Bob Michael

I think he'd be somebody very different.

Let's get a true bond markets practitioner in there who's had to live with the aftermath of Fed decisions.

Not as bad as it could have been.

There could have been a lot more dissents in favor of no rate cuts.

When we look at things like PCE, we expected they would lower core PCE by a tenth.

They did that.

They left the unemployment rate for next year roughly where it was last year.

They did raise their expectation of GDP a couple of tenths from where it was.

So to me, that seems to be, if you want to call it a hawkish tilt, the one hawkish tilt.

And of course, adding the extent and timing of additional adjustments to rate policy going forward, that was pretty much in the market.

So I think mostly as the market expect and nowhere near as bad as the market feared.

Not as good as it could have been with more dissents.

I think if you're the administration and you're invested in this market, this is pretty much as good as it could have been other than no dissents.

I'm not sure how additional dissents make this better.

Well, I think you have to look at which Fed presidents are coming onto the FOMC next year, and they're mostly in the hawkish cap.

So whoever you put in as the Fed chair has to be very persuasive.

And I guarantee you the president isn't looking to appoint the next Paul Volcker.

They're looking to appoint someone who believes in supply-side economics.

Absolutely, 100%.

But it doesn't change the fact that that's what's occurring and the market's responding to that.