about things you might be able to do on the regulatory side as well. thank you. >> we can make changes to bank regulation supervision. i don't know that we have the ability to make changes, for example, in mortgage payments, if that's what you're thinking of, or credit card payments. that's something that could be legislated or could just be what the banks themselves are doing. there's been a tremendous amount of forbearance on the part of the banks and i guess overall, our role would be to encourage it but those aren't decisions we hold any legal authority to make. we have encouraged those decisions. i hope that's responsive to your question. >> scott from npr. reporter: thank you, mr. chairman. i know given your [ inaudible ],

do you think it's important that congress extend the relief of extra unemployment benefits? >> i think we try to keep our comments on fiscal policy at a high level. i'll come to your specific question but i would just say this. this is the biggest economic shock in the u.s. and in the world, really, in living memory. we went from the lowest level of unemployment in 50 years to the highest level in close to 90 years and we did it in two months. extraordinary. and appropriately, the response from fiscal authorities has been large, forceful and very quick by the standards of these things. roughly $3 trillion congress has authorized and that's benefiting households, laid off workers, small, medium and large businesses, hospitals, state and local governments. 14% of gdp, it's in a class by

itself in terms of both the size and speed of it. it's also pretty innovative. both the ppp and the unemployment insurance are quite innovative in the american context. there were difficulties in implementing them but that's really a function of their novelty, i think. those programs, by the way, let me add the fed also innovated and acted forcefully, proactively and aggressively as well. you put those together, all of that is making a difference now. you look at the income data, the expanded unemployment insurance and also the stimulus checks have gone a long way to replacing lost income from job loss. i think you're seeing it in the job market data. many are giving the ppp credit on that front. and in keeping small businesses going. so so far, it's a good response, it's having a big effect. the question is, everyone can see that it's big. is it going to be big enough. that is a question.

and the question that i have been concerned about, really, is this issue of longer run damage to the economy. we are doing a fair job of getting through these first few months, more than a fair job. the question, though, is that group of people who won't be able to go back to work quickly, what about them. that could be many millions of people. who worked in parts of the economy that will be the slow ones to recover. we want those people back in the labor force, we want them getting jobs, and they are going to need possibly, probably will need further support. i would just say this. it's possible that we will need to do more and it's possible that congress will need to do more. in terms of the $600 unemployment insurance, i wouldn't try to give congress advice on the specifics of that. i know they are looking at, i mean, i know from both talking to people and reading the papers that they are looking at a whole bunch of different possible approaches going forward, and some of those seem kind of promising.

so you know, we're happy to give advice if people ask for it but probably not publicly. >> david gurra. >> thank you, chair powell. i will pick up on what scott asked you just a moment ago. you have been studious about threading this needle in the interviews you have given and speeches and the colloquy that's followed. not giving advice to congress but indicating that there's likely to be a need for more fiscal stimulus, for additional policy in the future. i'm going to try a hypothetical here. you can rebuff it if you want. if you were to find yourself in a senator's office, with the unemployment report which you describe as unexpectedly positive and a welcome surprise, he or she said to you look, this is an indication we have been putting on the brakes, i wonder what you would say? your message throughout this crisis has been one of how

unprecedented it is, about how much urgency there is in dealing with this, we have seen that from the federal reserve. i wonder if you worry that that sense of urgency isn't being matched and what the consequences of that might be if there's a fear the fed could be seen as sand in the gears as we look at this unemployment report and through the sner aummer and have more and more politicians waiting to see what happens in terms of the report and a quick second question. you talked about your fear of how a second wave of this disease, it strikes me there's difficulty here with definition. you have talked about us weathering this crisis and getting through this storm. it seems to me as i listen to the chatter coming from the white house, the politicians and epidemiologists, there isn't agreement on what getting through this means. you have an administration now inclined to if not direct, be content with states opening up their economies perhaps too early. how problematic is that from a policy perspective, not having agreement on what it means to have defeated this virus or gotten to a place where the economy can reopen? >> i will provide a little

context. i want to be clear about the picture. one way to look at the picture, really. that is this. you can get at this by looking at, you know, the widest measure of unemployment, of labor market slack, if you will, is the u-6 measure. the one we talk about all the time is called u-3 by economists. the one that has a much broader measurement of slack in the economy is u-6. so in u-6, the u-6 level of unemployment has tripled from 7% to 21%. that amounts to 22 million additional people who have lost work in the economy. either by going to part-time or something like that. so that's in the low 20s. that's post the may employment report. you can get at it a different way. you can look at just the regular unemployment rate. you can take the 21 people who list as unemployed now, you can

