FED: Hawkish Or At Least Patient Fedspeak To Kickstart Post-FOMC Period

Today sees a resumption of Fedspeak starting with those who either definitely or likely objected to Wednesday's cut. 

• 0800ET – Philly Fed’s Paulson (’26 voter) speaks on the economic outlook (text + Q&A). We suspect she was likely one of the six dots who objected to a cut this week with their dot plot choice, but any indications on 2026 view would be more notable having talked on an increasingly high bar to cutting as the Fed approaches a level where policy starts to be accommodative. She had described the higher unemployment rate of 4.44% in September as still being in the “neighborhood of full employment” and generally viewed the data as encouraging. "On the margin, I’m still a little more worried about the labor market than I am about inflation, but I expect to learn a lot between now and the next meeting." We watch for any indications of what she learned on the latter.
• 0830ET – Cleveland Fed’s Hammack (’26 voter) was very likely one of the soft dissenters for this week and we suspect she’s also likely one of the 3 dots who would have preferred to have kept rates on hold at previous levels through 2026 as well. She said Nov 20: “Inflation has been running above the Fed's 2% objective for four and a half years. Lowering interest rates to support the labor market risks prolonging this period of elevated inflation, and it could also encourage risk-taking in financial markets”.
• Chicago Fed’s Goolsbee (’25 voter, next voting ’27) is likely to publish a dissenting statement at some point today but failing that, he speaks on CNBC at 0830ET before appearing at an economic outlook symposium at 1035ET (just Q&A). He is the least hawkish of the dissenters (soft or otherwise) preferring a hold, having indicated beforehand that he objected to the near-term move amidst a data fog and that he clearly still sees rate cuts over the medium-term.
• Kansas City Fed’s Schmid (’25 voter, technically next set to vote in 2028) is also likely to publish a second dissenting statement. His October statement argued that he didn’t see a rate cut doing much to address stresses in the labor market that were likely arising primarily from structural changes in technology and demographics. He had also since warned that inflation is too high and that rate cuts could put the Fed’s commitment to 2% inflation in question.