logo
Transcript: Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," April 13, 2025

Transcript: Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," April 13, 2025

CBS News13-04-2025

The following is the transcript of an interview with Neel Kashkari, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on April 13, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Neel Kashkari, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Welcome back to Face the Nation.
NEEL KASHKARI: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We checked and we saw soybeans are Minnesota's largest export, something like 2 billion annually. A lot of those soybeans go to China. Do you have a sense yet of what the sustained trade war with China would cost farmers in the midsection of the country?
KASHKARI: Well, it's funny you said that. I just heard from an ag Leader two days ago in Minnesota who said that even if there's a 10% tariff from China on soybeans, zero Minnesota soybeans will go to China because it's a competitive global market, it's a commodity. They will have to go someplace else. And so in many sectors, whether it's a 10% tariff or 50% or 100% tariff, it has dramatic effect on the trade flows. And so a lot of my folks that I hear from here are quite concerned about it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yep, Bloomberg was already reporting that China was purchasing soybeans from Brazil. So looking to other suppliers, potentially. I want to ask you more broadly, beyond your state, you said on CNBC this past week, investors may now be saying America is no longer the most attractive place in the world to invest. What makes you say that?
KASHKARI: Well, we have to start at what causes a trade deficit. It's just economic math that if investors around the world say one country is the best place to invest, the math works out that that country will have a trade deficit. And part of how that shows up for that economy is interest rates will be lower across the economy because investors are investing and bringing their money into that economy. So now, if we're not going to have a trade deficit going forward, then investors must conclude that there are other attractive places to invest too. And as we see yields go up, we're seeing the treasury yields go up. The reason the Fed cares about this is we have to make sure that it's not inflation that's driving those yields up. It could be that investors are saying, 'Hey, there are other places we also want to invest.' That it won't just be everybody wants to pour money in America. So these are very complicated details to sort out. The Fed's job is to keep inflation under control and not let it get unanchored.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So people typically think of US Treasuries as the safe thing to buy in a crisis, because they're backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. So when the President says the bond markets got queasy, and that was part of his decision in delaying these reciprocal tariffs, what does that say to you? How do you interpret that the bond market got spooked like it did?
KASHKARI: Well, I think investors in the US and around the world are trying to determine what is the new normal in America. You know, I saw an interview on Friday where Blackrock CEO Larry Fink speculated that maybe the 10 year treasury would go to a 5% yield. He just offered it as a possibility. We don't know where that new normal level is going to be, and we at the Fed have no ability, zero ability, to affect that destination. And I think markets are searching for where are these trade negotiations going to end up. Ultimately, that destination, whether it's a 5% treasury or 4 or something else, that's 100% determined by trade policy and fiscal policy. And I think there's a lot of uncertainty in the markets about what is that new destination, and we're going to have to watch and see and at the Fed. Our job is to keep inflation under control so that rate isn't even higher.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And just for our audience, when what yields going up indicates people are selling treasuries. And when Larry Fink, who I believe is the world's largest asset manager, spoke, he said something about the Fed might not have the ability to do any real easings. Is that what, what concerned you?
KASHKARI: Well, it's not a concern. It's just a recognition of the tools that we have. So we at the Fed, we can manage kind of near term ups and downs in the economy, but ultimately, where the economy settles in the long run as a result of all of these renegotiations and these new trade flows and fiscal policy, that new normal is completely out of the central bank's control. We cannot affect that. All we can do is keep inflation expectations anchored and try to manage some of the ups and downs on that journey, but that destination is up to the executive branch and Congress, not the Fed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the tariffs on things like steel and lumber and all the things you use to build a building in the house, those may raise prices. Shelter already was a big contributor to the inflation rate. If, what does all this add up to? Do you have any expectations? It certainly sounds like the trajectory is prices going up.
KASHKARI: Well there's no question that tariffs, by themselves, are inflationary. They push prices up, just as you articulated. The question is, is it a one time increase in prices and then prices grow slowly from there, or is it something more sustained and ongoing? And it's the Fed's job to make sure that it's only a one time adjustment in prices and nothing longer term than that. So that's the part that we have a role to play here, and we're committed to doing so. But you're right. Tariffs push up prices and push down economic activity, and that's a challenging situation because the Fed simply does not have the tools to undo the economic effects of tariffs in a trade war. We can just keep inflation from getting out of hand.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you don't meet again until what, May 7?
KASHKARI: In a few weeks, we meet. But obviously we are continuing to monitor all the economic data. The economy was fundamentally very healthy, January, February, March. The job market has been strong. The underlying inflationary dynamics have been coming down, just as we hoped for and we've been trying to engineer. But obviously this is the biggest in the last month or so, this is the biggest hit to confidence that I can recall in the 10 years that I've been at the Fed, except for March of 2020 when COVID first hit. So when there's that type of hit to confidence, it can have large effects on the economy, and we're monitoring that very carefully through the data and through all of our discussions with businesses all around the country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the odds of recession are now 50/50. Goldman Sachs says 45% chance of recession. Is the risk that high in your estimate?
KASHKARI: You know it's really going to be determined by are there quick resolutions? To your prior guests. Are there quick resolutions to these trade uncertainties with our major trading partners? The faster those resolutions come, I think the more that confidence can be restored, and hopefully those odds can be brought down. But it is a serious situation if everybody gets nervous at the same time, businesses and consumers, and they all pull back at the same time that can lead to an economic downturn just by itself. Setting aside the math of what the tariffs end up doing to prices. And so there's a lot to try to unwrap right now, and we're doing our best to try to keep our arms around it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the financial markets look orderly to you at this point?
KASHKARI: They are. I mean, obviously the market participants are trying to grasp for where is this all going to settle, and that's causing volatility as they're, as they're trying to do these assessments. So that volatility is to be expected, but markets are functioning, transactions are happening, and so I anticipate that's going to continue.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Neel Kashkari, always good to get your insights. Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back with more. Face the Nation.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?
If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?

