Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake

331
30
Favorite

Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake

Bloomberg2021-08-30

Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.” Federal Reserve...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

331

Report

Comment（30）

Mhong
·2021-08-31
Like & commet
Reply
Like
Report
Uasbau
·2021-08-30
Good if have rates maintain & only change very slowly.
Reply
Like
Report
Fold Replies
- Tchwee56:
  Hard to be
  2021-08-30
  Reply
  Report
DenisL
·2021-08-30
No one can be sure
Reply
2
Report
KLCC
·2021-08-30
Liked…
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- JeremyKok:
  hi. please like and comment back. thank you.
  2021-08-31
  Reply
  Report
- BraydenChin:
  liked...
  2021-08-30
  Reply
  Report
winsolutions
·2021-08-30
Obvious that Fed do not want to raise interest rate and want to continue printing. How to be transitional inflation if printing still going on. Full of BS.
Reply
3
Report
tkj
·2021-08-30
This guy seems not happy that FED is not tapering faster and raising interest rates earlier....maybe he is at the sideline waiting for the market to collapse but was disappointed on the announcement by the FED...
Reply
6
Report
Hoppie
·2021-08-30
[Duh]
Reply
Like
Report
LimLS
·2021-08-30
I like to share a quote from Ex-Citi CEO. "When the music stops, in term of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance."Stay safe, everyone.
Reply
3
Report
Ignis
·2021-08-30
I love Powell
Reply
1
Report
生肉麵加豬油渣
·2021-08-30
One mssg from this guy creates some much waves... [笑哭] [笑哭] [笑哭]
Reply
1
Report
LEESIMON
·2021-08-30
NICE NICE❤
Reply
1
Report
Huat1333
·2021-08-30
Matter of time ...Sooner or later....No greed , u will win ....
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- Huat1333:
  [强] [强]
  2021-08-30
  Reply
  Report
Huat1333
·2021-08-30
Sooner or later...matters of times...Happy first ...run fast ...u win..Greed n more greed ...u will [生病] [生病] [生病]
Reply
2
Report
Kel9670ong
·2021-08-30
The opinions wasn't much for fed
Reply
1
Report
AnaiAnai
·2021-08-30
DJI break record high again?
Reply
3
Report
JackTL
·2021-08-30
fed stay strong
Reply
6
Report
Fold Replies
- koolgal:
  Yes we need Feds to continue QE??
  2021-09-15
  Reply
  Report
Cherry16
·2021-08-30
Cool
Reply
Like
Report
PhilipGoh
·2021-08-30
Good
Reply
1
Report
ParrySKLow
·2021-08-30
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
MireyaMiya万亿丰
·2021-08-30
Great!
Reply
1
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1198438768","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","media":"Bloomberg","content":"<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1584095487587","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".SPX","symbol_name":"S&P 500 Index","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","article_id":"1198438768","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1584095487587","name":"Bloomberg"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"bloomberg.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"translate_title":"美联储鲍威尔为市场欢呼，但冒着犯错的风险","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9},"content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":818109602,"gmtCreate":1630380556606,"gmtModify":1676530286783,"author":{"id":"3578449123371823","authorId":"3578449123371823","name":"Mhong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f1110c90505cf18cc129130892c4dc2a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3578449123371823","authorIdStr":"3578449123371823"},"htmlText":"Like &amp; commet&nbsp;","listText":"Like &amp; commet&nbsp;","text":"Like & commet","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/818109602","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811231393,"gmtCreate":1630325382212,"gmtModify":1676530268801,"author":{"id":"3581724772671504","authorId":"3581724772671504","name":"Uasbau","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/67cdf409f2239595269918513a5faac9","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581724772671504","authorIdStr":"3581724772671504"},"htmlText":"Good if have rates maintain &amp; only change very slowly.","listText":"Good if have rates maintain &amp; only change very slowly.","text":"Good if have rates maintain & only change very slowly.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811231393","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5695089,"gmtCreate":1630330454122,"gmtModify":1663233119627,"authorId":3569457005614885,"author":{"id":3569457005614885,"idStr":"3569457005614885","authorId":3569457005614885,"name":"Tchwee56","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cf5f966c61e6a7efe5375ef68070f8d0","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":811231393,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Hard to be ","text":"Hard to be ","html":"Hard to be "}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811671232,"gmtCreate":1630322463926,"gmtModify":1676530268055,"author":{"id":"4088158505984320","authorId":"4088158505984320","name":"DenisL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d13e043c2c38e5d7bfd53d016d5c6bf","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4088158505984320","authorIdStr":"4088158505984320"},"htmlText":"No one can be sure&nbsp;","listText":"No one can be sure&nbsp;","text":"No one can be