Federal Reserve press conference, 2024-01-31 — Chair Jerome Powell

Question (Jeanna Smialek, New York Times): Jeanna Smialek from the New York Times. Thanks for taking our questions. Obviously, in the statement and just in your remarks there, you note that you don’t want to cut interest rates without greater confidence that inflation is coming—coming down fully. I wonder—what do you need to see at this point to gain that confidence? And as you make those decisions, how are you weighing recent strong growth in consumer spending data against the sort of solid inflation progress you’ve been seeing?
Answer: Okay. So, what are we looking for to get greater confidence? Let me say that we have confidence. We’re—we’re looking for greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably down to 2 percent. Implicitly, we do have confidence, and it has been increasing, but we want to get greater confidence. What do we want to see? We want to see more good data. It’s not that we’re looking for better data. It’s—we’re looking at continuation of the good data that we’ve been seeing, and a good example is inflation. So we have six months of good inflation data. The question really is, that six months of good inflation data—is it sending us a true signal that we are, in fact, on a path—a sustainable path down to 2 percent inflation? That’s the question. And the answer will come from some more data that’s also good data. It doesn’t—it’s not that the six-month data isn’t—isn’t low enough. It is. It’s just a question of, can we take that with confidence that we’re moving sustainably down to 2 percent? That’s really what we’re thinking about. In terms of, of growth, we’ve had strong growth. I mean, if you take a step back, we’ve had strong growth—very strong growth [in real GDP] last year—going right into the fourth quarter. And yet we’ve had a very strong labor market, and we’ve had inflation coming down. So I think—whereas a year ago, we, we were thinking that we needed to see some softening in economic activity—that hasn’t been the case. So I think we, we look at—we look at stronger growth. We don’t look at it as a problem. I think, at this point, we want to see strong growth. We want to see a strong labor market. We’re not looking for a weaker labor market. We’re looking for inflation to continue to come down, as it has been coming down for the last six months.

Question (Jeanna Smialek, New York Times): And I’m sorry. If I could just follow up very quickly, the—when, when you say that you want to make sure that it’s a true signal, is there anything that you’re seeing in the data that makes you doubt that it’s a true signal at this stage?
Answer: No, I think it’s—I, I would say it, it seems—it seems to be the likely case that, that we will achieve that confidence, but we have to achieve it, and we haven’t yet. And so—I mean, it’s a good story. We have six months of good inflation [readings]. But you can—and you know this—you can look behind those numbers, and you can see that a lot of it’s been coming from goods inflation, for example, and goods inflation running significantly negative. It’s a reasonable assumption that, over time, goods inflation will flatten out—probably approximate zero. That would mean the services sectors would have to contribute more. So, in other words, what we care about is the aggregate number—not so much the composition. But we, we just need to see more. That’s where we are, as a Committee. We need to see more evidence that sort of confirms what we think we’re seeing and that tells us that we are on—gives us confidence that we’re on, on a path to—a sustainable path down to 2 percent inflation.

Question (Nick Timiraos, Wall Street Journal): If I could ask differently: If, if you hold rates high as inflation moderates, as it—as it has been, target rates will exceed the prescriptions of the Taylor rule or its variants. What would be the reasoning for holding rates higher than the levels recommended by those rules in the current instance?
Answer: Well, I—look, I think, as you know, we consult the range of Taylor rules and, and non-Taylor kind of rules. We consult them regularly. They’re in our, our Tealbook, and, and they’re in all the materials that we look at. But, you know, I don’t think we’ve ever been at a—at a place where we were—where we were setting policy by them. And there—depending on the rule, it will tell you different things. There are many different formulations. Another way to think about it is, implicitly, is—so, in theory, of course, real rates go up if—holding all else equal—as inflation comes down. But that doesn’t mean we can mechanically adjust policy as real rates—sorry—as inflation comes down. It doesn’t mean that at all, because, for one thing, we, we don’t know—we, we look at more than just the fed funds rate. We look at—broadly—financial conditions. But, in addition, we don’t know with great confidence where the neutral rate of interest is at any given time. But that also doesn’t mean that we wait around for—to see, you know, the economy turn down, because that would be too late. So we’re really in a risk-management mode: of managing the risk—as I mentioned in my opening remarks—managing the risk that we move too soon and move too late. And I think to move, which is—which is where almost everyone on the Committee is—is in favor of, of moving rates down this year—but the timing of that is going to be linked to our gaining confidence that inflation is on a sustainable path down to 2 percent.