We've seen the headlines that reveal how rich the world's top billionaires are — but it's hard to comprehend just how rich they are. Consider this: Let's say you had $1 billion in your bank account and had to spend $100,000 every day, for an entire year. After 365 days, you would still have $963,500,000 (nine hundred sixty-three million five hundred thousand). Discover More: Find Out: Over the last two decades, billionaires have ballooned their wealth to unparalleled levels. In 2005, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates ranked as the world's richest person, with a net worth of $46.5 billion, as reported by CNN. Today, that title belongs to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose net worth stands at $368 billion as of June 5, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Even when adjusted for inflation, Gates' former net worth would be equivalent to roughly $76 billion in today's dollars. It is worth noting that other billionaires have also increased their wealth during the same time. For instance, tech billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are worth $229 billion and $227 billion, ranking second and third globally. For many Americans, this trend is not sitting well. The sky-high cost of living has catalyzed support for redistributive tax policies, especially among younger voters and the progressive base of the Democratic Party. While higher taxation may or may not happen in the years to come, here's hypothetically how much you'd get if the world's richest man gives a check to every American. The United States Census Bureau estimates the current population to be around 341 million people, ranking only behind India and China. If Musk's enormous $390 billion were equally divided in the U.S., each person would receive $1,144 (rounded to the nearest dollar). A couple would receive $2,288, while a family of four would get $4,576. Despite the enormous wealth of billionaires, much of their fortune is tied up in stocks, real estate, and other holdings. Only a small percentage of their assets is held in cash. Based on data from Forbes, Musk has a 12% ownership stake in Tesla and to date, he remains the largest shareholder in the $1.15 trillion electric vehicle company. This is in addition to a 42% slice in SpaceX and a 54% interest in xAI, among many other businesses. Interestingly, Bloomberg reported that Musk's financial holdings appreciated by 77% after joining the campaign trail with President Donald Trump late last year, as reported by Bloomberg. Investors became bullish on Tesla and Musk became the first person to ever reach a net worth exceeding $400 billion. Since then, Tesla's market value has fluctuated as a result of volatile market conditions, macroeconomic factors and the threat of a global trade war. More From GOBankingRates 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years This article originally appeared on If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get? Sign in to access your portfolio

H&M Billionaire Quietly Moves Brand Toward Private Ownership
H&M Billionaire Quietly Moves Brand Toward Private Ownership

