fed Vice chair Rich clouder Rich. Want to start with you and not on the twenty five basis point right cut, you lift the tariff, You lift the tariffs of Trump. In Volume one on the Federal Reserve, how did you handle it then? How much scenario analysis do you did you do ahead of time? How do you think this chairman's going to handle it in a months to come.
Well, the staff did good work, and some of that's in the public domain now comes out every five years. The reality is in during my time at the FED, inflation was running a little bit below target. The tariffs that were put in place made the headlines, but they didn't really push up inflation very much. You know, the devil will be in the details, I think, both on trade policy and physical policy, and I don't think they need to make any big decisions at this meeting or the next meeting about how they'll strategize for twenty twenty five.
Vice Chairman, I want to go to the politics of the moment. We're not going to get an answer from Jerome Powell, so we're going to get it from you right now. Harry Truman nineteen fifty before William McChesney Martin saved the day. I quote the President President Truman, I hope the board will not allow the bottom to drop out from under securities. If that happens, that is exactly what mister Stalin wants. We've had this pressure before, and you and your brethren you have the pressure this time from President elect Trump. How does a FED deal with it?
I think they deal with it, Tom, the way that they did the last time is just stick your you know, keep your focus on the goals of policy, price stability, maximum employment, and do what you think can best achieve those goals. You know, as you point out, opinions on the FED from including from presidents or not unheard of and so we could see more of that, but I think the power Fed will just keep doing what they're doing.
How much is the market, though, speaking, louder than any policy that's going to come down the pike. The fact that we've seen this massive rally in stocks and a sell off from bonds that hasn't really hit risk assets, how much does that have to really cause the FED to pause and even reconsider whether it cut rates to get in December?
Good point, you know, I do think financial conditions are obviously an input to policy, but I would hope the FED does not convey the impression that they're too sensitive to financial conditions because they can rise and fall for a number of reasons. My own sense of what we're seeing this week is some of it is not so much more stimulus down the road as more certainty that the existing twenty seventeen tax bill is going to be extended, right, So it's the absence of a tax hike as opposed to necessarily a tax cut. And I do think the deregulation piece of this is also important. So we've certainly seen a level set. I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate this from here. We'll just have to see how this plays out either way.
What we've heard is just the deficit is likely to expand, and one of the main stories and consistency throughout all of the analysis, does the FED deal with that at all by signaling what they plan to do with their balance sheet. There is some speculation that they could potentially monetize the debt to keep even keel economic conditions.
Well, certainly there would be that pressure, but I have high confidence that they would resist that. Look, the FED is judged on primarily and whether or not it achieves the inflation target, and when inflation is getting to two percent, that's really the focus. I think monetizing the debt is something that I've done on a sustained basis, is inconsistent with the inflation target. You do raise another point, though, which is a good one, Lisa, which is the fact that they are doing QT right now. You know, during my time there, the FED stop QT about the time that it cut rates in twenty nineteen. So the Paler Fed's continuing to shrink the balance sheet. They've given some indication about when they'll stop, but that I think will be a decision they'll need to make next year, and that could be in the context of pretty depressing budget numbers.
But mikel all of this seems very predictable. You get this from a former FED official Columbia professor as well. What is the surprise you're worried about into Q one Q two?
Well, I guess my question for Rich is what are they model? Are they modeling all the probabilities that fiscal stimulus could look like? Are they modeling the extension of the tax cuts? Are they just modeling the existing economy?
Well, I guess the short answer is, I don't know. We'll find out in five years. My sense, though, certainly if I were there, what I would be focused on is a scenario where you may get a tariff, and then the question is is that inflation area, or is it a price level effect? Or in the wonking noition of central bankers are their second round of facts. Chris Waller, who have enormous regard for work with Chris, gave a speech several months ago in which or Q and a Maybe on Bloomberg in which he said, look, a tariff is a one time increase in the price level. It's not necessarily inflationary. So I think if I were there, I'd be wanting to see will that play out in various scenarios, But beyond that the details will matter.