add more on for the ones who are miscoded, you can also take those people who are suddenly out of the labor force, you put those together and that has gone up by about 24 million. so those are two different measures of what's happened. the question is, 22, 24 million people, got to get them back to work. somehow we got to all as a country get those people back to work. they didn't do anything wrong. this was a natural disaster. i do think the response so far has been great. so that's the way i would think about it. if you think -- i would just, in terms of the may employment report, it's so nice to see, i mean, i think what people were thinking was that you would start to get those back to work kind of numbers in june and july and august. very few people saw them in may. almost no one saw them happening as early as mid-may but it did. so you know, we don't know fully what that means, whether it's just a timing change or whether it will prove to be much more than that. we are going to have to wait and see. as i mentioned earlier, it is

clear evidence of just how uncertain things are and how humble we have to be about our ability to really have confident predictions as opposed to just predictions. so bottom line, i would just say that is the key thing people need to understand is that there's just a lot of work to do in the labor market. we are going to stick with this and support that until the work is done. that is something we are going to do with all of our tools. i think it may require congress to help as well. it may. but that's going to be their decision. you also asked about the second wave. we have major responsibilities and powerful tools, but the decision about when to reopen the economy is one for elected officials at the state and local and federal level, and you know, if they ask, we don't have any particular expertise here at the

fed in pandemics or coronaviruses or anything like that. we talk to experts, but you know, so we don't have anything special to add on that. i would just say, you know, it's kind of self-evident, i think, that if it happens, you know, the issue would be first of all, people's health but secondly, you could see a public loss of confidence in parts of the economy that will be already slow to recover. so it could hurt the recovery even if you don't have a national level pandemic. just a series of local ones, of local spikes could have the effect of undermining people's confidence in traveling, in restaurants and entertainment, anything that involves getting people together in small groups and feeding them or flying them around. those things could be hurt. so it would not be a positive development and i will just leave it at that.

>> edward lawrence. reporter: thank you, chairman powell, for the question. on the main street lending facility, in may we saw at least 55 companies file for bankruptcy. do you think that it is too late, first of all. second of all, does the future of these facilities, is this a one-year impact to the economy, to these facilities, or is this a multiple year, if so, how many years? >> we have, you know, significant interest, we think, and also remember, lots and lots of companies are getting financed, too. the banks are lending, the markets are open. you ha you have a much better lending climate than certainly than we had in february and march. we don't think it's too late, though. we do expect it to be quite soon. in terms of the timing of these things, so you know, we will leave them open for new loans as long as they need to. that will be a decision we make,

of course, with our colleagues at the treasury department, and at a certain point there won't be a need for further loans and then the assets will be there, and so i don't know if that's part of your question, too. i would just say at that point, you know, the useful role of the federal reserve is probably close to an end at that point. we don't have any expertise in managing pools of credit assets, loans, if you will, or bonds, and you know, we don't want -- we don't really want to be part of the decisions that have to be made to manage such a portfolio. we would be looking to have that done either some place else or by a third party or at the treasury department or something. we are working on ideas for that. but our real focus now is on getting these facilities going and getting them to do the job that they need to do.

reporter: i have two quick questions. one is, if we have hit bottom for the economy. the second question is regarding the way that the pandemic has exacerbated racial inequality. i want to talk to what effect you can factor in both. >> i would say that many forecasters had been expecting a bottom for the economy around the middle of the year, with a huge range of uncertainty. i think the labor market, the evidence of one jobs report is that the labor market may have hit bottom in may. we don't know that. we are going to see. you know, many forecasters widely expect a recovery over the second half of the year so it is possible, but the thing is, we are not going to

overreact to a single data point. we are going to be very careful about reaching any conclusions about good data or bad data. i think we are going to be here with our tools supporting this economy for as long as it's needed. i think there's a possibility that the bottom has come in the labor market but we don't know that yet. we will know more as we go forward. so in terms of, you know, the effect of the pandemic on inequality, what you see, the pandemic of course hits everybody, but in an economic sense, it hits those industries that involve groups of people in tight groups either in places where it's the travel, leisure, restaurant, bars, those kinds of service economy jobs, and so a lot of the lost jobs were from

people who work in the service economy dealing with the public, for example, and relatively compared to other jobs, relatively low wages. so if you just look at what that is, unemployment has gone up more for hispanics, more for african-americans and women have borne an extraordinary, a notable share of the burden beyond their percentage in the work force. so that's really, really unfortunate because if you just go back two months where we were was we had effectively the first tight labor market in a quarter century and for the last couple of years before the pandemic hit, you were seeing wages go up the most for people at the lower end of the wage spectrum. that was great. we were meeting with people from low and moderate income communities all over the country and hearing don't change this, do whatever -- do whatever you can, keep this going, this is the best labor market we've

