Cathay Haitong: Wosh Nominated – Changes in Federal Reserve Independence and Responses to U.S. Debt Strategies

If you’re trading stocks, just look to the Golden Qilin analyst research reports—they’re authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive, helping you uncover high-potential thematic opportunities!

Guotai Haitong Securities Research

Report Overview: The shifting policy inclination of “Vosh”; the unchanging dilemma of the Federal Reserve’s independence. For U.S. Treasuries, the recommendation is to prioritize defense—keep duration neutral, and control volatility.

1． Focus on the Fed’s leadership transition: monetary policy and a forward look at the U.S. Treasury market

1.1 Historical patterns before and after a Fed chair transition: how monetary policy and bond market conditions change

Based on historical experience, the impact of a Federal Reserve chair transition on the bond market mainly shows up in three dimensions: increased yield volatility, adjustments to the shape of the yield curve, and re-pricing of the risk premium. The 6–12 months around the transition are usually the period with the highest policy uncertainty. The market has doubts about the policy stance, communication style, and independence of the newly appointed chair, and this uncertainty directly translates into higher bond market volatility and an expansion in the liquidity premium.

In terms of yield trends, during transition periods the bond market exhibits a clear “scenario-dependent” feature. When Greenspan–Bernanke handed over in 2006, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield’s fluctuation range was only 30 basis points within the three months before and after the handover, reflecting strong policy continuity. When Bernanke–Yellen handed over in 2014—at the start of the QE exit—10-year yields rose from 2.7% before the transition to 3.0% by year-end, reflecting the market’s re-pricing of the path of policy normalization. When Yellen–Powell handed over in 2018, with a strong economy and a rebound in inflation, the 10-year yield climbed quickly from 2.4% to 3.2%, accelerating the trend toward curve flattening. The market worried that the new chair would continue gradual rate hikes, leading to an inversion of the yield curve.

Regarding curve shape, transitions often trigger structural adjustments in the term spread. Historical data show that if the new chair is interpreted by the market as “dovish,” the short end is suppressed more by rate-cut expectations, steepening the curve; if seen as “hawkish,” the long end rises faster due to inflation concerns, and the curve first steepens then flattens. After Powell took office and continued rate hikes in 2018, the 2s10s spread narrowed from 50 basis points to within 20 basis points, eventually in 2019 inverting, which forced the Fed to pivot toward rate cuts. This “transition—policy expectations—curve adjustment—policy correction” feedback loop has been common historically.

On the risk premium side, during transition periods the Treasury volatility index (MOVE Index) averages increases by 15–25%, reflecting greater divergence in market views on the policy path. If the new chair comes from within the Fed or continues the prior policy framework, the rise in premium is relatively mild. If it is an external pick with a strong political color, market concerns about independence will significantly lift the term premium and the liquidity premium. In 2018, Powell was an external pick but policy continuity was strong: the MOVE index only spiked briefly and then fell. In contrast, after Volcker took office in 1979 and pivoted aggressively, bond market volatility stayed at elevated levels for as long as two years.

The transition environment in 2026 is even more complex: inflation stickiness, a pause in rate cuts, geopolitical risks, and tariff policy intertwine. On top of that, Trump continues to exert pressure on the Fed’s independence, making the market highly sensitive to the policy stance of the newly appointed chair.

1.2 Who Kevin Warsh is: career background and policy propositions

Kevin Warsh is 55 years old and a quintessential “Wall Street–White House–Federal Reserve” tri-sector elite. His career began in Morgan Stanley’s M&A division, where he served as Vice President and Executive Director from 1995 to 2002. In 2002 he joined the George W. Bush administration, serving as Executive Secretary of the National Economic Council and Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, overseeing domestic financial and bank securities regulatory policy, and acting as the chief liaison between the government and independent financial regulators. In February 2006, Bush nominated him to be a Federal Reserve Governor at age 35, making him the youngest governor in the institution’s history; he served until March 2011. During his tenure, he served as the Fed’s G20 representative, Special Envoy for Asian economic bodies, and Executive Governor (in charge of personnel and financial management). During the financial crisis, he was a member of the inner circle around Bernanke, acting as a middleman between central banks and Wall Street CEOs. After leaving the Fed, Warsh served as a visiting scholar at Stanford Graduate School of Business, an outstanding visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution, and wrote a monetary policy reform report for the Bank of England. The report recommended adoption by the UK Parliament.