Question (Howard Schneider, Reuters): Hi. Thanks, Chair Powell. I’d like you to, to key in on the use of the word in, in the statement that inflation still “remains elevated.” You’ve pledged to cut rates before inflation reached 2 percent. So that implies that there’s some sort of intermediate step here on, on inflation and that a, a cut would be consequent with a change in the statement language that inflation “remains elevated.” What’s the step-down from there?
Answer: Yeah, I, I don’t know that we’ve worked out the particulars— statement language and that kind of thing. I would just say, if you look at—you know, look at where, where 12-month inflation is, and it’s, you know, it’s still well above—core is 2.9 percent, for example—12-month—which is way down from where it was. Very, very positive development—very fast decline—and, and, you know, the, the case is likely that it will continue to come down. So, so that’s where—that’s where it is. But we’re, you know, we’re wanting to see, you know, more data.

Question (Howard Schneider, Reuters): So, if I—if I could follow up on that, the statement allows that you want greater confidence on inflation falling before you cut, but it doesn’t mention the other side of the mandate—a slide in employment. Would a slide in employment also bring you to the point of, of cutting rates?
Answer: Yes. So let me say that we’re not looking for that. That’s not something we’re looking for. But, yes, if you think about, you know—in, in the base case, the economy is performing well—the labor market remains strong. If we saw an unexpected weakening in, in—certainly in the labor market, that would certainly weigh on cutting sooner. Absolutely. And if we saw inflation being stickier or higher or those sorts of things—would argue for moving later. In the base case, though, where, where the economy is healthy and we have, you know, we have ongoing growth—solid growth—we have a strong labor market—we have inflation coming down—that’s what people are writing their SEP [submissions] around. And in that case, what we’re saying is, based on that, we think we can and should take advantage of that and, and be careful as we approach that question of when to begin to dial back restriction.

Question (Claire Jones, Financial Times): Claire Jones, Financial Times. Just to circle back to the “greater confidence” aspect of the statement, there’s been a lot of unanimity in recent meetings. I’m just wondering, going forward, when it comes to all needing greater confidence, is there unanimity or, at least, consensus among FOMC members about what the threshold for that greater confidence is? And if not, could you maybe tell us a little bit about the discussion today on, you know, what the variations between FOMC members was on what constitutes enough confidence to cut rates and also if there was any variation on how quickly that “greater confidence” threshold could be reached? Thank you.
Answer: So we’re not—we’re not really at that stage. You know, we’re— we’re—there was no proposal to cut rates. Some people did, you know, talk about their view of the rate path. I would point you to the [December 2023] SEP as, as, you know, as good evidence of where people are, although it is—it is [now] one [FOMC meeting] cycle later. So, you know, we’re not—we’re not at a place of, of really working out those kinds of details, because we weren’t actively considering, you know, a—moving, moving the federal funds rate down. I will say, there is a—there is a wide disparity—a healthy disparity—of views, and you see that in public, public statements, in the minutes, and the transcripts when they’re released every five years. So we do have a healthy set of differences, and I think that’s actually essential for making good policy. We’re also able to reach agreement, generally, because we listen to each other— we, we compromise. And even though not everybody loves what we do, they’re able to—for the most part—able to join in. To me, that’s a well-functioning public institution.

Question (Rachel Siegel, Washington Post): I guess, just as a quick follow-up—do you feel comfortable at this point saying the economy has reached a soft landing, or is that part of looking for more confidence?
Answer: No, I wouldn’t—I wouldn’t say we’ve achieved that. And I, I think we have—we have a ways to go. Inflation is still—you know, core inflation is still well above target on a 12-month basis. Twelve months is our, our target, certainly. I’m encouraged, and we’re encouraged by the progress. But, you know, we’re, we’re not—we’re not declaring victory at all at this point. We think we have a ways to go.