seen. we had every expectation, every reason to expect that this would continue, and then this comes. it's heartbreaking. and you know, we want to get it back. we really want to get it back. so i think we learned a number of things over the course of the last few years. one of them is that, you know, you can have 3%, 3.5% unemployment for a couple of years and really, you see modest moves in wages and relatively, almost invisible moves in inflation. so that was not anybody's understanding of the structure of the economy, i think, or most people's, anyway. so we can use our tools to support the labor market and support the economy. we can use them until we do fully recover and that's what we are planning to do. you know, we don't target different groups. we are cognizant of the fact, though, that late in the last cycle, late in the last

expansion, the benefits really do go more to people at the lower end of the wage spectrum, for the first time in many years, when labor markets are tight, when unemployment is low. so we would really like to get back to that place. reporter: victoria guido with politico. i wanted to follow up on a couple of things that have already been asked. first, on fiscal policy, you put out your summary of economic projections today. i'm curious to what extent fiscal policy is factored in or not factored into those projections and how more or less fiscal policy might affect those projections. then my other question is on main street, you mentioned multiple times that the fed and treasury are willing to expand

the program further so my question is, what's the threshold for those types of changes? is it just making sure that borrowers that want to borrow through the program are able to do that? >> in terms of the way we do forecasts is we don't -- we don't tend to incorporate things we are highly uncertain about. i think the forecast would not have included substantial additional, you know, big additional fiscal support for the economy. maybe a modest amount. something that looks like a low end guess on what might come out of the current negotiations. that's basically what would be in the baseline. of course, if there were more fiscal support, you would see better results sooner, but that's a question for congress. we are spending a lot and that's really what they get to decide. in terms of main street and our willingness to expand it further, i think one thing we are looking at very strongly looking at is nonprofits and is

there a way to incorporate them into that facility or a similar facility, so that's another dimension. you know, if we had the great idea for changing main street, we would have done it and we have done some things that i think are really very positive lately here. but as we learn more, it could be in terms of size, it could be in terms of lots of different things. but i think we have a good product to go to market with now. i think it will get out there soon and you know, we'll see and we'll be willing to continue to adapt. reporter: chair powell, [ inaudible ] are expecting to be recalled by their employers. at this point, what is your

expectation of how much of these job losses will be permanent? >> clearly not everyone will go back. and i would say many will go back but what's going to be the remainder when, you know, when we reach sort of what is the new normal. it's so uncertain. it could be a good number of millions of people, i think in many estimates. but i would say you are so early in the process. people are, for example, going back and looking at other significant changes in the economy and they have seen how many people go back when, for example, there's technological change and things like that. you may have seen some of this research. and you come up with an estimate, you know, it's going to be very hard to say. but my assumption is that there will be a significant chunk, well into the millions. i don't want to give you a number because it's going to be a guess. but well, well into the millions

of people who don't get to go back to their old job and in fact, there isn't -- there may not be a job in that industry for them for some time. there will eventually be, but it could be some years before we get back to those people finding jobs. when people lose a job, if they can find a job in their own industry, that's usually the fastest way is they know other people in that industry, different kinds of jobs, that's usually the fastest. if you have to go to a different industry and start over again, it's much harder and that's where you start to lose people who are just, they fall out of the labor force and you know, it's very tough on their lives. we all know people to whom that happened in the global financial crisis, and hence our desire to do what we can to support this and support this recovery with the tools that we have.

reporter: chair powell, i'm wondering, i want to go back to the issue of inequality. i'm wondering what more could the fed do [ inaudible ] economic equality in this country? is there a way you could use, for example, the black unemployment rate as some kind of benchmark, something you want to meet or something you keep track of? >> we track all unemployment by all kinds, as you know, all kinds of different demographics including particularly the african-american unemployment rate, which reached an all-time low since the data started being kept in the modern era. of course, it's still close to twice the white unemployment. it is twice the unemployment rate or it was, back -- it's certainly much higher now. you know, the best thing we can do with our monetary policy tools is to look at the evidence

that we saw with our own eyes recently which is that the economy can have very low unemployment, very low unemployment. it could have been lower than 3.5% without seeing financial imbalances, without seeing inflation getting out of control. we frankly didn't even get inflation back up to target. without seeing wages getting out of touch with where they should be. so that's the biggest thing we can do. you know, inequality is something that's been with us increasingly for more than four decades and it's not really related to monetary policy. it's more related to there are a lot of theories on what causes it but it's been something that's more or less been going up consistently for more than four decades and there are a lot of different theories, one of which just is globalization -- globalization and technology call for rising levels of skill,

aptitude and education and the u.s. educational attainment kind of flattened out certainly relative to our peers, flattened out over that period, so that means if you are on the right side of those trends, then those things are good for you. if you're not, your wages will stagnate. wages for the bottom, you know, 10% really haven't gone up in real terms in a very long time. over a long period of time, whereas wages for people at the top, compensation any way you cut it before taxes, after taxes, after transfers, all of those, any way you cut it, wages -- compensation has gone up a whole lot for people at the top and really hasn't gone up for people at the bottom. if you look more in the middle, then it has gone up for most other groups but at the bottom, not so much in real terms. inflation adjusted terms. we call it out as an important factor in the economy and we will use our tools to support maximum employment and take that, you know, definition to

