Whoever puts together their analysis and reporting really has no clue what they are talking about and should just stop.
Leaving aside the issue of a term premium, which I am happy to do, fed funds futures prices reflect the mean of a probability distribution that includes a series of rate hikes, a single rate hike, no change, and a rate cut or series of same. So unless you are looking at the very next meeting, for which the policy option is roughly known to be nothing or up 25, you simply cannot infer from futures prices the odds of a binary event.
Last December, the fed funds futures market thought the odds of a rate hike this coming meeting, taken in isolation, were 90%? Sure, pal.
And what the hell does this mean? Geeze, guys so hawkish.
Really. Bloomberg, either pay up to hire somebody who knows remotely what they are talking about or just stop.
Of course, this does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Anybody interested in this issue professionally knows to ignore this nonsense. The reason I find it irksome is that it is symptomatic of a general tendency in the lame stream media just not to care.
Why would it be any different in, say, politics? I doubt it is. Saturation coverage of emails for a month before the most important election in the century. Now we got the new guy wanting his son in law to get the presidential daily briefing. Oh, the deep concern for national security!!