Question (Steve Liesman, CNBC): But, but how much restraint are you actually imparting to the economy, would you say, relative to the neutral rate?
Answer: It’s—so I think it’s, it’s—of course, you know that it’s not something you can identify with any precision. But if you—a standard approach would be to take the nominal rate—5.3 percent, let’s say—and subtract sort of a, a forward measure of inflation. If you do that—and there are many, many ways to calculate the neutral rate—but that’s one I like to do. And, you know, you’re going to get to something that is materially above mainstream estimates of neutrality—of the neutral rate—you will. And—but at the same time, you look at the economy, and you say, “This is an economy that grew 3.1 percent last year.” And, and you say, “What does that tell you about the neutral rate?” What’s happening, though, is, the supply side has been recovering in the middle of this. So that, that won’t go on forever. So a lot of the growth we’re seeing is not—is—it isn’t just a tug of war between, between interest rates and demand. You’re getting, you know, more activity because of the—of labor market healing and supply chains healing. So I think the question is, when that peters out, I think the, the, you know, the, the restriction will show up probably more, more sharply.

Question (Christopher Rugaber, Associated Press): Hi, Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on Rich’s question. It sounded like you suggested that you’re not worried about faster growth so much—so wanted to see if you’re seeing anything that suggests that inflation could reaccelerate from here. And it sounds like you’re saying you’re not worried that solid growth from here on out poses any risk to inflation. Thank you.
Answer: No, I think that that is a risk—the risk that inflation would, would reaccelerate. I think the, the greater risk is that it would—that it would stabilize at a level meaningfully above 2 percent. That’s, that’s, to me, more likely. Of course, if—if inflation were to surprise by moving back up, that would—we would have to respond to that, and that would— that would be a surprise at this point. But I have to tell you, that’s why we keep our options open here and why we’re not, you know, rushing. So I, I think both of those are risks, but I think the more likely risk is the one that I mentioned, which is, you’ve had six good months—very good months—but what, what’s really going to “shake out” here? You know, where—what will— when we look back, what will we see? Will, will inflation have dipped and then come back up? Are the last six months flattered by factors that are—that are one-off factors that won’t repeat themselves? We don’t think so. We don’t—you know, that’s not what we think, but that’s the question we are asking. We have to ask [that], and we want to get comfort on that.

Question (Christopher Rugaber, Associated Press): And just one quick follow-up—Governor Waller had mentioned the revisions that are coming on February 9th for the CPI data. Is that something you’re watching as well? And if, if we see those revisions fairly minor, is that going to give you more confidence where things are going?
Answer: We’ll just have to see. Yeah. We’ll—we look at those. Last year was a—was a, a surprise.

Question (Michael McKee, Bloomberg): Michael McKee, Bloomberg Radio and Television. If you don’t want to use the term “soft landing,” would you say, at least, that, from your point of view now, the other scenario of a hard landing caused by the Fed is off the table or the risks have diminished very much? And you mentioned below–2 percent inflation for—on a three-month basis, core PCE has been running at 1½ percent. And there are those on Wall Street who think that if you maintain the level of restriction you have right now, you could end up with inflation running below your target. How do you see that?
Answer: So, how to—your first question—how to describe where we are? So I guess I would just say this—executive summary would be that growth is solid to strong over the course of last year. The labor market—3.7 percent unemployment indicates that the labor market is strong. We’ve had just about two years now of, of unemployment under 4 percent. That hasn’t happened in 50 years. So it’s a good labor market. And we’ve seen inflation come down. We’ve talked about that. So we’ve got six months of good inflation data and an expectation that there’s more to come. So this is a—this is a good situation. Let’s be honest. This is a—this is a good economy. But what’s the outlook? That’s looking in the rearview—the outlook—we do expect growth to moderate. Of course, we have expected it for some time, and it hasn’t happened, but we do expect that it will moderate as supply chain and labor market normalization runs its course. The labor market is rebalancing, as, as I mentioned. Job creation has slowed. The base of job growth has narrowed. And, of course, 12-month inflation is, is above target and getting, you know, getting down closer to target. It’s not guaranteed, but we do seem to be getting on track for that. So those are the risks and, and questions we have to answer. But, overall, this is a pretty good picture. It, it is a good picture. Your second question was—sorry.

Question (Michael McKee, Bloomberg): Could you get inflation that is below target—end up with inflation below target, and you have to do something about that?
Answer: So we—the thing is, we’re not looking for inflation to tap the 2 percent base once. We’re looking for it to settle out over time at 2 percent. And the same thing is true if we have a month or two of lower—and we have that now—of, of inflation that’s annualized at a—at a lower level—that wouldn’t be good. We’re not—you know, we’re not looking to have inflation anchor below 2 percent. We’re looking to have it anchor at 2 percent. So if we do face those circumstances, then we’ll have to deal with that. I think—I think as of now, you know, the, the question, which—we want to take advantage of this situation and finish the job on inflation while keeping the labor market strong.

