Charles Evans

We can learn a lot about a person if we know what types of things he or she talks about or comments on the most frequently. There are numerous topics with which Charles Evans is associated, including U.S. and Federal Reserve. Most recently, Charles Evans has been quoted saying: “The U.S. economy could experience a burst of four percent growth for a year or two or more...But unless this is accompanied by sustainable structural improvement in labor and productivity growth, such GDP growth would ... ultimately lead to more restrictive financial conditions.” in the article WRAPUP 3-Fed officials see quick economic boost from Trump, risks to follow.

Charles Evans quotes

Automatically powered by

Appropriate policy calls for a slow pace of normalization in order to give the real economy an adequate growth buffer to withstand downside shocks.

The U.S. economy could experience a burst of four percent growth for a year or two or more...But unless this is accompanied by sustainable structural improvement in labor and productivity growth, such GDP growth would ... ultimately lead to more restrictive financial conditions.

I've got an outlook and I'm a little cautious. (I) probably only have two rate increases penciled in for (2017). But if the outlook solidifies, if we actually get that, if risk management concerns are less important as we move away from zero lower down risk, yeah, three rate hikes could make sense.

I still think two moves is not an unreasonable expectation ...but it's going to depend on how the data roll out, and if it's a little bit stronger, three is not going to be implausible.

An infrastructure plan would be terrific, that would be good. I think corporate tax rationalization would be a huge improvement.

It would probably take something pretty sizable to change my assessment that a December move is consistent with a shallow path. Even if you are a little more nervous in December than I am currently then you would still have the option of waiting until the next year. You'd have to feel more strongly that one rate increase in December was really the wrong path, and that would take a more negative implications than what I'm expecting or seeing.

I also think it would help to indicate that policymakers would be willing to accept the increased inflationary risk that might accompany further declines in unemployment.

I see benefits to trying to engineer policy to allow for the strong possibility of inflation overshooting its target.

When the labor force is continuing to expand a little bit, that's a good sign. Wages going up a little bit, that's a good sign. But it's still not really consistent with labor market tightness.

[It's] not anything that's going to lead to inflation moving up above 2 percent and I want to get to 2 percent.

December could be an appropriate time to do it, but I don't see any urgency either.

For risk management reasons, we need to make sure we hit our inflation objective at the same time we're at full employment.

I am less concerned about the timing of the next increase than I am about the path over the next three years.

I have a forecast where things continue to improve. I do think there will be a rate increase.

What the central bank needs to do is have a view point on whether or not fiscal policy is going to be stimulatory or contractionary on the economy over the next three to five years and then we have to decide if we need to take action to offset its effects on inflation.

The low interest rate environment is not just a U.S. phenomenon, or simply a situation engineered by Federal Reserve policy.

The risk of overshooting our 2 percent inflation is lower - and the likelihood that we actually get to 2 percent is smaller.

This is one reason monetary policy is expected to normalize at a very gradual pace.

Long-run expectations for policy rates provide an anchor to long-run interest rates. So lower policy rate expectations act as a restraint on how much long-term rates could rise following a surprise over the near-term policy path.

If necessary, we could normalize policy much faster than currently envisioned and still keep the pace gradual enough to avoid a disorderly change in financial conditions.

While the fundamentals for U.S. growth continue to be good, uncertainty and risks remain. In my opinion, the continuation of 'wait and see' monetary policy response is appropriate to ensure that economic growth continues.

Volatility is likely to arise more often. is one reason for the U.S. central bank to be "cautious" as it considers when to raise rates.

I think moving in June would be on the basis of further improvement in the labor market. [But] I don't think we want to get ahead of ourselves.

I would say the threshold for having confidence that inflation is sustainably moving up towards our 2 percent inflation target is pretty high. I'd be surprised if we met that condition, myself, in April.

Accommodative policy continues to be appropriate. But it does have an upwards slope to it. If [the data] come in stronger, then everybody would adjust upwards.

I'm a little nervous about business fixed investment, [considering] the decline in energy and the fact that we produce energy more now. It's a different type of exposure than we faced 10 or 15 years ago. My assessment is the economy is going to be strong enough [and] we'll be raising rates two times this year. It could well be more if we do better.

From my perspective, the costs of raising the federal funds rate too quickly far exceeds the costs of removing accommodation too slowly.

There's obviously more volatility in financial markets at the moment. How things will settle out is still a little unsure.

I think appropriate policy is consistent with some of the most accommodative dots on the chart.

We've indicated that conditions look like they could be right for an increase. The real side of the economy is looking a lot better.

A very shallow funds rate path, such as the one envisioned by the median FOMC participant, is appropriate.

No quotes...
More Charles Evans quotes
|< <
> >|