--- author: Joseph Wang date: '2026-03-18' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oBV2qgxIfI speaker: Joseph Wang tags: - fomc-meeting - monetary-policy - inflation-outlook - labor-market-strength - interest-rate-policy title: 2026年3月FOMC会议点评：鹰派信号与未来不确定性 summary: 本次2026年3月的FOMC会议呈现出明显的鹰派信号，利率市场据此预期减少降息次数。鲍威尔在新闻发布会上强调了通胀的粘性以及对劳动力市场强度的重视，淡化了近期的疲软数据。他关于未来角色的表态也暗示了他将继续施加影响，可能阻碍更为鸽派的政策组合。能源冲击和持续的地缘政治紧张局势增加了经济前景的不确定性。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: macro-economy area: finance-wealth project: [] people: - Jerome Powell companies_orgs: - Federal Reserve - FOMC products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 2026年3月FOMC会议点评：鹰派信号与未来不确定性 2026年3月的联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）会议以一次“鹰派”的新闻发布会告一段落，这一信号立即反映在利率市场中，普遍预期未来降息次数将减少。在深入分析今日会议内容之前，我们回顾了上次FOMC会议期间的两位“异议者”——Governor Moran和Governor Waller，他们均对劳动力市场的疲软表示担忧。然而，自那时以来，经济形势发生了显著变化：劳动力市场意外疲软，非农就业数据远低于预期，失业率小幅攀升；与此同时，通胀似乎陷入停滞，徘徊在3%左右已有一段时间。更重要的是，近期中东地区的冲突引发了巨大的能源冲击，这可能再次推高通胀。 在此背景下，市场高度关注鲍威尔如何解读此次的通胀与石油价格冲击，以及他个人在即将到期的任期后将扮演何种角色。本次会议的“点阵图”（SCP dot plot）显示，FOMC的**中位数预测**并未改变其政策预期：今年仍预期一次降息，明年同样如此。他们适度上调了GDP增长预测，略微提高了通胀预期，但令人意外的是，对失业率的预期基本未变，预计今年将维持在4.4%的水平。 鲍威尔的新闻发布会被认为传递了三个关键的鹰派信号。首先，关于**能源冲击**的处理方式。传统货币政策理论认为，央行应“透过”能源冲击，因为货币政策的传导存在滞后性，且能源价格波动通常是暂时的，一次性地影响价格水平而非持续改变通胀率。历史上，美国在2003年伊拉克战争及1990年代初的海湾战争期间，面对油价飙升，央行均选择“看穿”并继续降息。然而，鲍威尔表示，鉴于过去几年经历了新冠疫情和贸易关税等多重冲击，他希望**先看到商品通胀（goods inflation）**有所回落，才会考虑“看穿”能源价格。这种“观望”态度，加上他承认存在诸多“不确定性”（"I don't knows"），反映了当前“战争迷雾”下的审慎，既非极度鸽派也非极度鹰派，但倾向于谨慎。 其次，鲍威尔对**劳动力市场疲软的定性**也更为鹰派。从许多观察者的角度看，劳动力市场已显疲态：去年的大部分新增就业岗位被向下修正，上个月更是出现了显著的失业增长。然而，鲍威尔**强烈淡化**了这些数据的重要性，将其归因于移民政策的变化。他更看重失业率这一衡量供需的指标，认为其4.4%的水平已保持数月，表明劳动力市场并无紧迫的担忧信号。与此相关的是，曾对劳动力市场高度警惕的Governor Waller在本期会议中未再提出异议，仅有Governor Moran提出一次异议，这表明FOMC整体立场略显鹰派。当央行不再强调劳动力市场疲软，转而更关注通胀时，这预示着未来降息的可能性降低。 最后，鲍威尔关于其**主席任期结束后动向**的表态，是本场发布会中最具“鹰派”色彩的部分。历史上，美联储主席任期结束后通常会卸任美联储理事会。然而，鲍威尔表示，尽管其主席任期将于五月结束，他可能会继续担任理事，并且在**相关调查“完全结束”前，他没有离开理事会的意图**。他尚未决定是否在调查结束后继续任职，将以“对机构和我们服务的人民最有利”为考量。这一表态被解读为对总统（此处暗示特朗普）试图通过法律途径施压其辞职的回应，意在捍卫美联储的独立性。他借此表明，只要调查仍在进行，他就不会离职。如果他认为美联储的独立性受到挑战，他会留任并坚持己见。鉴于鲍威尔在FOMC内部的威望和影响力，他可能成为一个“影子美联储主席”，继续对政策走向施加重要影响，从而**阻碍**那些期望美联储能更“政治化”、更愿意满足总统降息要求的观点。因此，这为关于未来美联储可能更倾向于降息的预期，增添了不确定性，发出了一个**强烈的鹰派信号**。 总而言之，当前的局势复杂且动态。虽然今日美联储立场偏鹰，但演讲者认为，随着能源冲击的持续，其对经济增长的负面影响将日益显现，未来可能看到市场更关注增长而非通胀。这将影响美联储的反应函数，并可能促使他们今年最终还是会进行几次降息。
Original English Hello my friends. Today is March 18th and this is my March FOMC debrief. So we just got finished with the uh presser and um I think it was a pretty hawkish conference and you can see that in the rates market as well. Uh suddenly you see the market pricing in fewer rate cuts. Now before we get on to what happened today, let's review a little bit. So the last time we had an FOMC meeting, we had a couple descents by Governor Moran, of course, and of course, Governor Waller as well, noting weakness in the labor market. Between then and now, a whole lot has happened. On the labor front, we did get a shockingly weak non-form print last month. We lost a lot of jobs and the unemployment rate ticked up a little bit. On the inflation front, honestly, it looks like we're kind of stuck. It looks like we're probably stuck around a 3% inflation and have been for some time. But of course, the big thing that happened over the past few weeks is the war in the Middle East. That's led to a huge energy shock and that's potentially uh going to feed into another wave of inflation. So today, what many people were looking at is how Cher Powell would um think about this inflation shock, this oil shock. And of course what I was personally looking for was what Cherpa would do uh as his chairmanship ends in the coming months. Now this quarter this is a March quarter uh