heart. but obviously, that's something that's going to require an all of society, all of government response. >> for the last question, we go to bloomberg news. reporter: mr. chairman, michael mckie, bloomberg television and radio. i came across a statistic the other day, since your march 23rd emergency announcement, every single stock in the s&p 500 has delivered positive return. i'm wondering given the levels of the market right now, whether you or your colleagues feel there is a possible bubble growing that could pop and set back the recovery significantly or that we might see capital misallocation that will leave us worse off when this is over, and second, inequality is not just about wages. it's also about wealth and a number of studies have suggested that by keeping rates low for so long and targeting the markets

after the great financial crisis, that the fed did contribute to wealth inequality in this country and i'm wondering if you think there is some tweak or some message you could give that would affect that. >> what we have targeted is broader financial conditions. if you go back to the end of february and early march, you had basically the world markets realized at just about the same time, i remember that monday, that there was going to be a global pandemic and that this possibility that it would be contained in one province in china for all practical purposes was not going to happen. it was iran, italy, korea, and it became clear and markets from that point forward, investors everywhere in the world for a period of weeks wanted to sell everything that wasn't cash or a short-term treasury instrument. they didn't want to have anything at any risk at all.

so what happened is markets stopped working. they stopped working and companies couldn't borrow, they couldn't roll over their debt. people couldn't borrow. that's the kind of situation that can be -- financial turbulence and malfunction -- a financial system that's not working can greatly amplify the negative effects of what was clearly going to be a major economic shock. so what our tools were put to work to do was to restore the markets to function. i think some of that has really happened. as i mentioned in my opening remarks and that's a good thing. we're not looking to achieve a particular level of any asset price. what we want is investors to be pricing in risk like markets are supposed to do. borrowers are borrowing, lenders are lending. we want the markets to be working. again, we're not looking to a particular level. i think our principal focus is on the state of the economy and

on the labor market and on inflation. inflation, of course, is low and we think it's very likely to remain low for some time, below our target, so really, it's about getting the labor market back and getting it in shape. that's been our major focus. i would say, you know, if we were to hold back -- we would never do this, but the idea, just the concept that we would hold back because we think asset prices are too high, others may not think so but we just decided that that's the case, what would happen to those people, what would happen to the people that were actually legally supposed to be serving? we are supposed to pursue maximum employment and stable prices. that's what we're pursuing. we are also pursuing financial stability. but there you have a banking system that is so much better capitalized, so much stronger, better aware of its risks, better at managing its risks, more highly liquid, you have all of those things and they have been lending, they have been taking in deposits, they have

been a source of strength in this situation. i would say that you know, we are tightly focused on our real economy goals and again, we're not focused on moving asset prices in a particular direction at all. it's just we want markets to be working and i think partly as a result of what we've done, they are working. we hope that continues. thank you very much. ashley: there you have it. great uncertainty about the future, thanks to the greatest economic shock to the u.s. and the world in living memory. those are the words of federal reserve chairman jerome powell, who as you just saw, wrapped up the june press conference. first time he's had a chance to talk about economic forecasts in six months. powell saying a full recovery is unlikely to occur until people are confident to resume activities stunted by the coronavirus pandemic. powell holding the virtual presser as you saw after the fed held interest rates near zero in

a unanimous decision. the fed aiming to keep it that way for the next two years. essentially two and a half years. it will also continue to buy bonds but its outlook shows that gdp contraction of 6.5% this year with a rebound to 5% next year. as for jobs, the fed sees the unemployment rate ending the year at around 9.3% and inflation of just 1% this year. well, it's interesting. the markets dipped very briefly, then turned positive after the decision and mulling it over, but right now as you can see, the dow dropped again, down 115. the s&p has been volatile, the s&p now barely positive, up just one point. the nasdaq, though, has remained positive as we have seen money come out of those growth stocks and go back into big tech. the nasdaq right now, if it closes like this, a record close above 10,000. 10,076. we will have to see if that will happen. it would be its third straight

record close if that happens. as the fed talked, what does the ten-year treasury yield do? down 8.2 basis points. it was pushing above .9. it's now down to .47 -- .747 that is, yield on the ten-year treasury. as for the u.s. dollar, it has been weak of late. it hit session lows against the japanese yen and the euro after that 2:00 p.m. announcement. as you can see, off against the japanese yen. 1.27 against the u.s. dollar, the pound. the canadian dollar up. the euro up. of course, they were very weak for so long against the dollar but it's the dollar that's been slipping in recent weeks. take a look at the rate-sensitive financials with very low rates. you don't make much money on your loans. we are seeing all sorts of red. financials were kind of making a comeback but not recently. all the major banks moving lower. bank of america down another close to 5% at $26.90. lots to talk about. joining us now, andy brenner,

