#美联储利率不变但内部分歧加剧 #Gate广场五月交易分享 Interest rates remain unchanged, but disagreements hit a 34-year record

In the early morning of April 30 Beijing time, the Federal Reserve announced the decision from the April FOMC meeting. The federal funds rate remains at 3.5% to 3.75%, marking the third consecutive pause.
This fully aligns with market expectations. What truly surprised the market was the voting results.
Out of 12 voting members, surprisingly, 4 voted against the decision. This is the highest number of dissenting votes at a Federal Reserve meeting since 1992.
How did they oppose? In two groups.
One group is Governor Miran, who has been calling for rate cuts since joining the Fed in September last year. This time, he continued to advocate for a 25 basis point cut.
The other group consists of three regional Fed presidents—Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan. They support holding rates steady but oppose keeping the dovish language in the statement. The so-called dovish language is that old phrase used for two years: if risks emerge, the committee will be prepared to adjust monetary policy as needed. These three believe that this phrase implies a higher likelihood of rate cuts than hikes, and now that signal should no longer be maintained.
Simply put: some are pushing for rate cuts, while others want to remove the rate cut option from the table.
Their attitudes are completely opposite, but both oppose the current stance.
This is the current situation of the Federal Reserve. Torn between two opposing forces, caught in a difficult position.
Looking at the wording changes in the statement, the Fed changed the description of inflation from "slightly above" to "still elevated," explicitly citing recent global energy price increases as a source.
The development of the Middle East situation was officially listed as a source of high uncertainty in the economic outlook.
Powell said something very honest at the press conference: both mandates face risks. Neither can be said to be fully under control—neither inflation nor the labor market can be neglected. Both sides' risks must be monitored, and policy can only stay where it is.