meeting. So we also have the SCP dot plot. Looking at the dot plot. So the the FOMC the median FOMC participant didn't really change their expectations for policy. Still one cut this year, one cut next year. They did modestly upgrade their growth estimates for GDP. modestly raised their inflation forecasts and surprisingly did not really change their expectation for unemployment thinking that it would hold steady at 4.4% um this year. Now, the reason I think that this press conf Okay, let's move on to the press conference. Now, the reason I think it was hawkish, well, there's three reasons why I thought it was hawkish. First off, how is Cher Powell looking at the energy shock? Now, if you go to central banker school, they'll tell you that, you know, you got to look through these energy shocks, right? So, there's a couple reasons for that. One is that monetary policy uh acts with a lag. So central bankers think that when they do something with interest rates, there's a lag between when they hike rates or cut rates and when it impacts the economy. Maybe it's like 12 months or something like that. Again, no one really knows. But the point is is that if they change interest rate policy in reaction to the energy shock, you know, maybe 12 months from now the energy shock is long gone and so they basically overreacted. The second thing is, of course, that energy is energy inflation is basically transitory. Let's say that the oil price goes up $50 right now. I mean, we don't really expect it to go up another $50 next year, right? So again, this is basically a onetime change in the price level rather than a change in the rate of change, that is to say inflation. So you would look through it. So that's what the US did actually in 2003. Iraq invasion and early 1990s operation desert storm. Both of them had huge spikes in oil and the central bank looked through them and continued to cut. Now asked about this, Chowo was like, "Yeah, yeah, that's what we should do." However, and this is the big problem that many people have noted, we've just had a lot of shocks over the past few years. We've had COVID and we've also had the tariff shock. And so Charl was like, "Yeah, we should I want to really want to focus on what happens with the COVID shock." the sorry the tariff shocks first. So his expectation is that tariffs kind of one time change the price level. He wants to see that go through uh goods inflation first before he wants before he's willing to look through any energy prices. So again that's not super doubbish nor hawkish. It's kind of non-committal kind of waiting and seeing. So there was a lot of I don't knows that cher mentioned and that makes sense. We are in the fog of war. The second thing that I thought that was much more hawkish was how Cher Powell characterized the weakness in the labor market. So from my perspective, the labor market is quite weak. Uh if you look at what happened to jobs last year, basically almost all the job gains were revised away and of course last month big job losses. Now Cher Powell actually strongly deemphasized this. He was like yeah you know that job number stuff that's mostly because of changes in immigration policy. If you look at the unemployment rate, which he views as a better measure of supply and demand, you know, it's around 4.4%. So that's basically where it's been for several months. So he is doesn't is not signaling urgency uh about the labor market. And related to this is that Governor Waller, who was very worried about the labor market last meeting, did not descent to this meeting. Only one descent this meeting. That's from Governor Moran. So again, that shows you because Governor Mo because Governor Waller did