sure","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811671232","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811620113,"gmtCreate":1630318523032,"gmtModify":1676530267084,"author":{"id":"3582008315299880","authorId":"3582008315299880","name":"KLCC","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/fe1f9de5ef093e39ed1efb519dd44002","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3582008315299880","authorIdStr":"3582008315299880"},"htmlText":"Liked…&nbsp;","listText":"Liked…&nbsp;","text":"Liked…","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811620113","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5698957,"gmtCreate":1630366228460,"gmtModify":1663233138942,"authorId":3567307840510045,"author":{"id":3567307840510045,"idStr":"3567307840510045","authorId":3567307840510045,"name":"JeremyKok","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/01b03a485f83b6b2615fad8ac9b87bf4","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":811620113,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","text":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you.","html":"hi. please like and comment back. thank you."},{"id":5693838,"gmtCreate":1630322126235,"gmtModify":1631893918314,"authorId":3559298661152538,"author":{"id":3559298661152538,"idStr":"3559298661152538","authorId":3559298661152538,"name":"BraydenChin","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bfd2a88b99637dafe5b0bed7c46289a9","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":811620113,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"liked...","text":"liked...","html":"liked..."}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811663418,"gmtCreate":1630317612434,"gmtModify":1676530266886,"author":{"id":"3575266857809379","authorId":"3575266857809379","name":"winsolutions","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/c9e4d1da51510232decb9ac63b35ba0e","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575266857809379","authorIdStr":"3575266857809379"},"htmlText":"Obvious that Fed do not want to raise interest rate and want to continue printing. How to be transitional inflation if printing still going on. Full of BS.","listText":"Obvious that Fed do not want to raise interest rate and want to continue printing. How to be transitional inflation if printing still going on. Full of BS.","text":"Obvious that Fed do not want to raise interest rate and want to continue printing. How to be transitional inflation if printing still going on. Full of BS.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811663418","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811849058,"gmtCreate":1630312453874,"gmtModify":1676530264853,"author":{"id":"3582020830270271","authorId":"3582020830270271","name":"tkj","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b4db3635974ce189ed8129eca6b5b618","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582020830270271","authorIdStr":"3582020830270271"},"htmlText":"This guy seems not happy that FED is not tapering faster and raising interest rates earlier....maybe he is at the sideline waiting for the market to collapse but was disappointed on the announcement by the FED...","listText":"This guy seems not happy that FED is not tapering faster and raising interest rates earlier....maybe he is at the sideline waiting for the market to collapse but was disappointed on the announcement by the FED...","text":"This guy seems not happy that FED is not tapering faster and raising interest rates earlier....maybe he is at the sideline waiting for the market to collapse but was disappointed on the announcement by the FED...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811849058","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811827596,"gmtCreate":1630311481015,"gmtModify":1676530264544,"author":{"id":"3579682959605812","authorId":"3579682959605812","name":"Hoppie","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579682959605812","authorIdStr":"3579682959605812"},"htmlText":"[Duh]&nbsp;","listText":"[Duh]&nbsp;","text":"[Duh]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811827596","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811868015,"gmtCreate":1630310500437,"gmtModify":1676530264013,"author":{"id":"3572923586954779","authorId":"3572923586954779","name":"LimLS","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/217b03b0c4808fb537070ba4e8f9d83f","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3572923586954779","authorIdStr":"3572923586954779"},"htmlText":"I like to share a quote from Ex-Citi CEO.&nbsp;\"When the music stops, in term of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance.\"Stay safe, everyone.","listText":"I like to share a quote from Ex-Citi CEO.&nbsp;\"When the music stops, in term of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance.\"Stay safe, everyone.","text":"I like to share a quote from Ex-Citi CEO. \"When the music stops, in term of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance.\"Stay safe, everyone.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811868015","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811888146,"gmtCreate":1630309263785,"gmtModify":1676530263781,"author":{"id":"3574686466924712","authorId":"3574686466924712","name":"Ignis","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/543d1f3e8b4901fba226eb61e5713bc4","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b0a2963eb37c60c5d6d4a8dbcd266952","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574686466924712","authorIdStr":"3574686466924712"},"htmlText":"I love Powell&nbsp;","listText":"I love Powell&nbsp;","text":"I love Powell","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811888146","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811880413,"gmtCreate":1630308801432,"gmtModify":1676530263682,"author":{"id":"3559357742503712","authorId":"3559357742503712","name":"生肉麵加豬油渣","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/797772e5857b1091ed85d4b17fe6201b","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3559357742503712","authorIdStr":"3559357742503712"},"htmlText":"One mssg from this guy creates some much waves...