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

H&M Billionaire Quietly Moves Brand Toward Private Ownership

(Bloomberg) -- Hennes & Mauritz AB, the fast-fashion retailer that's been listed on the Swedish stock market since 1974, is steadily moving back toward private ownership. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The founding family has stepped up purchases of H&M shares, spending more than 63 billion kronor ($6.6 billion) since 2016 to amass nearly two-thirds control and fueling speculation it could take the Stockholm-based company back into private hands — despite denials from family members. The Perssons, one of Sweden's wealthiest families, have built up a growing stake through holding company Ramsbury Invest, saying little about their intentions other than that they 'believe' in H&M, which was founded in 1947 by Erling Persson. The media-shy clan is now getting within striking distance of full control of the retailer, which in recent years has been losing ground among shoppers to its main rival Zara and 'ultra-fast fashion' upstarts like Shein. 'This is something we've been talking about for years, and few would doubt that's the direction things are headed,' said Sverre Linton, chief legal officer and spokesperson for the Swedish Shareholders' Association, which represents small stock investors. If the family doesn't plan to take H&M private, it should communicate that more clearly and stop buying shares, he added. The family has ramped up insider buying by reinvesting dividends, boosting its H&M stake to almost 64% from 35.5% over the past nine years via Ramsbury, a vehicle named after billionaire Stefan Persson's sprawling estate, one of the largest private landholdings in southern England. Including extended family holdings, the Perssons now control roughly 70% of the capital and some 85% of voting rights, according to H&M's website. In an interview last year with Bloomberg, H&M Chairman Karl-Johan Persson — grandson of the founder — dismissed talk that the family intended to take the company private. 'There are no plans,' he said. 'We just buy because we believe in the company.' Representatives at Ramsbury Invest and H&M declined to comment. Analysts including Niklas Ekman at DNB Carnegie say the regular purchases could be more than a show of confidence in the retailer. In a note to clients last month, he estimated that if the family keeps acquiring shares at the same pace a buyout could come as early as two years from now. If the family's holding reached 90%, it could request a de-listing of the shares. A take-private would be 'based on emotional rather than financial motives,' Ekman wrote, given that the family already has a controlling stake and has long managed the company with little regard for minority shareholders. He attributed the push to patriarch Stefan Persson, 77, who built H&M into one of the world's largest fast-fashion retailers during his 16 years as chief executive officer and more than two decades as chairman. He remains deeply invested in the company's future. Stefan's fortune amounts to $18.6 billion, mostly in H&M stock, making him the richest person in Sweden, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He bought the 3,000-acre Ramsbury estate in 1997 and has since expanded it to 19,000 acres, building a brewery, distillery and oil press on the property. His son Karl-Johan, who took over as H&M chairman in 2020 after serving as CEO, also holds an active role at Ramsbury Invest. He has voiced frustration in interviews with the stock market's short-term focus on maximizing profits. 'They've never, at least in modern times, expressed a strong desire to remain public,' said Daniel Schmidt, an analyst at Danske Bank. 'I would say that transparency has always been a part of it.' H&M's shares reached an all-time high about a decade ago, and have since fallen by around 60%, valuing the group at 220 billion kronor. Zara owner Inditex SA, by contrast, has climbed about 60% over that period. For the Perssons, the sagging stock price is no doubt a frustration, but also presents an opportunity by making full control more attainable. At the current price it would cost the family at least 70 billion kronor to buy the remaining outstanding shares, according to Ekman. That would likely require them to take on debt. A delisting would probably also require a premium, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Charles Allen. 'If the bid were financed by debt then it may reduce the company's operating flexibility,' Allen said. 'It wouldn't really matter if the debt was in the company or the family as either way cash flow would have to be diverted from investment to pay interest and then repay.' Operationally, the fast-fashion retailer appears stuck in the slow lane, facing tepid demand for its apparel, fierce competition and now US tariffs. The first-quarter results were weaker than analysts had expected and showed that efforts to claw back customers through higher marketing spending hadn't brought a rebound. CEO Daniel Erver, an H&M veteran who took the top job last January, was involved in setting the current strategy and has yet to reverse market share losses in countries including Germany, France and the UK. Attempts to reconnect with younger audiences through collaborations, such as with pop artist Charli XCX, haven't significantly boosted growth. 'With the share price as subdued as it is currently, offering a small premium today, could potentially be cheaper if the share price recovers at some point in the future,' said Mads Lindegaard Rosendal, a senior analyst at Danske Bank. He said the potential risk of a take private is one of the reasons why Danske Bank has an 'underweight' rating on H&M, which is a 'company that is also struggling somewhat with their ongoing operational turnaround.' As one of the most shorted stocks in Europe, a buyout could force short sellers to unwind their negative bets on H&M and send the shares soaring. Shares out on loan, an indication of short interest, were at 21% of H&M's free float as of June 4, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. H&M has been criticized for a lack of transparency over sudden management changes and being the only company in Stockholm's benchmark index not to disclose the shareholdings of its top executive team. 'Obviously, being a listed company puts management under more scrutiny than if they were private, but it also presumably offers some incentives to management and other employees that would not be available if it were private,' BI's Allen said. Anders Oscarsson, the head of equities at AMF, one of Sweden's biggest pension managers and the largest non-family shareholder, said he hasn't heard the family say anything about taking H&M private, and that such a move would be a big loss for investors. 'It would be sad if the company disappears from the stock exchange,' he said. 'If we're to generate returns from the stock market, we need strong companies listed.' Yet if the family's purchases lead to a marked deterioration in the stock's liquidity, that wouldn't be a good outcome either. 'It might become a bit like Hotel California — where you can neither check in nor check out.' --With assistance from Blaise Robinson. (Updates with more details on stake ownership, analyst comments and details on shorted stock.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Why Trump can't have it both ways on rates
Why Trump can't have it both ways on rates