nat alliance securities global fixed income head, also joining us, mark banner from bank of america securities. andy, let me begin with you. your first blush, what did you make of this announcement? anything surprise you? >> the fed is still all in. they're not backing away at all. because of the good unemployment number and the improving economy even though from a very low level, there was thinking they might take a breather. you [ inaudible ] at 158, now it's either side of 70. we saw a tremendous amount of issuing and buying of new issued corporates. i got to tell you, i think the fed is still all in, will stay there and as long as the corporate bond market is able to come with the kind of issuance they have come, i think we are closing in on 1.2 trillion this year, i think we will be okay.

the fed hasn't even bought a bond yet in corporate terms. ashley: that's interesting. yeah. all right. that's good. mark, you agree with what andy had to say? basically, everything but the kitchen sink to help this economy recover. it's like the mario draghi ecb days, whatever it takes. certainly a strong message from jerome powell. >> i agree. i agree the fed is all in here. three main take-aways from the fomc today. one, they will remain very very dovish. they don't expect to raise rates at any point over their forecast horizon and their inflation and employment expectations suggest they should stay firmly on hold. two, the fed shifted to a monthly pace of asset purchases. they say they are going to buy at least $80 billion of treasuries a month, at least $40 billion of net agency mbs each month. i think that's very encouraging to the market. it provides some clarity, helps the market plan for all of the

upcoming treasury issuance that's coming down the pipeline and the fed retains flexibility to do more if they need to. third and finally, the fed is thinking about additional tools they could employ in their tool kit. chair powell talked about yield curve control. he noted that stit's still an on question, this is something the fed is still studying and if they put it in place it would reinforce forward guidance and maintain a very dovish stance from the fed for a long time. on net, this is going to keep rates low. it should be supportive of broader financial conditions and it should be good for risky assets, credit and equities over time. ashley: it's interesting, it kind of talks about steady growth. 9.3% unemployment by the end of the year but things picking up as we move forward. then also, at the same time, says we will keep rates near zero for the next two and a half years. obviously they can change their mind. is this an optimistic outlook or is it fair? >> i think it's fair. i think the fed wants to keep

things, look, we have never been here before. we have never had this kind of pandemic. you don't know whether there's going to be a second wave or not. you have never seen 40 million people get unemployed all at once. now we are at 25 million unemployed. that's what powell just said. so the fed wants to be absolutely certain that the economy comes back and that things go steady. otherwise it just becomes a real problem for the fed, the government, so on and so forth. i think it is a fair assessment. the fed is going to be all in, going to stay all in, and again, i think, you know, we talked about yield curve control. i know the other guest just talked about it. effectively, the fed is controlling the short end of the interest rates. two years, three years, maybe even five years are fully under the thumb of the fed. the question is, will the long bond be under the thumb of the fed. i don't think that's necessary right now. again, we look at corporate issuance as the game here, as to

whether the fed should do more or less. right now, we would like to see how it plays out. ashley: very good. got literally 20 seconds but i wanted to, mark, listen, what we heard from the fed, should this spark on the fiscal side, from the administration, maybe round four of direct payments? is that appropriate? >> well, the fed has been relatively agnostic but i think what the fed would like to see is further fiscal stimulus. if they can get it. the issues that plague the economy are well beyond what the fed can control right now. they need more fiscal stimulus to come down the pike in order to try and fill the shortfall in aggregate demand the pandemic has created. what the fed has told us is they will keep rates low and that should allow for any additional fiscal stimulus to come at a rel tif relatively low cost to the taxpayer. ashley: very good. gentlemen, thank you for joining us to talk about fed. we appreciate it.

markets making a bit of a comeback after fed chair jerome powell's press conference. let's get to the floor show. teddy weisberg joining us. teddy, what was your biggest take-away from today's fed reserve statement? what little nugget did you get out of that? >> well, the nugget is that they are going to stay the course and they pretty much told us where interest rates are going to be for the next couple of years. i heard nothing that would make me nervous as an equity investor, you know, perhaps we should be nervous because the market's had a big move here for the last four or five weeks, and maybe due for a rest, maybe we give a little back, but there was nothing i heard that would make me nervous unless, of course, i was a saver because we are looking at zero interest rates for the next couple years and perhaps that's a negative for the financials. overall, it should be a positive for the markets going forward. ashley: yeah. phil flynn, what's interesting to me is the dow, the markets couldn't figure out what they

