With Warsh's debut approaching, the Fed may hold off on monetary policy for now, but what the market is really worried about is not a pause.
2026-06-09 21:29:23
On Tuesday, June 9th, the Federal Reserve entered a crucial window ahead of its June 16-17 policy meeting. The core of market discussion is no longer about how many rate cuts will be made this year, but rather how, during Warsh's first meeting as chair, the Fed will rebuild its response function amidst recurring inflation, resilient employment, oil price shocks, and policy independence. The Fed's current target range for policy rates remains at 3.50% to 3.75%, and its April statement acknowledged that high inflation and rising energy prices have increased uncertainty.
The most likely baseline scenario for the Federal Reserve's June meeting is to keep interest rates unchanged while toning down its previously dovish rhetoric. The official schedule indicates that economic projections will be released at this meeting.
For traders, the key is not the 3.50% to 3.75% range itself, but whether the statement continues to hint at a more likely rate cut. The April meeting already showed clear divisions, with some members supporting maintaining interest rates but opposing a continued accommodative stance. This indicates that the debate within the committee has shifted from "when to cut rates" to "whether to reopen the option of rate hikes."
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 172,000 in May, and the unemployment rate remained at 4.3%, having stayed within a narrow range of 4.3% to 4.5% since July 2025. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month and 3.4% year-over-year. This data does not indicate a rapid cooling of the labor market, and is certainly insufficient to support the Federal Reserve releasing a clear easing signal before inflation falls.
This is also the first constraint Warsh faces. If employment remains close to full employment, the inflation target, one of the Fed's dual mandates, will receive greater weight. Continuing to emphasize a rate-cutting path at this point could be interpreted by the market as tolerating inflation above target, thereby pushing up term premiums and inflation risk compensation.
The U.S. PCE price index rose 3.8% year-on-year in April, while the core PCE rose 3.3% year-on-year, both significantly higher than the 2% target. During the same period, personal consumption expenditure increased by $111.1 billion, service expenditure increased by $67.2 billion, and goods expenditure increased by $44 billion, indicating that price pressures are not solely stemming from energy projects.
The oil price shock remains the first link in the chain. The latest outlook from the energy sector estimates that global oil inventories will decline by an average of 8.5 million barrels per day in the second quarter, pushing Brent crude oil prices close to $106 per barrel in May and June, and is expected to fall back to $89 per barrel in the fourth quarter. However, if the resumption of key transportation routes is delayed by a month, near-term oil prices may be more than $20 per barrel higher than currently forecast.
The second link in the chain is the transmission of tariffs and import costs, while the third is the price pressure on semiconductors and memory brought about by the expansion of AI infrastructure. Industry research shows that the price of traditional DRAM has risen significantly since the second half of 2025, and the demand for HBM and server-related memory is changing capacity allocation, strengthening the bargaining power of suppliers.
From a policy perspective, the Federal Reserve's internal research framework does not support a hasty shift to easing. The Cleveland Fed's recently updated simplified policy rules show that most rules project the federal funds rate higher than the current range; for example, the SPF Taylor rule projects 5.55% for the second quarter of 2026, and the low output gap weighting rule projects 3.73%.
The Boston Fed's research on oil price shocks also suggests that, under the current economic structure, the negative drag on employment from rising oil prices is weaker than in the 1970s, but the transmission to core PCE warrants attention. If energy shocks no longer significantly suppress employment, the Fed will find it more difficult to use "supply shocks should not lead to interest rate hikes" as the sole reason.
Therefore, Warsh's safest communication path is neither to announce an interest rate hike nor to cater to demands for rate cuts, but rather to acknowledge the increased inflation risks, remove unilateral forward guidance, and re-anchor decisions on a balance of data, expectations, and risks. This would avoid an immediate shock to financial conditions while preserving flexibility for subsequent policies.
Question 1: Why did the Federal Reserve likely hold off on monetary policy at its June meeting?
A: The market is not currently demanding an immediate interest rate hike. While employment remains strong, structural divergence persists, and the sustainability of the impacts from oil and chip prices needs to be observed. Maintaining interest rates avoids excessive volatility, while adjustments to the statement allow for a more neutral response function.
Question 2: Why is inflation more critical than employment?