Politico

time43 minutes ago

  • Politico

Why Trump can't have it both ways on rates

Presented by Editor's note: Morning Money is a free version of POLITICO Pro Financial Services morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 5:15 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the day's biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro. Quick Fix President Donald Trump wants a strong labor market and low interest rates. Right now, those goals aren't compatible. Economists expect the Labor Department to report this morning that employers added 125,000 jobs last month. If the number exceeds expectations, it will be yet another sign of economic resilience despite the effects that Trump's trade agenda, market convulsions and touch-and-go recession fears have had on sentiment. It would be great news for a White House that has reveled in recent positive economic data and has sparred with Wall Street heavyweights or reporters who spotlight the risks posed by the president's agenda. But it would also give Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell a case to hold rates higher for longer. Higher borrowing costs might help keep a lid on inflation — and further weaken rate-sensitive sectors like housing — until there's greater clarity on how tariffs ultimately affect consumer prices. The Fed is scheduled to announce its interest rate decision on June 18. Obviously, that's not what Trump wants. The president used this week's tepid private sector hiring report from the payroll processing firm ADP to lash out at the Fed chair — whom he's nicknamed 'TOO LATE' — and make a case for why he 'must now LOWER THE RATE.' And there are signs that the labor market is flagging. U.S. employers announced layoffs affecting nearly 94,000 positions last month — a 47 percent increase over April of last year, according to a report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Jobless claims for the week following the Memorial Day holiday jumped more than many economists had predicted, the government reported on Thursday. And the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing and service sector employment indices were both in contraction territory in May. But if today's jobs report disappoints — EY's Gregory Daco sees job growth falling below 100,000 — it will be taken as a sign that Trump's trade agenda is starting to wear on employers. While a softening labor market increases the likelihood that Powell accelerates the timeline for rate cuts, it would also suggest the economy is in much worse shape than anyone in the White House would like. Trump would then face more political pressure — from both Wall Street and industry — to dial back his protectionist trade policies. Julien Lafargue, the chief market strategist at Barclays Private Bank, put it this way: 'Anything below the 100,000 mark could reignite recession fears while a stronger-than-expected print could perversely be negative for risk assets as it would likely put upward pressure on yields.' In other words, for Trump, the odds that he'll get a Goldilocks economy and low rates — soon — look slim. We'll see at 8:30 a.m. when the Labor Department puts out its report. IT'S FRIDAY — What are you looking for in the jobs report? Let me know. And as always, send your tips, suggestions and personnel moves to Sam at ssutton@ POLITICO PRO SPACE: Need an insider's guide to the politics behind the new space race? From battles over sending astronauts to Mars to the ways space companies are vying to influence regulators, this weekly newsletter decodes the personalities, policy and power shaping the final frontier. Find out more. Driving The Day Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman will speak at a Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy event on financial regulation at 10 a.m. Food Fight — Elon Musk, the godfather of the Department of Government Efficiency and one of Trump's most powerful boosters during the 2024 campaign, was already on the warpath against GOP leaders over the president's 'big beautiful bill.' On Thursday, he went after Trump. Suffice it to say, it got personal. — As Irie Sentner reports: 'In a Washington full of big money and bigger personalities, it's shaping up to be the breakup of the decade. And it's happening for all the world to see … Musk suggested the president should be impeached, Trump threatened Musk's companies, and Musk even threw out allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein.' — The consequences have the potential to simultaneously 'derail the president's agenda and Musk's personal fortune,' Irie writes. As the feud spilled across X and Truth Social, shares of Tesla notched their worst day ever, erasing more than $150 billion of market value, according to the WSJ. Trust us. — The White House is also dialing up its attacks against both the Congressional Budget Office and outside experts over