wanted to make from the statement today but you know, look, basically we have got your back, says the fed. whatever it takes, we will do it. yet the dow is off 161 points. what do investors want? >> i think it was like a kid in a candy store, right? day two. you got everything you wanted, we are kind of full right now and we are trying to decide yeah, we want more but we don't know how much more we can take. i think that's the big question. i think teddy had it. we have had this incredible run in the stock market. we got everything that the fed wants and more. but there was one thing that i think that was underplayed that jerome powell said that i think it's very important. he said if you want to avoid long-term damage to the economy, we are going the need some more help on the fiscal side. in other words, congress, we need more stimulus to help these businesses long-term because he's really concerned that if the government, you know, the

fed's doing everything they can do, obviously. he's looking to washington saying there's more that you need to do to fix some of these businesses so i think he sent a message to washington in a very clear way that their job is not done yet and we are going to probably need more stimulus to get this economy on solid ground for the long term. ashley: larry kudlow today hinted they are indeed looking at phase four. gentlemen, a pleasure. thank you for joining us. okay. let's take a quick check of those markets. the dow was down over 33 points at its low. now it's down 135 points. it was down more than 200 points as we were listening to jerome powell. but the nasdaq, you know what, we have seen money coming out of these rebounding stocks of late and going back into big tech and that's helped the nasdaq stay above 10,000. if we can stay there, that will be a third record and first time the nasdaq has ever closed above

10,000. big tech leading the way. let's take a look at a couple of today's movers. wedbush's dan ives hiking tesla's price target to a thousand bucks on predictions that tesla will announce the million mile battery. how about that. tesla up $83 at $1,024. that stock surging past even that prediction to a record high as it stands close to 9% on the day. been a good recent run for elon musk and tesla. apple also hitting a record after deutsche bank and evercorps raised their price target, citing demand prospects for new iphones. you can see apple up another ten bucks at $354. gamestop, meanwhile, has had some disappointing earnings reported but analysts remain hopeful for the stock. it's up 5%. that's just 27 cents, $5.23 stock. but they say e-commerce sales have surged, as you can imagine. gamestop getting a little bump

from that. starbucks, meanwhile, expecting to swing to a loss in its fiscal third quarter on $3.2 billion in lost revenue because of the coronavirus pandemic. that's a big number. the stock down 3.5 cents at $79.42. okay. you saw fed chairman jerome powell's news conference live right here on fox business. our very own edward lawrence was in that zoom box and has a breakdown for us. edward? reporter: yeah. it was right here. this little zoom box. you know, what struck me was how the federal reserve president or chairman jerome powell really talking about main street, trying to figure out how to help boost the main street economy, even more than past fed chairmen. he believes that we will have a terrible second quarter and rebound in the third and fourth quarter. he also said, struck me as very interesting, we might have reached the bottom in the labor market in may. they thought it would be june

but he said possibly may. they will look at data to see if that is in fact what happened. the federal reserve talked about yield curve caps, also extended forward guidance but left that on the table. it's still on the table but not been acted upon. a lot of people have heard about the payroll protection program, keeping people attached to their job. that's something the fed chairman said is key. they have the main street lending facility, after two months of working on this, it is still not operational, saying it's going to come into effect soon. that's meant to help small -- larger small businesses and smaller medium sized businesses. i wanted to know if now is too late. listen. >> a much better lending climate certainly than we had in february and march. we don't think it's too late, though. we do expect it to be up quite soon. in terms of the timing of these things, you know, we will leave them open for new loans as long

as they need to. that will be a decision we make of course with our colleagues at the treasury department. and at a certain point, there won't be a need for further loans and then the assets will be there. reporter: he said, went on to say the tools they have remaining out there will stay in place until we are solidly on the road to recovery. whenever that full recovery is, he believes we can get back there at some point. back to you. ashley: great stuff, edward lawrence. thank you very much. appreciate that. all right. let's turn to the airlines. boeing, by the way, dragging on the dow for a second straight day after reporting it delivered just four planes in may. the aircraft giant also warning of a four-year delay on its $44 billion air force tanker program. one bright spot, a key 737 max certification flight could be coming later this month. but airlines and cruise lines getting hit in a travel stock selloff today. boeing off ten bucks. let's get to cheryl casone in

the fox business newsroom. cheryl? cheryl: yeah, that's right. a new forecast says the airline industry is going to lose a record $84 billion this year and will not be profitable until 2022 at the earliest. all those stocks as you can see on your screen in the red, especially american, down more than 7%. this is despite the news, despite airlines like american and united beginning to restore those flight schedules for july. now, the international air transport association sees a 55% drop in passenger traffic this year, incredible, and a $16 billion hit for next year, a loss of 32 million jobs is also forecasted. all of this with the $25 billion in government aid given to airlines to soften the blow of the pandemic. u.s. airlines carried three million passengers in april. that's down 96% from april of 2019. you mentioned cruise lines. take a look at the group right now, also hard-hit. some are hoping to set sail