My chart of the day is Jim Biarco had a fabulous chart showing the inflation Bob Michael coming out of twenty twenty one, twenty two, and yeah, it's a noodle in along right now. The economists like Claire and are looking at the noodle in a lawn right now, and the public that just voted for Donald Trump is looking at the jump condition and inflation on a level change. Where are we going to be in twenty twenty five? Are we going to be looking at level change in the memory of it or are we going to be noodling along feeling happy.
Well, we're not going to feel happy because there's no deflation. We're not going to feel happy because by the end of twenty twenty five there will be tariffs and some of that will be passed along to the consumer. We're not going to be happy because I don't think there will be additional tax cuts maybe on tips and overtime and corporate tax cuts in twenty twenty five. I think that's a twenty twenty six issue. So we're not going to be real happy with further improvement and inflation. To me, I took the same thing Lisa took away. They drop gaining confidence in inflation out of the statement. To me, that was an acknowledgement of a change in potential fiscal policy.
Do you think that that means potentially they won't cut even in December?
No, I think there is how do you get from here to there? It could be a number of quarters. You've got to preserve the economy in some sort of steady state. We're too high right now.
If I could jump off preserve I think j Powell will want to preserve optionality. For twenty twenty five, A lot can happen. It'll be more tricky in December because there's the dots and so whatever the dots show, there'll be questions about how confident the FED is on that path. And I would suspect today he will begin to lay out a path to give themselves a lot of optionality in December as well.
Rich, This is important. You think they begin to communicate at least open the door to have the option to pause in December, and that starts today.
I do.
It may be subtle, but I do.
Help me understand what that sounds like at two thirty what's SAP today?
I would imagine, Well, again, hypotheticals will know hypothetical would be a question about next year, and the chairit will say something along the lines of it too soon to make a judgment, and we'll be looking at the incoming assessment. And he'll remind folks that the rate path in the SEP is conditional on inflation continuing to come down. If there is a risk that it doesn't, that would factor into the rate path. So it's more not so much about getting into scenario details as it is. Look, the rate path depends on continued progress on inflation or disinflation.
If you are just joining us, welcome to the program. At twenty five basis point, reduction of the Federal Reserve and news conference with Cham and pal in about twenty minutes time, joining us nas Dyne Swunk of KPMG down a twenty five basis point reduction and welcome to the program. At a time, whether it's eights are still holding up jobs claims are still quite low? Do they have the luxury of waiting of setting up a pause in December?
Well, I do think they're going to be as exactly as everyone has said that they want optionality. I think they're still going to cut again in December. That said, the good wants to start talking about calibrating rate cuts to the economy and they're not going to be wanting to pull rate cuts do as cuts sequentially. I think in twenty twenty five, and optionality, as Rich said, is going to be number one issue because they don't know exactly what the policy will be, when policy will change, how it will affect the economy, and that is going to matter exactly as Rick stated that the certainty on the dot plot in December is going to be really uncertainty. And I think one of the greatest challenges that the Fed now faces is communication. This is not a period where you can give a lot of forward guidance because of the uncertainty on the course of policy going forward.
Dan swank I was thunderstruck by the shift across the Blue Wall towards mister Trump. We all saw it, frankly, we saw it out in Long Island. Here in New York as well. There seemed to be a halves and a have nots here within the election. How does mister Powell address both groups into twenty twenty five, How does he aggregate and make a constructive policy for the people a lot on their back that voted for Donald Trump.