A: The unemployment rate has remained stable at 4.3%, indicating that the pressure on employment targets is limited. However, the PCE and core PCE are still significantly higher than 2%. If the Federal Reserve continues to hint at interest rate cuts, it could easily undermine the credibility of inflation.
Pausing interest rate hikes is not a shift to a dovish stance, but rather a way to create space for communication.
The most likely baseline scenario for the Federal Reserve's June meeting is to keep interest rates unchanged while toning down its previously dovish rhetoric. The official schedule indicates that economic projections will be released at this meeting.
For traders, the key is not the 3.50% to 3.75% range itself, but whether the statement continues to hint at a more likely rate cut. The April meeting already showed clear divisions, with some members supporting maintaining interest rates but opposing a continued accommodative stance. This indicates that the debate within the committee has shifted from "when to cut rates" to "whether to reopen the option of rate hikes."
Employment data compresses the narrative of interest rate cuts, but wages remain sticky.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 172,000 in May, and the unemployment rate remained at 4.3%, having stayed within a narrow range of 4.3% to 4.5% since July 2025. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month and 3.4% year-over-year. This data does not indicate a rapid cooling of the labor market, and is certainly insufficient to support the Federal Reserve releasing a clear easing signal before inflation falls.
This is also the first constraint Warsh faces. If employment remains close to full employment, the inflation target, one of the Fed's dual mandates, will receive greater weight. Continuing to emphasize a rate-cutting path at this point could be interpreted by the market as tolerating inflation above target, thereby pushing up term premiums and inflation risk compensation.
Inflationary pressures stem from three chains; the problem isn't just oil prices.
The U.S. PCE price index rose 3.8% year-on-year in April, while the core PCE rose 3.3% year-on-year, both significantly higher than the 2% target. During the same period, personal consumption expenditure increased by $111.1 billion, service expenditure increased by $67.2 billion, and goods expenditure increased by $44 billion, indicating that price pressures are not solely stemming from energy projects.
The oil price shock remains the first link in the chain. The latest outlook from the energy sector estimates that global oil inventories will decline by an average of 8.5 million barrels per day in the second quarter, pushing Brent crude oil prices close to $106 per barrel in May and June, and is expected to fall back to $89 per barrel in the fourth quarter. However, if the resumption of key transportation routes is delayed by a month, near-term oil prices may be more than $20 per barrel higher than currently forecast.
The second link in the chain is the transmission of tariffs and import costs, while the third is the price pressure on semiconductors and memory brought about by the expansion of AI infrastructure. Industry research shows that the price of traditional DRAM has risen significantly since the second half of 2025, and the demand for HBM and server-related memory is changing capacity allocation, strengthening the bargaining power of suppliers.
Walsh's Narrow Path: Retain Hawkish Options, But Avoid Immediate Conflict
From a policy perspective, the Federal Reserve's internal research framework does not support a hasty shift to easing. The Cleveland Fed's recently updated simplified policy rules show that most rules project the federal funds rate higher than the current range; for example, the SPF Taylor rule projects 5.55% for the second quarter of 2026, and the low output gap weighting rule projects 3.73%.
The Boston Fed's research on oil price shocks also suggests that, under the current economic structure, the negative drag on employment from rising oil prices is weaker than in the 1970s, but the transmission to core PCE warrants attention. If energy shocks no longer significantly suppress employment, the Fed will find it more difficult to use "supply shocks should not lead to interest rate hikes" as the sole reason.
Therefore, Warsh's safest communication path is neither to announce an interest rate hike nor to cater to demands for rate cuts, but rather to acknowledge the increased inflation risks, remove unilateral forward guidance, and re-anchor decisions on a balance of data, expectations, and risks. This would avoid an immediate shock to financial conditions while preserving flexibility for subsequent policies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: Why did the Federal Reserve likely hold off on monetary policy at its June meeting?
A: The market is not currently demanding an immediate interest rate hike. While employment remains strong, structural divergence persists, and the sustainability of the impacts from oil and chip prices needs to be observed. Maintaining interest rates avoids excessive volatility, while adjustments to the statement allow for a more neutral response function.
Question 2: Why is inflation more critical than employment?
A: The unemployment rate has remained stable at 4.3%, indicating that the pressure on employment targets is limited. However, the PCE and core PCE are still significantly higher than 2%. If the Federal Reserve continues to hint at interest rate cuts, it could easily undermine the credibility of inflation.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