not descent, that shows you that the FOMC uh is a little bit more hawkish now. So again, if he's not talking about uh weakness in the labor market and he's more emphasizing inflation, that suggests uh fewer cuts than than expected going forward. Now, the last thing that I thought was super hawkish, and this is what I've been focusing on is what Paul would do after his chairmanship ends. So, historically speaking, once your Fed chairmanship ends, you would step down uh from the Fed and then the president at the time would get to appoint someone else to fill your position. In Pyo's case, although his chairmanship ends in May, he's he could still be a regular governor and stay on the FOMC for a couple more years. Now, if he were to again what do what fetchers typically do and just, you know, ride off into the sunset, then President Trump could fill his spot and we could have again a more dovish composition in the FOMC. But, uh, this is what Pal said today. Uh, and while I'm at it, um, on the question whether I will leave while the investigation is ongoing, I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality. And I would refer you to the statement that was in the Fed's brief that you will all have seen. And I won't have anything more for you on that. On the question of whether I will then continue to serve as a governor after my term ends and after the investigation is over, I have not made that decision yet. uh and I will make that decision based on what I think is best for the institution and for the people we serve. >> So it it's very clear that POW is basically standing up for himself and what he thinks as the interests of the public. So first off again there's that lawsuit the president launched against Powell and the Fed trying to I guess create a pretext to get him to quit. Now, Powell is standing firm, saying that as long as that lawsuit is ongoing, he's not going anywhere. Secondly, again, he brought this up himself. He's suggesting that whether or not he's going to stay at the Fed, he it's going to be based on his view of what's best for the institution, for the American people. That is him basically telling you that if he feels that the Fed is going to Fed's independence is going to be challenged, he's just going to stay there. He's going to stay there and do what he thinks is best. And because Powell has gravitas with and influence with the rest of FOMC, again, a lot of people there respect him. He's been at the FIT for a long time. He knows the people. Um so they're going to listen to Cher um Cher Powell, then future Governor Powell as he as the chairmanship goes to Kevin Walsh. And basically because of that influence I I could see POW becoming something like a shadowfed chair continuing to exert significant influence on how the mean thinks even though he's no longer formally chair. So this is something that's going to throw a wrench into um expectations that we would have a more politicized Fed that would be more amenable to Ray cuts as demanded by the president. So that's again something else that is sending a hawkish signal. So this is a super interesting and fluid situation. We'll see what happens. I continue to think that as the Oshock becomes longer, it's going to have a negative impact on growth and maybe after OPEX we could see more meaningful declines in the market. And I think what would happen is that the market would also become more focused on growth uh rather than inflation. That will feed into the Fed's reaction function. So, I'm not uh I I Fed is hawkish today, but I still think that they're going to end up uh cutting rates a few times this year. All right, so that's all I prepared for today. Talk to you guys Saturday.