On policy positions, Warsh is a steadfast “balance sheet hawk” and an “inflation hardliner.” In a recent interview, he clearly stated that “inflation is a policy choice, not an exogenous shock,” directly arguing that the Federal Reserve (not the supply chain or geopolitical conflict) should take full responsibility for the high inflation of 2021–2023. His core critique focuses on “complacency”: he believes the Fed misread inflation “as dead” in the “Great Moderation” era. The stable period from 2010 to 2020 failed to exit stimulus policy, forcing the system to cross more red lines when the real crisis (the pandemic) arrived, seeding the roots of inflation harm. Warsh argues that the Fed has deviated from its core mission of price stability, resulting in “institutional drift,” and requires reforms in a “revival, not revolution” manner.

At the level of monetary policy operations, Warsh previously advocated creating room for rate cuts through aggressive quantitative tightening (QT): “Use fewer printing presses, and interest rates can actually be lower.” This strategy has been interpreted as a compromise with Trump’s demands for rate cuts—allowing near-term rate cuts while withdrawing liquidity via balance sheet shrinkage to prevent inflation from rebounding. Warsh has long opposed making QE a standing, normalized policy. As early as 2009, when the unemployment rate was 9.5%, he argued the Fed should begin exiting easing and warned that excess reserves could trigger an unexpected surge in credit. In the 2010 QE2 debate, he held “substantial dissenting views,” arguing that monetary policy had reached its limit and that additional asset purchases could raise risks of inflation and financial stability. Market analysis suggests that if Warsh were to take charge of the Fed, he would push for a faster pace of rate hikes and MBS sell-offs, and substantially raise the threshold for initiating QE in the future, thereby reducing the pricing of the term premium in bonds. The core of his policy philosophy is “the Fed and the Treasury each handle their own tasks”: the central bank manages interest rates, the finance minister manages fiscal accounts, and debt interest burdens are addressed through “new agreements,” rather than blurring and intertwining them.

1.3 A recent shift in Warsh’s monetary policy stance: from inflation hawkishness to “pragmatic monetaryism”

Warsh’s recent policy inclinations have shown a significant shift—from traditional inflation hawkishness to support for rate cuts—triggering intense market debate about his true stance. Investors expect that if he is nominated, the yield curve would steepen, reflecting market concern about his hawkish history. However, some views interpret this shift as “signals, not beliefs”—the candidate adjusts his stance before nomination to align with the president’s policy preferences, making the approach more strategic than pressuring after appointment, because “the one who knows the times is a hero.”

The theoretical support for his stance shift is mainly based on two points. First, the AI-driven anti-inflation narrative. In a November 2025 column in The Wall Street Journal, Warsh emphasized that AI will act as a “powerful anti-inflation force” to raise productivity and strengthen U.S. competitiveness, and he argued that the Fed should “give up predictions about stagflation in the coming years.” He criticized a “dogmatic belief” that inflation results when workers earn too much, attributing inflation instead to “government overspending and excessive money printing,” not to overheating in the labor market. Second, the policy combination of “QT paired with rate cuts.” In July 2025, Warsh said that by substantially shrinking the balance sheet, it can “inject turbocharging into the real economy,” achieving a structural rate-cut effect; he said, “We are in a housing downturn, and the 30-year fixed mortgage rate is close to 7%.”

However, the market doubts the sustainability of his shift. Analyses generally point out that Warsh’s “hawkish monetaryism” stance may lead to a more cautious policy timetable. Notably, during Warsh’s 2006–2011 tenure—even at the most severe moments of the financial crisis—he still called for rate hikes, which sharply contrasts with his current statements supporting rate cuts. If inflation data in 2026 do not fall as expected, or if the AI productivity effect fails to materialize, the probability that Warsh returns to a hawkish stance would rise significantly.