Question (Edward Lawrence, Fox Business): On, on the—is this the start of a—when we see a cut, is it the start of a cutting cycle, or is it—could it just be a one-off?
Answer: You know, that’s going to depend on the data. The whole thing is, this is going to depend on the data. We’re going to be looking at the economic data as it affects the outlook and the balance of risks. And we’re going to make our decisions based on that. And it could wind up—you know, we’ll, we’ll have another SEP at the March meeting, and, and people will write down what they think. But, in the end, it’s really going to depend on how the economy evolves. We talked about, there are risks that would cause us to go slower—for example, stronger inflation—more, more persistent inflation. There are risks that would cause us to—if they happen—that would cause us to go faster or—and sooner. And that would be a weakening in the labor market or, for that matter, very, very persuasive lower inflation. Those are the kinds of things. So we’re just—we’re just going to be reacting to the data. That’s the— that’s really the only way we can do this.

Question (Victoria Guida, Politico): Hi. Victoria Guida with Politico. Could you talk a little bit more about productivity growth? You know, you’ve mentioned multiple times about, you know, the level of wage growth that’s consistent with 2 percent inflation. We’ve obviously seen, you know—you were talking about ECI this morning, in which it’s cooled a little bit but still sort of above what you wanted to see. Growth has been very strong. How much of those numbers do you attribute to productivity? And do you see that productivity as sort of just temporary because of the factors—the labor and supply chain factors you were talking about—or do you think that productivity growth will, will fade over time?
Answer: So this is a really interesting question. And I think—my, my own view is—I think if you look, look back to the pandemic, you, you saw a spike in productivity as workers were laid off, and, and activity didn’t decline as fast. And then you saw a deep trough of productivity. And then, over the last—you saw high productivity last year, in ’23. I think we’re, we’re basically in the throes of getting through the pandemic economy. And the question will be, what, what is it that has changed the—you know, the productivity tends to be based on, you know, fundamental aspects of our economy. Is there—is there a case—will it be the case that we come out of this more productive on a sustained basis? And I don’t know. I don’t know. What would it take? It would take—you know, people talk about AI, but I would—my guess is that we may shake out and be back where we were, because I don’t—I’m not sure I see—work from home doesn’t seem like it’s a big productivity increase. Or AI, artificial intelligence— generative it may be, but probably not in the short run—probably, maybe in the longer run. So I’m not—I’m not seeing why it would, but, you know, right—you know, right now I would say that productivity is kind of what falls out of the, the broader forces that are driving people in and out of the labor force and, and activity returning and supply chains getting fixed.

Question (Victoria Guida, Politico): Right. So would that be behind why we’ve seen such strong growth, but we’ve also seen inflation fall—that maybe there’s just a higher level of productivity?
Answer: That’s one way to look at it. Yeah.

Question (Nancy Marshall-Genzer, Marketplace): Hi, Chair Powell. Nancy Marshall-Genzer with Marketplace. I want to ask a little bit more about housing. I’m wondering—how closely are you watching rent and housing prices as you evaluate whether and when to cut rates? And it seems like housing prices are not coming down as quickly as you expected.
Answer: So when we think about, you know—our, our statutory goals are maximum employment and price stability, and that’s what we’re targeting. We’re not targeting housing price inflation, the cost of housing, or any of those things. Those are very important things for people’s lives. But they’re not—you know, those are not the things we’re targeting. We’re also well aware that when we cut rates at the beginning of the pandemic, for example, the housing, housing industry was helped more than any other industry. And when we raise rates, the housing industry can be hurt, because it’s a very interest-sensitive sector. On top of that, we have longer-run problems with the availability of housing. You know, we have a, a built-up set of cities, and, and, you know, people are moving further and further out. So there’s—there hasn’t been enough housing built. And these are not—these are not things that we have any tools to address. But, you know, where it comes into play very specifically in our work is inflation, which is a combination. It’s, it’s really rental inflation. You’re taking owners’ equivalent rent and then actual rent paid by tenants. And you’re, you’re running that through the CPI calculation. Or the PCE [inflation] calculation—the one we look at. And what that’s telling you is that market rents are increasing at a much lower rate or even being flat and that that will show up in inflation over time. It has to as long as that remains the case.

