- I dissented because I concluded that cutting rates by 25 bps was the appropriate policy stance (Waller)
- Believe that tariffs are a one-time price event and that policymakers should look through it (Waller)
- That so long as inflation expectations remain anchored (Waller)
- A host of data argues that policy should be close to neutral, not restrictive (Waller)
- Fully respect view of other Fed members but wait and see approach is overly cautious (Waller)
- Sees no reason to hold rates at current level and risk a sudden decline in labour market conditions (Waller)
- Should start putting more weight on risks to employment mandate (Bowman)
- There is a risk that a delay in taking action could result in deterioration of labour market and further slowing in economic growth (Bowman)
- Moving rates at a gradual pace towards neutral will help maintain labour market conditions, ensure smooth progress towards dual-mandate goals (Bowman)
- Recognise and appreciate the view of other Fed members (Bowman)
- Still committed to working together to ensure that monetary policy is appropriately positioned (Bowman)
The remarks are as what you’d expect, given that they adhere to a similar tune that both of them were singing to before the FOMC meeting this week. At the balance, Waller seems to be more dovish or at least more aggressive in pushing for a rate cut. But at this stage, both are considered equal dissenters and will likely be the antagonists again in September.
This article was written by Justin Low at investinglive.com.