1.4 Considering Trump’s “specialness”: the independence dilemma of the Fed chair nominee

Trump’s influence on the Fed has escalated from “Twitter pressure” in his first term to “systemic reshaping” in his second term. Of the current council’s seven seats, three are nominees of his: Bowman (Michelle Bowman) and Waller (Christopher Waller), appointed in the first term, and Miran (Stephen Miran), who took office in August 2025. But independence performance shows significant divergence. At the September 2025 meeting, Bowman and Waller refused to follow Miran’s aggressive demand to cut rates by 50 basis points, voting consistently with Powell, which Harvard economist Jason Furman described as a “positive signal for Fed independence.” By contrast, Miran’s stance is highly aligned with the White House. His 2024 report co-authored with others for the Manhattan Institute explicitly argues that “Fed independence is outdated,” suggesting that the president should have the right to fire Fed officials at will.

This divergence reflects the evolution of Trump’s nomination strategy: in his first term, nominees relatively respected professional backgrounds and academic positions. Although Bowman and Waller were viewed as “doves,” they maintained technological bureaucratic independence. In the second term, it shifted to “political loyalty first.” Miran’s background as an economic adviser, as well as his endorsement of the president’s tariffs and tax-cut policies, marks a change in nomination standards from “policy inclinations” to “political alignment.” Trump also tried to threaten Powell with Department of Justice investigations and to accuse Lisa Cook, a nominee by Biden, of mortgage fraud (Cook denies it). This would be the first time in the Fed’s 112-year history that a president has tried to remove a governor.

But Warsh’s nomination appears to follow a logic different from Trump’s effort to strengthen the Fed’s influence. Unlike Miran’s “presidential megaphone” role, Warsh is a “anti-establishment hawk”—he opposes excessive easing and mission drift at the Fed, not obedience to the president’s rate-cut orders. This creates an internal contradiction for Trump: the president wants “fast rate cuts, more rate cuts” to stimulate growth and reduce the burden of debt interest, but Warsh argues for “slow rate cuts, fast QT” to rein in inflation. History shows that a strong chair can overwhelm a majority of governors, and during the tenures of both Greenspan and Volcker, opposition votes were isolated and policy direction was dominated. After Warsh takes office, his “zero tolerance for inflation” stance will attract Bowman and Waller to return to the hawkish camp, while marginalizing the Miran-style doves; the FOMC voting pattern would shift from “balanced doves and hawks” to “hawks in the lead.”

We believe the way Trump selects nominees may be related to the following three points:

1）Warsh’s attitude shifting to support rate cuts. Since the second half of 2025, Warsh has gradually shifted toward supporting rate cuts in multiple public settings, emphasizing that the productivity gains brought by the AI technological revolution can effectively ease supply constraints, thereby creating space for a more accommodative monetary policy. This evolution contrasts sharply with his earlier image as an inflation hawk, showing a pragmatic adjustment in his policy thinking.

2）Enhancing policy credibility and market confidence. Compared with merely making dovish statements, Warsh’s argument for rate cuts based on a logic of technological progress is more persuasive in terms of the credibility of rate cuts and maintaining market confidence, and is more likely to win approval from Trump and Treasury Secretary Besent. This framing aligns with the administration’s policy goal of promoting economic growth while also avoiding concerns that excessive easing could trigger inflation.

3）Providing room for buffering policy risks. From the perspective of political economy, for Trump the Fed is still an important mechanism for dispersing policy responsibility. Warsh retains the professional “cautious” background of monetary policy while also leaving policy flexibility to coordinate with the White House’s economic agenda. This subtle balance of “principled and adaptive” can sustain the market’s baseline confidence in central bank independence, while providing room to explain and adjust if the effects of economic policy do not meet expectations—so risk can be shared between administrative and monetary policy.

1.5 A forward look at the Fed’s policy direction in the “Warsh era”

Looking ahead to subsequent policies, the Fed under Warsh may show three major characteristics:

1）Independence paradox intensifies policy uncertainty. Whether Trump can tolerate a “disobedient hawkish chair” is still unknown. Historical experience shows that once a Fed chair assumes office, independence is often gradually demonstrated based on professional reputation and institutional interests. The public conflict between Powell and Trump in 2018 is a case in point—although Powell was also nominated by Trump, the rate-hike path he insisted on after taking office ultimately triggered strong White House dissatisfaction. If Warsh encounters renewed White House pressure to cut rates, his firm resistance could lead to a replay similar to the Nixon–Burns conflict of the 1970s, leaving the bond market facing a double bind of “policy credibility discount” and “political intervention premium.”