Question (Nancy Marshall-Genzer, Marketplace): And just real quick—what is your response to the letter that was sent to you by some members of Congress asking the Fed to lower interest rates to make housing more affordable?
Answer: My response is what I started with, which is that our, our job—the job Congress has given us is price stability and maximum employment. Price stability is absolutely essential for people’s lives, most importantly for—well, not most importantly—most, mostly for people at the lower end of the income spectrum who are living at the edges—at the margins. And so someone—for someone like that, high inflation in the—in the necessities of life—right away, you’re in trouble, whereas even middle-class people have some, you know, some scope to absorb higher costs. So we have to get—it’s our job. It’s what society has asked us to do, is to get inflation down, and the tools that we use to do it are interest rates. So that’s how we think about that.

Question (Courtenay Brown, Axios): Courtenay Brown from Axios. Can you give us some insight into whether the Committee discussed the possibility of slowing balance sheet runoff in the months ahead?
Answer: Yes. So I would start by saying that balance sheet runoff so far has gone very well. And as the process has continued, you know, we’re getting to that time where questions are beginning to come into greater focus about the pace of runoff and all that. So at this meeting, we did have some discussion of the balance sheet, and we’re planning to begin in- depth discussions of balance sheet issues at our next meeting in March. So those, those questions are all coming into scope now, and we’re focusing on them. But we’re, we’re at the beginning of that process, I would say.

Question (Courtenay Brown, Axios): Quick follow-up—is it the case that the Fed would decide to lower rates and make adjustments to the balance sheet runoff in tandem?
Answer: Yes, we do—we see those as independent tools. And so they don’t—for example, if you’re—if you’re normalizing policy, you might be reducing rates but continuing to run off the balance sheet. In both cases, that’s normalization, but from a strict monetary policy standpoint, you could say we’re loosening along with tightening. So that, that could happen. It’s not something we’re planning or thinking about, but right now, we’re thinking about getting to a place where—we’re going to see the balance sheet runoff to continue. We’re watching it carefully, and, as I said, we’ll—we’ll be looking into that as a Committee starting in March.

Question (Simon Rabinovitch, The Economist): Simon Rabinovitch with the Economist. Thank you, Chair Powell. You’ve mentioned six good months of inflation data, but that not being enough to build up confidence. Based on your previous response that your base case is you probably wouldn’t start easing yet in March, the implication is that eight good months might not be enough, either. Roughly how many months do you think you might need of, of good inflation data to be—to be confident?
Answer: I’m, I’m not in a position to put a number on it. I’m just going to say—and it’s not that we don’t have any confidence. We, we have growing confidence, but not to the point where we—where we feel like—it’s a highly consequential decision to start the process of, of dialing back on restriction. And we want to get that right, and we feel like the strong economy, strong labor market, inflation coming down—it gives us the ability to do that. We think that’s the best way we can serve the public, because, ultimately, we, we’ve made a lot of progress on inflation. We just want to make sure that we do get the job done in a sustainable way. That’s how we’re thinking about it. In terms of when that’ll be, you know, that, that’ll all come out of our communications, and, you know, we won’t—we won’t keep that a secret.

Question (Greg Robb, MarketWatch): Thanks. Greg Robb from MarketWatch. Chair Powell, I want to change gears a little bit. In the presidential primary campaign that’s been going on for the last nine months or so, your name has come up often, and many Republican candidates had said that they probably wouldn’t want to give you a third term. So I wanted to give you a chance to talk about that. Do you want another term—you’ve had—on the Fed? What, what’s your stance on that?
Answer: I don’t have a stance on that. It’s not something I’m focused on. [We’re] focused on doing our jobs. We have—this year is going to be a highly consequential year for, for the Fed and for monetary policy. And we’re, all of us, very buckled down, focused on doing our jobs.