&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;","listText":"One mssg from this guy creates some much waves...&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;[笑哭]&nbsp;","text":"One mssg from this guy creates some much waves... [笑哭] [笑哭] [笑哭]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811880413","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":811804521,"gmtCreate":1630305067963,"gmtModify":1676530262688,"author":{"id":"3579044609497336","authorId":"3579044609497336","name":"LEESIMON","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":8,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3579044609497336","authorIdStr":"3579044609497336"},"htmlText":"NICE NICE❤","listText":"NICE NICE❤","text":"NICE NICE❤","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811804521","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811801492,"gmtCreate":1630304630316,"gmtModify":1676530262585,"author":{"id":"3559014783889591","authorId":"3559014783889591","name":"Huat1333","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/a4c138e1ce20043d7996468a91a225ac","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/50a4c8d97279fa9f8f1fa9749a6bdff4","crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3559014783889591","authorIdStr":"3559014783889591"},"htmlText":"Matter of time ...Sooner or later....No greed , u will win ....","listText":"Matter of time ...Sooner or later....No greed , u will win ....","text":"Matter of time ...Sooner or later....No greed , u will win ....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811801492","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5691582,"gmtCreate":1630304650717,"gmtModify":1663233102151,"authorId":3559014783889591,"author":{"id":3559014783889591,"idStr":"3559014783889591","authorId":3559014783889591,"name":"Huat1333","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/a4c138e1ce20043d7996468a91a225ac","vip":1,"crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":811801492,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[强] [强]","text":"[强] [强]","html":"[强] [强]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811801164,"gmtCreate":1630304577658,"gmtModify":1676530262560,"author":{"id":"3559014783889591","authorId":"3559014783889591","name":"Huat1333","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/a4c138e1ce20043d7996468a91a225ac","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/50a4c8d97279fa9f8f1fa9749a6bdff4","crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3559014783889591","authorIdStr":"3559014783889591"},"htmlText":"Sooner or later...matters of times...Happy first ...run fast ...u win..Greed n more greed ...u will&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;","listText":"Sooner or later...matters of times...Happy first ...run fast ...u win..Greed n more greed ...u will&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;[生病]&nbsp;","text":"Sooner or later...matters of times...Happy first ...run fast ...u win..Greed n more greed ...u will [生病] [生病] [生病]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811801164","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":811155905,"gmtCreate":1630301162207,"gmtModify":1676530261962,"author":{"id":"3578468158955348","authorId":"3578468158955348","name":"Kel9670ong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bd86c42e207fbd94e7f8877a29457d71","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3578468158955348","authorIdStr":"3578468158955348"},"htmlText":"The opinions wasn't much for fed&nbsp;","listText":"The opinions wasn't much for fed&nbsp;","text":"The opinions wasn't much for fed","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811155905","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811124370,"gmtCreate":1630300174390,"gmtModify":1676530261766,"author":{"id":"3583884958321017","authorId":"3583884958321017","name":"AnaiAnai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b0d0d8e20a4082ac0bc6a98756546ec","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3583884958321017","authorIdStr":"3583884958321017"},"htmlText":"DJI break record high again?","listText":"DJI break record high again?","text":"DJI break record high again?