2）Gradual convergence of the rate-cut path and the risk of “dove first, hawk later.” Based on Warsh’s latest remarks, he emphasizes that the interest-rate policy must retain room to “adjust flexibly,” and he has not explicitly promised to continue cutting rates. Combined with the signal from the January FOMC meeting to keep rates unchanged and Warsh’s long-standing vigilance toward inflation risk, the pace of rate cuts in 2026–2027 is likely to slow noticeably, and the magnitude of actual cuts may be significantly smaller than the market’s earlier expectations. More importantly, Warsh may present a policy trajectory of “dove first, hawk later”—at the beginning of his term, to stabilize market expectations and consolidate his position, possibly releasing relatively mild signals. But as his influence within the Fed system grows, his independence stance is likely to become clearer. Referencing the history that when the unemployment rate was still 9.5% in 2009 he still advocated exiting easing, if inflation shows signs of rebound, Warsh’s threshold to pivot to tightening could be far lower than the market expects.

3）Aggressive QT weakens support for the bond market. The sell-off of MBS and the fact that Treasuries maturing will no longer be reinvested will accelerate; long-end U.S. Treasuries will lose the Fed’s “implicit bid,” causing both the term premium and the liquidity premium to rise simultaneously.

2． FOMC decision-making: pause rate cuts, and watch inflation and economic data changes and outlook

2.1 Behind the Fed’s pause in rate cuts: the policy balance tips again toward “fighting inflation”

At the January 28 FOMC meeting, the Federal Reserve decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 3.5%–3.75% unchanged, in line with market expectations, marking the official pause button for the rate-cut cycle that began in September 2025. The decision received 10 votes in favor, but it is worth noting that Commissioners Miran and Waller voted against, leaning toward cutting rates by 25 basis points, reflecting continued disagreement within the committee over policy stance.

In terms of changes in the wording of the statement, the Fed’s policy balance clearly tilted toward fighting inflation. The statement says economic activity is expanding at a solid pace and raises its assessment of economic growth compared with the December statement. In the labor market language, it changed from “employment growth slowing” to “employment growth staying low with signs that the unemployment rate is stabilizing,” and it removed the earlier wording that “labor market risks are greater than inflation risks,” indicating that the FOMC’s balancing of its dual mandates is moving toward equilibrium. The inflation assessment remains “somewhat elevated,” suggesting that the progress of core PCE converging to the 2% target has stalled.

Regarding forward guidance, the statement continues to use cautious language and removes explicit statements that lean toward rate cuts. This is consistent with the signal from the December meeting that the pace of easing should slow down. The market interprets it as a policy stance of maintaining a wait-and-see approach at least through the first half of the year. The statement particularly emphasizes that uncertainty about the economic outlook remains high, which is essentially a nuanced expression of the difficulty in quantifying the effects of tariff policy, leaving ample flexibility for future policy adjustments.

At the technical operations level, the Fed kept the interest rate on reserves (IORB) at 3.65% and the overnight reverse repurchase rate (ON RRP) at 3.5%, and continues to reinvest only maturing principal into short-term Treasuries, reflecting that the QT process has not been stopped because the rate-cut pause is in place. Overall, the core signal released by this meeting is: in a context where inflation stickiness and economic resilience coexist, the Fed chooses to “hold steady and act cautiously,” waiting for more data to verify the path of disinflation, and it expects to reassess the timing of rate cuts at the earliest in the second quarter.

2.2 Economic and inflation outlook: growth resilience and inflation stickiness coexist

The Fed’s assessment of the economic fundamentals was raised clearly compared with the December meeting, providing the core support for holding rates steady this time. On the real economy side, the 2025 third-quarter GDP revised annualized growth rate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reached 4.4%, up 0.1 percentage points from the initial value, the strongest growth since the third quarter of 2023. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, real GDP accelerated from 3.8% in the second quarter to 4.4% in the third quarter, mainly driven by consumer spending (contributing 2.34 percentage points), an export rebound (1.00 percentage point), and a recovery in government spending. Worth noting is that the growth rate of real final sales (excluding inventory changes) reached 4.5%, indicating strong endogenous momentum in the economy, not just “puffy” growth driven by inventory accumulation.