Question (Jennifer Schonberger, Yahoo Finance): Thank you, Chair Powell. Jennifer Schonberger with Yahoo Finance. As you mentioned, core PCE [inflation] has been running at 1.9 percent over the past six months. And you guys are actually expecting core inflation higher this year, at 2.4 percent, compared to that six-month measure. Given that forecast and that the median is for three rate cuts this year, what happens if inflation stays where it’s been over the last six months for the next six months?
Answer: So I—you know, we’re going to do—we’ll update our, our inflation forecasts at the next meeting. You referred to the December meeting. That’s, that’s, you know, three months old [by March], so it might be lower now, given the data we’ve gotten. So, look, as I mentioned, we’re going to be reacting to the data. If, if we get—if we get very strong inflation data and it, it kicks back up, then it’ll—then we’ll go slower or later or both. If we got really good inflation data soon, that would matter for both the—that, that would tell us that, that we could go sooner and perhaps go faster. So we’re just going to be—but, of course, we’ll weigh that with all the other factors. We’re setting policy based on the totality of, of the data.

Question (Daniel Avis, Agence France-Presse): Hi, Chair Powell. Daniel Avis, Agence France-Presse. I just wondered if I could get your comment on the recent consumer confidence data. It seems to suggest that consumers are sort of moving towards a much more optimistic view of the economy. I just wonder—is it fair to say that they’re moving towards where the Fed appears to have been in recent months? And, you know, do you think that inflation and falling inflation perhaps has played a role in that? And what challenges do you see, going forward? Thank you.
Answer: Yeah, so it’s been—it’s been interesting that confidence surveys have been weak, at a time when unemployment has been low—very low, historically low—for a couple of years. And—but, nonetheless, that’s been the case. And we’ve asked ourselves why that is. And, you know, one obvious answer—we don’t pretend to have perfect wisdom on this—is—but one obvious answer is that the price level is high. So prices went up much more than 2 percent for year—per year for a couple of years. And people are going to the store, and they’re paying much more for the basics of life than they were two years ago—three years ago. And they’re not happy about it. And it’s fine that inflation is coming down, but the price—the prices they’re paying are still high. So that, that is what—that, that has to be some part of why people are unhappy. And they’re, they’re right to be unhappy. You know, this is why we need to keep price stability. It’s why we need to do our jobs—so that people don’t have to deal with things like this. In terms of [surveys]—you’re right. In, in recent, recent surveys, a couple of—you’ve seen a couple of significant increases in, in consumer confidence or, or happiness with the economy. I guess that’s a good thing. That can—that can support spending—can support economic activity. There’s some evidence of that. But it is—it is a fact that we have seen, you know, a meaningful increase. I think levels of confidence are still maybe not as high as they’ve been at various times. But it’s—they certainly have come up.

Question (Bryan Mena, CNN): Thank you for taking our questions. Bryan Mena, CNN Business. Committee members have said they’d like to meet with business leaders and stakeholders in person to learn more about the economy in real time, given that some data is subject to large revisions, the issue of seasonal adjustments being thrown off balance, and many readings of the economy being quarterly. So did any members say they’ve learned anything not reflected in the data? Or have you yourself learned anything through anecdotal evidence that hasn’t been captured in the data yet?
Answer: Well, yes. I’m, I’m a big believer that—yes. So we, we do meet with outside groups who come from all different parts of the economy. And I always feel like you—I mean, I spent most of my life in the private sector looking at companies—individual companies—individual management teams—and then building out from that. And so, starting with GDP data is—and working into what’s actually affecting people’s lives is—is challenging. It’s very hard. So I, I really like anecdotal data. In addition, as you know, the 12 Reserve Banks have really the best network of anyone. In all their Districts, they’re talking to, you know, not just the business community, but the educational, medical, all, all—you know, nonprofit community. They have arms into all of that. And so when they come back—that’s what goes into the Beige Book. But they come back, and what each Reserve Bank president does is, during the outlook go-around, they’ll say, “In my District . . .” And they’ll talk about 100 conversations they—not—they won’t talk—they, they will give you input, based on 100 conversations that they’ve had with people of all different walks. And it’s—I personally find it very helpful in understanding what’s going on. And also, I think you hear things before they show up in the data sometimes.

Question (Bryan Mena, CNN): Did any of them—did any of them notice slowing economy based on what they’ve heard from, like, their District?
Answer: Yes. I mean, if you—if you look back at the last—not this Beige Book, but the one before, it was more—there was a lot of “slower activity.” I think that, that what you’re hearing now is, is, things are picking up a bit. You’re hearing—not, not in every District and not every, every person that we talk to, but you’re—overall, it feels like you’re hearing things picking up at the margin. So that’s what comes through.