Well, at the end of the day, Riches made this point and I agree with them. At the end of the day, the Fed's job is price stability. There is deflation in some goods prices, so some goods prices are coming down, they're still elevated from where they were. I do worry about shelter costs and whether or not those can really come down like many would like, and that is a problem, and also insurance costs. Those are more structural in nature. But at the end of the day, it's the Fed's job, one way or the other to get enough prices to fall to get to that price stability, but to get inflation to no longer be number one issue, I think that's going to be more challenging as we get into twenty twenty six. I agree wholeheartedly that the bulk of the policy shifts that we see, especially in terms of fiscal policy, are not likely to hit till twenty twenty six, and I don't expect a lot more than the extension of the tax cuts that we had, with maybe some additional corporate text cuts. But we will see, and I think it will take some time. I don't think it's all going to be done in the first hundred days. The tariffs, as Rich said, are issues that can be a level change, but if you combine them with curbs and immigration at this time and actually have any kind of deportations along with that, that tends to both stem growth and stoke inflation. In this environment, we are not where we were a pre pandemic, and certainly tariffs in sequential order along with retaliatory tariffs, that kind of a situation would be much harder for the Photo Reserve to deal with, and the pressure on the FED is going to intensify if that occurs.
There's a lot of nodding around the table. I find it fascinating how little we understand inflation and exactly what's going to cause a real surge in it. And I do have to wonder and Bobb, I'll throw this to you, because I know you think that the Fed should keep cutting and that there is weakness to be addressing. I am struck by the fact that there hasn't been a more market slowdown in any of the economic data, with high yields, with rates at the long end as high as they've gotten, doesn't that tell us something about how restrictive or not that restrictive policy actually is at this level.
Well, I think it's unfair to say there are no signs of a slowdown. As I said, you look at new and existing home sales, those are purely dependent on the level of rates currently because we know home prices aren't going to come back and they're quite high, and so new and existing home sales are down. They're going to decline further with this pop up in rates. And as I said, in corporate America, you look at the amount of amended and extent and pick there is a lot of corporate America that's struggling with the higher cost of funding, and a lot of that is floating rate. So for me, if you're at the FED, you've got to step back and say, okay, we're also looking at performance of credit cards and audit loans and other things. We do continue to need to take some of the pressure off to ensure we have a soft lining. I'm not talking about going to zero, two or three percent, just saying where we are currently around five percent is still a little bit too high.
I'm going to be the rude one today. The former vice chairman of the Fuller Reserve System. This is Kylo tash Over at C and N. Michael McKee passes it's on to us. McKee insists that I'm as rude as I can be. To Richard Clarita, there's speculation here after the Powell term, your name is not mentioned. That's I guess the good news. There's Kevin Hassett and Kevin Walsh as well. Those are two very different people. What kind of person do we need to run the FED into the Trump administration? Do we need a monetary expert like you on DSGE or can we use someone like worsh who's more a part of the regulatory and wall street system.
Well, and also I would also throw on Chris Waller's name as well as certainly beyond my life throwing rich. Look, I think that there is no one cookie cutter job description. I think that Jay Pal's been an incredibly successful FED chair, Ben Burnankee Janet Yellen, so you can certainly come from a background. What I would say about it is that in the world today, it's not just hiking and lowering rates. There's the communication piece we talked about. There is the supervision and regulatory piece that is not just only about banks. It's about how the economy functions and so and so. It requires a special skill set and a special person. But all the names you mean I think mentioned would be good choices.
I just wanted to cross side of today and Swunk just to fit in a final question before you run Awhite, Diane, we always answer this question. If you had a question for the chairman today in the news conference, Dan, what would it be?
It would be how much discussion was there about the labor market and the recent inflation numbers. I mean, that is where the tire meets the road in terms of where the next rate cut is going to be and how much much are they secure in the labor market weakness that we saw being transitory with regard to hurricanes and strikes. We know that part is transitory, but there is some signs that the labor market is slowing and how concerned are they on that. The other issue I think is really important one that we talk about all the time. That word that's out there, nonlinearity, what the FED always worries about. And this gets to the issue of you know, when do rates have a bigger impact on the economy? Is the nonlinear effects I think in both delinquencies but also particularly in the business sector where we do see some floating rates out there. There is some stress now starting to show in the business sector, and I think that's a very important issue.