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811124370","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811125669,"gmtCreate":1630300064451,"gmtModify":1676530261748,"author":{"id":"3581557493426416","authorId":"3581557493426416","name":"JackTL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/851801800e7dc3457e5e60048a987880","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3581557493426416","authorIdStr":"3581557493426416"},"htmlText":"fed stay strong","listText":"fed stay strong","text":"fed stay strong","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811125669","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5873973,"gmtCreate":1631677144218,"gmtModify":1663233904726,"authorId":3559581955535845,"author":{"id":3559581955535845,"idStr":"3559581955535845","authorId":3559581955535845,"name":"koolgal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c05274d88ffc0434623e57350c52c70a","vip":2,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"c4ee29b388ff41cc8462b3b7ea00d1e2-1","templateUuid":"c4ee29b388ff41cc8462b3b7ea00d1e2","name":"Monthly Top Contributor","description":"Top 3 Contributors with the most and best Editor's Picks every month","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b0cad6192443c33dca826a001250fbd4","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ccd98c646815ce7610b0df338e060cc","redirectLinkEnabled":1,"redirectLink":"https://ttm.financial/TW/9000980585","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.04.02","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":2003},"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[{"badgeId":"9427a906234c4b18a82ec3d7730b7fa8-1","templateUuid":"9427a906234c4b18a82ec3d7730b7fa8","name":"Star Contributor","description":"Have published 3 or more picked posts, and have published at least one picked post and participated in comments within 30 days","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/1866dcf97a73be1c330f85862546aedc","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/4f5c5fa8e2c7683bb5a7fce8753ee456","redirectLinkEnabled":1,"redirectLink":"https://ttm.financial/activity/market/2023/star-contributors/","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.11.22","individualDisplayEnabled":1,"backgroundColor":{"dark":"#675a37","tint":"#f9ebc2"},"fontColor":{"dark":"#ffffff","tint":"#ab7a0e"},"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":2007}]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":811125669,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Yes we need Feds to continue QE??","text":"Yes we need Feds to continue QE??","html":"Yes we need Feds to continue QE??"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811125006,"gmtCreate":1630300009705,"gmtModify":1676530261730,"author":{"id":"4087626579975990","authorId":"4087626579975990","name":"Cherry16","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4087626579975990","authorIdStr":"4087626579975990"},"htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811125006","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811129720,"gmtCreate":1630299349460,"gmtModify":1676530261597,"author":{"id":"3574730309796268","authorId":"3574730309796268","name":"PhilipGoh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d6085185a57dcb9a222e871338387428","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f84d87792f02cf78e80ee34979fd31e5","crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3574730309796268","authorIdStr":"3574730309796268"},"htmlText":"Good&nbsp;","listText":"Good&nbsp;","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811129720","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811120162,"gmtCreate":1630299216156,"gmtModify":1676530261565,"author":{"id":"3582026529372712","authorId":"3582026529372712","name":"ParrySKLow","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3582026529372712","authorIdStr":"3582026529372712"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811120162","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":811167930,"gmtCreate":1630299133320,"gmtModify":1676530261410,"author":{"id":"3580082297864003","authorId":"3580082297864003","name":"MireyaMiya万亿丰","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/1124aa19e932df4e4bb55e398ab6f78a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3580082297864003","authorIdStr":"3580082297864003"},"htmlText":"Great!","listText":"Great!","text":"Great!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/811167930","repostId":1198438768,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198438768","pubTimestamp":1630284738,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1198438768?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-30 08:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198438768","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but ther","content":"<blockquote>\n Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair&nbsp;the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.</p>\n<p>By refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.</p>\n<p>Economists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.</p>\n<p>Powell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”</p>\n<p>As these remarks&nbsp;would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.</p>\n<p>First, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”</p>\n<p>Second, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”</p>\n<p>This messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.</li>\n <li>His failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.</li>\n <li>Powell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.</li>\n <li>After a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.</li>\n <li>Finally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.</p>\n<p>I continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed’s Powell Cheers Markets But Risks a Mistake\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-30 08:52 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-29/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-s-dovish-tilt-risks-a-mistake","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198438768","content_text":"Investors will happily continue to give the Federal Reserve chair the benefit of the doubt, but there’s good reason to question his characterization of policy being “well positioned.”