projections that the megabill could cause debt levels to spike in exchange for mediocre economic returns, The NYT's Tony Romm reports. Revival — Binance has survived its legal battles with U.S. regulators. Now, the global crypto exchange is emerging as a major beneficiary of Trump's pro-crypto pivot. Declan Harty has more in a Q&A with the exchange's CEO, Richard Teng. TRADE CORNER Too much news — Before the Musk spat overtook the news cycle, Trump had a 'very good phone call' with Chinese leader Xi Jinping amid tense negotiations over tariffs and other trade barriers, per Megan Messerly, Phelim Kine, Ari Hawkins and Daniel Desrochers. — Treasury did not identify the country as a currency manipulator in its semi-annual report on the foreign exchange practices of major trading partners, Doug Palmer reports. Trade deficit falls — Doug also reports that the trade deficit fell sharply in April after hitting a record high in March. Talking Points First in MM: From Wall Street regulator to crypto lobbyist — In one of her first interviews as Blockchain Association CEO, Summer Mersinger, a former CFTC commissioner, spoke with Declan Harty about the critical but chaotic moment facing crypto in Washington today. The following is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. With the regulatory landscape shifting, how are you thinking about this moment for crypto in Washington? Just a year ago, there was this discussion around all the risks involved with blockchain and crypto, and now, we're at a point where Congress is on the cusp of passing a stablecoin bill. So it's a critical time for the industry. It's a critical time for the policymakers, and it's the opportunity that I think the industry needs to come together, be a unified voice and really push this forward so that the U.S. can become a global leader in this space. How do you hope to use your experience at the CFTC as you lead the Blockchain Association? My time at the CFTC taught me a lot about these markets and the ways that a well-regulated market functions. But if you go back further in my history, I came from Capitol Hill — that's where I spent most of my career. And I'm hoping that I can use those skills to really help BA and the members get that critical legislation accomplished. Do market structure and stablecoin legislation need to be packaged together? They both stand on their own. I trust Congress to do what's best to get legislation to the president's desk, and however they decide to move forward, we're going to be supportive. … If stablecoin [legislation] gets to the president's desk before the other, I see that as a win — and it just adds momentum to the market structure bill. On The Hill Trouble in Senate Banking — Senate Banking Republicans are skeptical that some of the measures being sought by Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) for the megabill can comply with the strict rules governing the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process, Jasper Goodman reports. Markup incoming — Katherine Hapgood reports that House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) plans to move ahead with a landmark crypto market structure bill on Tuesday over objections from Democrats, who want more time to negotiate. Adios — The House passed a bill Thursday that would remove Small Business Administration offices from 'sanctuary cities' that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, Katherine reports. First in MM — Democrats led by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) on Friday introduced a new bill to counter the administration's rollback of rules that required businesses to disclose their true owners. Under the bill, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the SBA would have to coordinate on multilingual guidance, education and scam prevention to make compliance easier, Katherine reports. GOP senators look to codify DOGE operations of Treasury payment systems — Congressional DOGE Caucus Chairs Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) will introduce legislation next week to codify changes that the cost-cutting operation once led by Elon Musk made to the Treasury Department's payments system. The bill would require Treasury to have a description of the payment, link it to a budget account and crosscheck the payment against government databases to ensure accuracy and eligibility, Katherine reports. Ernst said the measure would save billions over the next 10 years. 'Enacting safeguards to spending has been one of the Trump administration's and DOGE's greatest triumphs, and I am determined to codify it and make it permanent.' Jobs report David Maurstad, the former senior director of the National Flood Insurance Program, recently launched Maurstad Advisors, LLC to advise on issues like insurance brokerage, resilience planning and crisis communication.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store