Dan, you're one of the best. It is always greats get some time with the Dan Swunk the of KPMG if you want, just joining us about twelve thirteen minutes away from a news conference with Chairman Powell. Equities at the moment, Stone ass session highs at all time highs on the S and P five hundred one point four percent on the mat snack that is south as of rerec called as well following a twenty five basis point reduction of the Federal Reserve equity stay elevated. Not much price section off the back of this decision this afternoon though, Joining us now is Matt Lazeti over at Deutsche Bank. Matt, I want your thoughts on the outlook and Matt, welcome to the program. Have you made any changes since the election this week, and if so, how many?
Yeah, thanks for having me. So we haven't really made any official changes to the OUTLOK at this point. I think, you know, we need to get in clarity on a number of things. You know, how we're thinking about tax policy, the sequencing of that between trade and tariffs will be really important. But we did publish a note just given kind of a guidepost to where we think the economy may be moving and where the FED outlook may be moving for next year, and in particular, you know, we do think that we could upgrade our growth forecast for next year, probably into the two and a half percent range, give or take, or so. A labor market that is probably going to look a little bit tighter on the back of tax cuts that were likely to see easier financial conditions that were likely to have but also a FED that is likely cutting rates less next year than we previously thought, and so yeah, we are kind of outlined a scenario in which the FED stops cutting rates above four percent next year.
Yeah, this is one comment from the recent note that you put out that if it truly is a red sweet and the likelihood is the FED funds rate remains above four percent by the end of next year, with growth and inflation revised upward. Matt, what would you have to see to make that your base case?
Look, I think we're close to that. I think it's just getting clarity on how we think the policy outlook is likely to like it to evolve. You know, I think we know a few things since the September meeting. One, labor market data, I think, on balance have come in better and have diminished some of the downside risks that we've been worried about. Two, inflation data have come in hotter than anticipated, and so I think if the Fed were to have revised their forecast today, it's inflation higher, a labor market that is tighter. Three financial conditions have eased considerably since the September meeting, and so I think as you look at all of that and just ignore the election for the time being. You've actually had an evolution in the data financial conditions, which would be hawkers for the FED. Now we overlay on top of that, you know, fiscal stiveness that may come via tax cuts, trade policy that could lift inflation next year, and I think, undeniably together these are just hawkersh developments for the VED.
That was Odie George Saravella's talk to them the other day. He's a little occupied with the collapse of the German government. But what does Deutsche Bank feel about the ability to steer to a weaker dollar or something President Trump would like?
Yeah, you know, I'm not sure that that's actually something that's going to be a key policy objective of the Trump administration. I think some of their tone has changed on that. I think that they have emphasized that the reserve currency is a really important part. That they're making the US economy a place for investment is a really important part from a policy perspective. Now, certainly, you know, a weeker dollar could help on some of the trade objectives, but I don't anticipate kind of talking down the dollar is going to be a big part of the next administration.
Matt, We've been told so many times by so many people that the decision today was an easy one and then maybe descend but will be an easy one when do they decisions start to get hot?
So today was easy, I'm not sure December is going to be as easy. If the incoming data continue to point to a labor market that looks resilient and downside risks have diminished, and if we get inflation data that continue to come in a little bit hotter, along with financial conditions that are easy, you know, we are beginning to approach a range of kind of reasonable estimates of neutral from our perspective. You know, we think neutral from a nominal rate perspective could be anywhere probably between three and a half and four percent. So after this cut, you know, perhaps the December one can come and they can still feel comfortable with that. But I really do think that the December meeting is the first one where we probably have a little bit more contentiousness around it because they're approaching neutral. The data look fine, and you do have risks to the outlook where just from a risk management perspective, it could make some sense to slow the pace of cuts.
Which do you agree with that, especially with the fact that they have to come out with a statement of economic projections. How that makes them forces them to really write down, codify this idea of a neutral rate north to four percent.
