#Gate事件合约晒单挑战 Continue betting that the Fed will not hike rates in September.

Logic and reasons

Current situation: After Warsh's hawkish Jackson Hole speech on August 28, the probability of a September rate hike briefly surged to 65-68%; after Waller publicly questioned the hawkish tone on September 4, it fell back to 50%; today, August nonfarm payrolls came in at 162k, well above expectations of 55k, and the probability of a rate hike rose again to around 57%. So "betting on no hike" is currently a bet against the market direction—the market has tilted slightly toward a hike, but is far from one-sided. That is precisely where the value of the bet lies: as long as next week's CPI does not come in hot, the probability balance will shift back toward no hike.

Core logic supporting the bet

First, Warsh's hawkishness is "branding" rather than a "commitment"; he left himself a back door. The core message of Warsh's Jackson Hole speech was that inflation is the top priority, forward guidance should be abolished, and policy decisions should be made flexibly based on real-time data. He explicitly said, "If there is no further progress on price pressures, rates may need to be raised"—note the "if." The essence of a "data-dependent" framework is that it works both ways: strong data can justify a hike, while data that does not support one can also justify no hike. He never committed to a September hike; the hawkish speech was more about rebuilding the Fed's inflation-fighting credibility than previewing an action.

Second, dovish voices have already emerged within the committee. The July FOMC vote was 9:3 (three votes in favor of a hike, with hawks in the minority). On September 4, Waller became the first official to publicly question Warsh's hawkish tone. Treasury yields fell after his speech, and the probability of a hike dropped from 65% back to 50%. Even with a hawkish chair needing to "protect credibility," the reality that most committee members favor waiting has not changed—restarting rate hikes requires overwhelming consensus, while the committee is currently divided.

Third, the threshold for a rate hike is much higher than market pricing suggests. The Fed has held rates steady for five consecutive meetings, with rates remaining at 3.50%-3.75% for more than eight months. Given such strong policy inertia, suddenly restarting hikes would require hard evidence of "persistently worsening inflation," not merely a "strong labor market"—strong payrolls are a condition that permits a hike, not a reason that requires one. eToro analysts also pointed out that next week's CPI, rather than payrolls, will truly determine the September decision.

Fourth, inflation's marginal direction is improving rather than worsening. Core PCE is around 3.3%; although it remains far from the 2% target, it peaked in May and has since declined, while summer inflation data came in better than expected (something Warsh himself also acknowledged). Warsh's concern is that the "trend has not been confirmed," not that "inflation is accelerating." As long as the CPI released on September 9-10 does not exceed expectations, the chain of evidence supporting the need for "immediate action" will not hold.

Fifth, a rate hike cannot resolve the root causes of current inflation. Tariffs, Middle East energy prices, and the expansion of AI infrastructure are the main obstacles to disinflation—these are supply-side shocks that are difficult to address with the traditional interest-rate lever (21st Century Business Herald and Sina Focus Observer both pointed this out). The Fed understands this, reducing the urgency and necessity of a hike.

Sixth, institutions and prediction markets are divided in favor of no hike. Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Hatzius explicitly expects rates to remain unchanged in September (while acknowledging that the speech opened the door to a hike); domestic institutions (the Lu Zhe team) maintain their forecast of no September hike; prediction markets had previously priced in a 79% probability of no hike. The magnitude of the market's disagreement over "whether to hike" is itself evidence that "no hike" is a reasonable view.