later this summer but as you can see, carnival down almost 9%. royal caribbean down and norwegian really hit, almost 13%. but it could be years, folks, years before this group actually starts to recover. globally this cruise industry group should carry 32 million passengers and take in $71 billion in revenue. experts say that will fall by at least 50% this year amid the coronavirus pandemic, not a lot of people looking to take a cruise right now. they are just too nervous. ashley: with 3,000 other close friends on a boat. okay. got it. cheryl casone, as always, great stuff. thank you very much. by the way, it is back to the drawing board for dish network. or is it? their deal with t-mobile which was finalized months ago is now being renegotiated by dish chair charlie ergen. our very own charlie gasparino has those details. what's going on? charlie: you thought i heard the last of the t-mobile/sprint

merger story. you haven't. it's still being played out right now. we moved the stock of dish yesterday down because we were reporting that the deal of dish to buy boost mobile, boost is a prepaid carrier, targeted to low income individuals, it was one of the divestitures demanded to allow the merger to go through. that sale to dish is hitting some really rough waters. here's what we know right now. the date to get it done is july 1 so we are rapidly approaching that. telecom sources are telling fox business that t-mobile is now currently, because these negotiations are getting so rocky with charlie ergen, the head of dish, they are looking at other options including possibly finding other buyers. they will have to find another buyer for boost. they have to get rid of boost to make the deal work from a

regulatory standpoint and if they can't get charlie ergen nailed down, terms with him that are favorable, they are going to look some place else. we should point out that ergen's motive to renegotiating this thing essentially is the coronavirus. it has hurt businesses. it has apparently really hurt the prepaid mobile business which again, focuses on lower income people, people who obviously don't have a lot of money right now because of the pandemic and the economic crisis that it caused. again, fox business yesterday reported that this thing could be in trouble. the stock went down. we should point out that dish's sale of boost is integral to getting this deal done. i'll tell you, there are so many moving parts to this deal. charlie ergen is supposed to step in, not just buy boost but create another wireless carrier to take the place of sprint, which is merging with t-mobile. i'm not sure how that's going -- how all this is going to sit with the justice department, which we understand is trying to mediate and negotiate the deal as best it can.

as of now, what we have now is kind of a stalemate. renegotiation, people really annoyed on all sides, including t-mobile. they are frustrated at dealing with charlie ergen, i understand. nobody is commenting. they are not denying. but this is -- keep an eye on this. this could be a big story because if this deal doesn't happen, obviously t-mobile has to go out there and sell boost. what's really interesting, you would think they had this thing nailed down. apparently they never really had it nailed down. the writing maybe was in invisible ink. i can't tell you. one other thing i want to point out from an earlier report. we understand that major league baseball is right now working on a counteroffer to the players' last offer which was an 89-game season and full pro rated salaries. that is good news, if you want a longish baseball season because

rob manfred, the commissioner, will impose a very short season if the two sides, the owners and players, can't agree on something and who wants a 50 game season with maybe no world series? they are working on something. again, this could change. keep an eye on this. we could get some ideas whether and how much we have a baseball season as early as today or tomorrow. as you know, they are working on the draft. be interesting to see rob manfred talk about the draft and talk about this deal. back to you. ashley: yeah, the draft starts tonight and tomorrow. they ought to get back on the field, no doubt. charlie gasparino, great stuff. thank you very much. appreciate it. let's take a look at the big board for you. the dow now off 220. doesn't matter what jerome powell says about cheap money for a long time. the dow off 221. coming up next, we've got a triple threat. not one, not two, but three of our "countdown" closer all-stars. they are here on their top plays, what could be two years

of easy money in the market. we'll be right back.

ashley: the closing bell rings in very close to let's say eight minutes from now. the nasdaq, by the way, on the verge of history. nasdaq 10,000 about to become reality. long as we don't blow it. as the dow and s&p 500 struggle to find the gains they made immediately after the fed announced it will keep rates near zero for years. literally, two and a half years. the dow off 173. okay. let's get to our all-star "countdown" closer panel now. gibbs wealth management president erin gibbs is here along with leo kelley and haverford trust advise r. thank you for being here. cheap money is going to be

around for a long time. surely the markets like that. the fed says it will do anything in its power to make sure that there's enough credit flowing to households and businesses. got to be good for the markets. right? >> absolutely. this is really reassuring. what's actually concerning is we are looking at them saying they are going to keep interest rates low through 2022 and we really have been talking only about a recession lasting until 2021. i think that's a bit of a reassurance that we are looking at, credit open to the markets for several years to come. that's reassurance particularly for smaller and midsized companies. ashley: you know, hank, the fed chairman used the word uncertainty a lot. understandably because we don't know what's going to happen. he called the may jobs report, you know, it's just one report, it's not a trend. what did you make of their forecast? overoptimistic or maybe not so? maybe a bit pessimistic?.