Yes, I think that scenario is certainly a plausible one. The nuance I would offer is I could see a scenario where they get the funds rate down to a round four and stay there, not as neutrals four, but just inflation stuck at two and a half. I don't see the power Fed breaking a lot of China to get inflation down from two and a half to two with raid hikes, but they may just pause at a funds rate in the low force because inflation stuck it at two and a half. So that's another way that delivers Math's scenario.
Matt, what do you think of the idea of tariffs being inflationary versus not?
Right?
I mean, what are you sort of looking at as the most inflationary aspects of policy? That would be maybe a warning side signed for the Federal Reserve.
Yeah.
I think the complications for the Fed next year could be that we have demand side policy in terms of tax cuts happening with an economy that is already strong, being coupled with supply side policy via tariffs that would lift inflation, and both of those things being kind of giving an inflationary outcome where it makes it difficult to disentangle what's happening from a demand side versus a supply side story. You know, certainly if the VED was able to identify, they could potentially look through the tariff effects on inflation. But I think that they are probably just less prone to do so for a few reasons. One, inflation is already above their target and is continuing to do so. Two, inflation expectations could be at risk of moving higher, and I think that this is primarily or even more so an issue if those tariffs are phased in over time. It makes it more difficult and complicated, I think, to identify the price level shock and makes you a little bit more worried about it factoring into inflation expectations.
So about Michael, if I want to affect the Lazetti Claire to move here in bonds, price up, yield down? How far out unduration do I want to be into twenty twenty five? Do I want to extend duration?
Yeah?
I think you do. Here, I think there are a lot of things to do. That's kind of interest we're seeing from clients to municipal bond market is a large part of that. A lot of clients owned municipal bonds have ladders. Stuff is rolling off, roll it out to ten years. There's a lot going on in credit. Get out there and invest. You have to recognize there's been a pretty significant backup in yield. We don't know what fiscal policy will look like, and it sure looks like we're not going to see a lot before a year or so.
You know, there's some people Bob worried about it by a strike emerging in the bond market, and I just wonder, with yields at these levels, do we just keep sucking capital away from the rest of the world here in the United States, Because if I'm thinking about the policy coming down the pike from my perspective and many others as well, if you're investig in America, there's going to be policies to reward it. If you're exporting it, that's a very very different scenario of trying to export into America. But do we just keep sucking capital away from the rest of the world.
Well, yesterday was the perfect evidence of that. There was every reason to hide from the bond market. You had a thirty year auction and it went flawlessly.
You see the same thing, Rich, I do, And in particular, look, we focus on the US, but it's a global bond market, and treasure yields four and a half. We saw a year, almost exactly a year ago, treasure yields got to five, and there was a voracious appetite to lock in those those yields. And so I do think there's a range within which the growth and the FED and the fiscal pit plays in. But beyond a certain point, it becomes very attractive to international investors.
So we retain the privilege of acting recklessly. Some people might say iolutely.
Kicking that can down the road.
Yeah, although I do wonder what the consequence is of kicking the can down the road and then Germany saying, hey, they're doing it, so we want to too. You know, this sounds like a good plan France, Hey what about us? And all of a sudden you get yields rising higher? And how much does the bond market suck in the capital away from other risk assets?
That's the question.
No, I'm serious That's one of my main questions.
Some of these European bond markets have learned they're not American and that has been a painful lesson which one you've seen that In the UK you had a little sprinkle of that. In France we still that and the periphery a decade ago.
Well, I'm just saying the challenge for many European countries is the countries they'd like to invest on don't have a lot of debt out standing, like Germany and Switzerland, and the countries that want to borrow have to pay a big premium.
So yeah, I want to cross back out. It's a MATLAZETI matight, just before you run, what's the best way of getting the chairman to answer a question about the election without answering a question about the election, because that's all every journalist on the planet right now is thinking, and every single journalist in that news conference will be trying to do.
Yeah, I think it's a really difficult one. I think at the moment, you know, chair Pal has really no incentive to answer any question about what fiscal policy.
