Many officials at the Federal Reserve did not think the central bank should lower interest rates in December when they voted last month for a second cut in a row, according to minutes from October’s meeting. The record of the latest gathering, released on Wednesday, highlighted a divide that has only deepened since officials opted for a quarter-point cut that brought interest rates down to a range of 3.75 percent to 4 percent. Some policymakers who supported the reduction could have also supported the Fed standing pat, the minutes said, while several were against a cut.
“In discussing the near-term course of monetary policy, participants expressed strongly differing views about what policy decision would most likely be appropriate at the committee’s December meeting,” the minutes said.
October’s decision was already divisive. It featured a rare two-way dissent. Stephen I. Miran, whom President Trump recently picked to join the Fed’s board of governors, again voted for a larger, half-point reduction and Jeffrey R. Schmid, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, voted against any move at all. It was the third meeting in a row in which the interest rate decision was not unanimous.
If the Fed does not cut interest rates next month, that will surely inflame tensions with President Trump, who has repeatedly lambasted Mr. Powell and attacked the politically independent central bank for not lowering borrowing costs as swiftly as he would like. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump revived a threat to remove Mr. Powell before his term ends in May, saying that he would “love to fire his ass.”
The core of the disagreement revolves around how to balance a labor market that has started to show some signs of strain against inflation, which has gained momentum because of Mr. Trump’s tariffs and moved even further from the Fed’s 2 percent target. Some officials appear more inclined to look past the temporary price pressures stemming from tariffs and assume that, over time, their impact will fade. Instead, they harbor much greater concern about companies pulling back on hiring and the prospects of unemployment spiking.
In a separate camp sit officials who worry far less about the slowdown in monthly jobs growth, which they believe is a function of a reduction in the supply of available workers as a result of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown. They do not believe interest rates are weighing too heavily on economic growth and instead believe that the Fed should be far more focused on the fact that inflation has remained stuck above the central bank’s target for nearly five years.
New economic data typically plays a pivotal role in helping to resolve outstanding differences between officials and has proved crucial for allowing Mr. Powell to forge broad support for policy decisions. But the recent government shutdown, which stretched on for over 40 days and was the longest on record, has upended the release of a range of monthly reports, including those tracking payrolls growth and inflation. That has meant the Fed has not had a clear view of how the economy is faring since August.
The government data drought will start to ease this week, with September’s jobs report released on Thursday and another metric tracking prices for that month for goods and services that companies use to make products out the next week. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for collecting the data and publishing its findings, said on Wednesday that it was delaying the release of the November jobs report to Dec. 16, roughly a week after the December interest rate decision. The agency said it would also publish part of October’s jobs report at that point.
Without important data in hand, the December decision looks even more uncertain than it did just a few weeks ago. Several policymakers have already made clear that they do not think the Fed should cut at that point. But the case for cutting still has powerful backers. One of the most vocal supporters is Christopher J. Waller, a governor who is in the running to replace Mr. Powell as Fed chair. In a speech this week, Mr. Waller emphasized that the labor market was near “stall speed” and that inflation concerns were overblown.

”our guy says we are doing great "
That raises an interesting question. Assuming this is for someone in retirement, what would ”doing great” mean YTD?
Someone sitting 100% in cash would think 5% YTD is “great.”
Playing in longer dated CDs …. maybe 7%?
With 100% in a balanced fund 10% might appear “great.”
For an actively managed broadly diversified portfolio +15% might be “great “
With an hefty exposure to gold / precious metals, +30% YTD might represent “great”.
Disclosure: My performance has not been “great”, but is OK. I’ve managed to step on my own toes a few times this year.

Trump's "influence" over the markets has been greatly exaggerated, IMHO.
I don't know that Orange, Bessent & co. can really stem the tide once it goes out.

Winning, as it relates to investing, means having the financial means to achieve your goals.
Beating some arbitrary benchmark is irrelevant.

None of my friends like to talk about investing. From the little that they’ve said, it seems that they all use financial advisors. I’ve got no problem with that, but find investing very interesting and would enjoy talking about it.

All over X today was the fact that for the first time since April 30 the S@P closed below its 50 day moving average. The fifth longest uptrend since 1950. Going into today we had something like 5 Hindenburg Omens, One in and of itself is pretty meaningless. But 5 much more meaningful. It is easy to be bearish here but still, I don’t trust Trump and as previously mentioned think he will pull out all the stops to keep stocks and bonds afloat before mid terms next November.
Some history on the Hindenburg Omen
https://www.mcoscillator.com/learning_center/weekly_chart/hindenburg_omen_fires_5_signals/

'''Why EGRIX and then switch to EIGMX? because after a decline, a more volatile fund would make more.""
OR just possibly continue to lose more?