The labor market shows a delicate balance of stabilization without overheating. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that in December 2025, nonfarm payrolls added only 50,000 jobs, with a full-year cumulative increase of 584,000, far lower than the 2.0 million increase in 2024. The unemployment rate remained at 4.4%, slightly higher than 4.1% in December 2024, but the number of long-term unemployed increased year over year by 397,000 to 1.90 million, and the long-term unemployment share rose to 26.0%. The labor force participation rate and employment-to-population ratio stayed stable at 62.4% and 59.7%, indicating labor supply and demand are moving toward equilibrium. Wage growth remains resilient: private-sector average hourly earnings rose 3.8% year over year, and increased 0.3% month over month in December to $37.02, supporting consumer purchasing power without triggering a wage-inflation spiral.

The inflation path is still the biggest constraint on policy. BEA data show that in the third quarter, the PCE price index and the core PCE price index rose 2.8% and 2.9%, respectively, both above the Fed’s 2% goal. CPI data show that in December, the year-over-year CPI rose 2.7%, and it has stayed in the 2.7%–2.9% range for several months, with core inflation clearly sticky. The statement removed the wording about “progress toward the 2% target,” replacing it with “inflation remains at a somewhat elevated level,” implying that the disinflation process has stalled. Tariff policy has become the biggest uncertainty: tariff announcements from the Trump administration have pushed CPI upward for several months consecutively in the second half of 2025, though still less than market expectations.

Overall, the Fed faces a dilemma of “growth resilience and inflation stickiness” coexisting. The economic data support a pause in rate cuts, but leave ample room dependent on incoming data for future policy adjustments.

3． U.S. Treasury strategy recommendations: symmetric pricing, two-way defense

Against the backdrop of Warsh’s nomination and a clear rise in uncertainty about the rate-cut path, asset allocation should more appropriately revolve around “symmetric pricing and two-way defense,” rather than placing a single bet on “rate cuts coming to an end” or “quickly returning to greater accommodation.” On the duration dimension, it is recommended to keep the portfolio duration controlled at a neutral level, slightly on the right side:

1． With rates having already fallen noticeably, but with upside risks still present for inflation and the policy path, the cost-effectiveness of extending duration too much is limited. Modestly extending duration to the 3–5 year range can help capture a combined return from both coupon carry and capital gains in a “moderate rate-cut” scenario.

2． For the yield curve strategy, you can adopt the idea of “slightly long in the middle and moderately defensive in the long end,” balancing the two-way risks of potential steepening and renewed flattening.

3． On credit and spread levels, it is recommended—under the premise that overall risk appetite is neutral—to modestly increase exposure to credit risk, favoring high-grade credit bonds with stable fundamentals, high cash-flow visibility, and moderate financial leverage, while avoiding low-rated products that are highly sensitive to rates and the economic cycle. In a stage where uncertainty on both rates and economic trends is increasing, modest duration contribution should be prioritized over credit beta contribution, but portfolio duration still needs to be kept within the 3–5 year range to avoid excessive duration extension leading to increased exposure to interest-rate risk.

4． At the same time, you may allocate an appropriate proportion to floating-rate bonds and inflation-linked bonds to hedge tail risks of “inflation re-accelerating” and “policy being forced more hawkish.”

5． For liquidity management, it is recommended to increase the proportion of cash and highly liquid short-maturity instruments to leave flexibility for the re-pricing of the risk-free rate in the future. In terms of execution, you can build positions in batches and adjust dynamically—moving step by step based on data and policy implementation—so as to avoid path risk from concentrated directional holdings at once.

4． Risk warning

Market volatility exceeds expectations, economic data exceeds expectations, geopolitical conflicts deteriorate more than expected, and historical experience fails.

		Sina statement: This message is reposted from Sina’s partner media. Sina.com publishes this article for the purpose of disseminating more information, and does not mean that it agrees with its views or confirms the descriptions. The content of the article is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors act at their own risk.

For massive information and precise analysis, all available in the Sina Finance app

责任编辑：凌辰