Is going to look like.
There's so much uncertainty, you know, I think he's going to emphasize data dependence. I guess if you could do it through a few avenues, it would be one, you know, how they think about risks to the outlook as they look ahead, you know, in terms of the policy outlook that has to fact earned out to the thinking about things. Two. I think it was interesting at the September meeting he noted that the neutral rate has risen quote unquote significantly relative to the pre COVID levels, And I would you know, just kind of think, you know, if we're getting additional and fiscal stimulus on that, how would he view the outlook for the neutral rate as evolving in that type of environment. But to be honest, I think it's difficult to get kind of a solid answer for him about what the election could mean for the OUTLOK at this meeting.
Matt, I appreciate your time, Sir Matta SETI if Deutsche Bank about three minutes ago until this news conference starts, Rich'll perfectly placed to answer that question. What would you lead into in this news conference if you will on the side asking the questions, what would you lean on?
I think I'd ask the chair about financial conditions broadly versus the real funds right, because it does seem over the last year the Committee at some points emphasizes tighter financial conditions. We saw that explicitly in the statement in both November and December of last year. More recently they've emphasized, well, look, the funds rates well above the rate of inflation. But at the same time, financial conditions have been getting easier. And it's not necessarily have to pick one or the other, but get a sense of how he and the Committee are thinking about that right right now in a global market and in the US market in which it's definitely risk gone in the last several days and really for some time now.
I've asked this before, but I think it's so important. Where's the animal spirit into twenty twenty five? President Trump's going to go, go, go, go go. He's going to do that before January whatever the inauguration. How goosed is the economy economy going to be under Trump?
Well, I think there is that element at minimum, because we did resolve some uncertainty. I think about the extension of the existing I would again remind you if we extend the existing tax cuts, it's very expensive in terms of the way it's scored by the CBO, but it doesn't change anybody's you know, tax rates relative to what they're paying paying now. I think the regulation in particular certain sectors energy and perhaps financial services is sort of a one time reassessment. I don't think you can keep that going. I think we are seeing more or less rational, least directionality wise reaction to markets. And to point on the dollar, strong, strong dollar. I know someone like a weaker, but this is the dollar is the sum.
Yeah, So, Bob, final question, we're about a minute ninety seconds away from this press conference. How would you get him to answer something about his new risks?
You know, I'd ask the question we had gone back and forth on, ask him, what is your staff modeling now? Because there's the current and expect set of data, and there's the majority probability that there's enormous fiscal stimulus coming down the pike a year from now, what do you model?
This has been a fantastic conversation, gents, Bob Michael and a former FED Vice chair Richard Cloda, to the two of you, just absolutely brilliant. Just some takeaway from the last thirty minutes if you're just joining us, Richard Cloud, are talking about maybe finding some space to generate some optionality going into twenty twenty five, and if it's a consensus around this table as well, that the decision gets harder once you get to December, and that this one was an easy one and maybe December is a tricky one.
My big takeaway is that the FED removed the reference and their statement to gaining confidence on inflation at the same time that our panelists, our Steam panelists, are talking about opening the door in December to either not cutting rates or potentially going forward and maybe not cutting next year.
Are you ready for a forty five minute clinic on how to not answer questions? Are you ready for this ex.
I'm so excited.
Is this a certified snooze first?
No, absolutely, not touch It is going to be pretty well.
I think it's going to be one of those news conferences and mister Clarenden knows this well, where you have a sheet of paper in front of you, You've got your notes written down, and every time you get that question, different versions off it.
That sheet of.
Paper comes up and you read it verbatim and hope they get bored of asking.
My favorite is when they have multiple sheets when Jay Pall has multiple sheets, and someone asks a question, you see him going through the papers. Wait, where's okay, there's the answer.
Have you ever written one of those questions the answer sheets for the chairman.
I participated in discussions of press conference briefings.
Yes, twenty five bases point reduction over the federerser