\n\nFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech Friday at the annual Jackson Hole forum was consistent with his very gradual and highly measured approach to policy changes – an approach that financial markets love as it implies a longer period of very loose liquidity that fuels ever higher asset prices. The real question, however, is whether the speech will end up being out of touch with actual economic and financial developments as they unfold over the remainder of this year and beyond.\nBy refraining from breaking new ground or providing operational details of any evolution in policy, both of which would have inevitably tilted more hawkish at this point, Powell gave investors more reason to take stocks and bonds higher. And indeed, stocks rallied to a new record while bond prices also rose.\nEconomists, however, seemed less convinced by the argumentation, the stated outlook and what it implies for the Fed’s go-slow policy evolution that markets like so much. More concerned about the two-sided nature of the inflation risk and the potential for a policy mistake, some would have favored a firmer signal about an imminent taper of the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, something that I have argued is not just needed for both economic wellbeing and longer-term financial stability, but is also overdue.\nPowell in his speech appeared mindful not only of the latest facts on the ground that could guide Fed action, but also of the highly visible and accelerating hawkish swing among a growing number of members the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. Specifically, in evaluating recent economic developments against the Fed’s formal dual mandate (price stability and employment), he observed thatthe Fed’s \"substantial further progress\" test of the economic recovery has been met as regards inflation, and that “there has also been clear progress toward maximum employment.”\nAs these remarks would imply him being inclined toward an earlier taper timetable than he favored just a few weeks ago, Powell was quick to wrap this economic assessment in a twin packaging that was more dovish than what markets expected.\nFirst, Powell made a point of separating the move toward tapering from interest rate hikes that would normally follow. He stated that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.”\nSecond, in addition to refraining from providing details on the timing and pace a possible taper program, he built into such a future announcement quite a bit of what I suspect he hopes is constructive ambiguity. This included him stating that “we have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.”\nThis messaging is clearly meant to avoid the market disruptions that followed the first taper announcement in 2013 under then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Powell’s own experience in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, there’s good reason to question the characterization of Fed policy being “well positioned.” For example:\n\nThe five reasons that Powell set out to support his oft-repeated argument that the recent spike in prices is likely transitory do little to alleviate current concerns about an inflation dynamic that is already proven and, judging from Friday’s data, continues to be hotter and more persistent than the Fed expects.\nHis failure to mention housing and rental inflationmissed an important partof the evolving inflation story, and one that has consequential economic, social and political implications.\nPowell’s outlook for the economy doesn’t seem to reflect sufficient appreciation of the bottom-up, cost-push pressures that the majority of companies are experiencing and that several regional Fed presidents have cited in their own assessments of the economic outlook and their associated call for an early taper.\nAfter a balanced historical reading of policy reactions to higher inflation, Powell’s characterization of the current risk of a potential policy mistake appears overly biased in favor of an overreaction to inflation. If anything, the Fed is quite far from this given that it is still maintaining the uber-stimulative policy stance that it adopted well over a year ago at the height of the Covid disruptions to the economy and markets.\nFinally, while rightly pointing to the uncertainties associated with the delta variant, Powell shied away from discussing the considerable and increasing decoupling of finance from the real economy.\n\nInvestors will happily continue to give Powell the benefit of the doubt;after all, his policy approach has paved the way for increasing financial wealth. Economists, though, are more divided. The beneficial impact on the economy of the Fed’s massive asset purchases are limited, if any, while the risks to economy and the financial system continue to mount.\nI continue to believe there is just cause for concern about a monetary policy mistake that could undermine future economic wellbeing and financial stability, with adverse social, institutional and political spillovers.I am hoping that my worries are misplaced but unfortunately, both the numbers and the analysis suggest otherwise.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":331,"commentSize":30,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}