>> look i think you buy on the rumor. sell on the news. i think everyone was expecting basically this type of report here. here is what investors should take away. we'll have low interest rates for a long period of time and the fed will do it whatever it takes and they have unlimited firepower. so i think the fed is going to be a huge tailwind for the market. let's recognize the market is up 43% on the dow from the far 23rd low. it probably need ad breather. ashley: it probably does. leo, let me bring you in. markets have been going gangbusters as hank just pointed out. if we get another round of stimulus, more direct payments if the administration comes through with whatever it is round four now, what kind of third quarter rebound could we be seeing?

>> third quarter rebound obviously between the chaos the fed bringing in and stimulus already occurred, plus a reopening that is happening faster than people expected i think should be quite good. i think the challenge for investors that's priced in, as is fed's commentary today and low interest rates for the next two years and so the big question is what comes next. not headlines we're reading today, but what is the next new piece of information we don't know. that goes back to what we talk about all the time, that is the rate of change. rate of change in the economic numbers. probably most importantly right now, the rate of change in the science around the coronavirus. which shockingly has taken a back seat over the last few weeks for obvious reasons but again we come back and say, as long as the science continues to project very quickly towards a vaccine or a therapeutic, and the fed and the treasury continue to support this gigantic hole that we've dug ourselves into then yes, the

market can sustain itself but we have to balance that out with the risk of significant amount of water we have to carry in this economy next couple quarters. ashley: erin, let me go back to you. what advice do you give your clients in a market where there is lot of uncertainty. we've been climbing a wall of worry you could say? where do you like to put your money right now, what are you looking at? >> i'm really focused on what i call recession resistant stocks, stocks that have enough cash and creditworthiness that they are able to get credit even with all the programs. then have high operating margins, not so much debt, particularly those, avoid those risking bankruptcy. a lot of software firms, f5 networks, microsoft. i like specialty retailers like home depot. and sherwin-williams as, they

have been proven to be somewhat recession resistant and really strong balance sheets. not everybody is going to return to work and we are going to see longer term unemployment, low credit, at least low rates are indication how bad the economy is. so we still need to be somewhat a little more conservative about the stocks we're choosing. ashley: hank, let me go to you, talking about picks, we're seeing a cycle of money coming out of the rebound stocks doing well recently, now selling off again. money going into the big tech stocks that make up nasdaq, do you like big tech here? where else are you looking? >> i think you have to like big tech. i agree wholeheartedly with what erin just said but i think it is equally important that investors focus on what not to buy. we would not buy the have-nots of retail, macy's, kohl's, gap,

tapestry to name a few names. we would not be buying airlines. they're too cyclical. they're for traders. not investors. we're investors. avoid energy as well. we might get a rebound in energy, the long-term of dynamics of supply and demand do not favor this industry in our opinion. beware of value traps. ashley: no retail, no airlines. leo, let me bring you in then, what do you like in this environment? what are you going for? >> well i think you have to take somewhat after barbell approach. everybody likes big tech. everybody likes what worked. the problem when price runs up that high, future returns are diminished by the very nature of the runup. for an investor to achieve long term returns you have to start to invest beyond the next few months in this immediate downturn, start to look at some financials, some of the cyclicals, some of the areas

that maybe have a bit more risk and of course that's where being active in that market, being very careful, where you make those picks becomes very important. but, if you are an investor, an equity investor, volatility is a part of the game and if you go for the hot low vol, i am afraid you might have lower returns. ashley: we'll have to leave it there. erin, leo, hank, thanks for joining us on fed day even though the dow is off 234 points but as hank said, we've been on a really good run. all of you think u thank you very much for joining us. with regard to the nasdaq could have third record close in a row. could have nasdaq 10,000. it is 10,028. 3/4 of a percent gain. we've seen movement out of equities especially groups doing well, cruise lines, airlines. even the financials. that money coming outgoing into

big tech. [closing bell rings] the dow off 259 points. all right. as i say good-bye, that will do it for the "claman countdown." thanks for joining us. liz back tomorrow. guys, take it away. connell: all right. 10-k and counting. that is your headline today. the nasdaq closing above the 10,000 mark for the first time ever and ending at a new record high for the third consecutive session. good to be with you. i'm connell mcshane. melissa: i'm melissa francis. this is "after the bell." the dow erasing gains made initially after the federal reserve announced it would keep interest rates near zero for the next two years. the s&p feel hundred also ending in the red. fox business team coverage. best of your memory best of your memory with blake burman from the white house. edward lawrence in washington. we kick it