Original author: Zhang Yaqi

Original source: Wall Street News

Federal Reserve Chairman nominee Kevin Warsh is about to attend the Senate Banking Committee confirmation hearing, but this procedure, which affects global market nerves, may be far less substantive than it appears on the surface—the variables truly determining the outcome are not in the hearing room, and the really important policy answers will not be revealed here.

According to opening statements obtained in advance by Bloomberg, Warsh's prepared testimony is nearly 2,000 words long, far surpassing Powell and former Chairman Yellen's initial testimonies of about 850 to 900 words, yet it barely touches upon the direction of monetary policy. He has set a conditional boundary on the issue of independence: The independence of monetary policy is paramount, but the Federal Reserve does not enjoy the same exemptions in public fund management, bank regulation, and international finance. At the same time, Warsh’s previous public advocacy for interest rate cuts starkly contrasts with his earlier hawkish image, which is expected to become a focus of questioning by senators.

For the market, the core issue that really moves the market—the future direction of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet—is completely absent from this lengthy statement. Bloomberg columnist John Authers characterized this hearing as a "political performance that is more about form than substance," the ultimate outcome of which depends on political maneuvering outside the hearing, rather than anything Warsh says on stage. What Warsh says may not be important.

The external expectation is that Warsh will be smoothly confirmed, taking charge of the most powerful position in the global economy. However, before he officially takes office, investors betting on his policy path may find it difficult to get clear answers.

Nearly 2000-word statement, limited focus on monetary policy

According to an analysis by UBS economists, Warsh's written statement is historically unprecedented in length, but its content is noticeably deviating from market expectations. A large portion of the text is devoted to reviewing his career background, characterizing the current macro situation as a "critical historical juncture," and expressing a willingness to collaborate with Congress, while the actual text regarding policy stances is extremely limited.

Most of Warsh's testimony emphasizes the experience he can bring to the position, with very little mention of monetary policy. Most policy-related content discusses the Federal Reserve as an institution, and includes soothing words about a commitment to cooperate with Congress on overlapping issues and common policy goals.

In the limited policy statements, Warsh emphasized that "low inflation is the Federal Reserve's talisman," and reiterated that the core mission granted to the Federal Reserve by Congress is to ensure price stability, "no excuses, no ambiguity, no debate, no hesitation." He also criticized the Federal Reserve for "stretching its hard-earned credibility to the edge of its statutory duties after the financial crisis, and may have even overstepped," and clearly opposed the Federal Reserve "acting as a catch-all agency for the U.S. government."

Regarding the asset balance sheet issue, which investors are most concerned about, Warsh has previously publicly advocated reducing its size, believing the Federal Reserve should gradually sell off the vast bond holdings accumulated during the financial crisis and the pandemic—if this stance is implemented, it means tightening market liquidity and rising bond yields, which cannot be underestimated. However, this issue is completely absent from his written statement. According to UBS’s analysis, Warsh is savvy enough not to make any substantial commitments on the most sensitive financial issues during the hearing.

Independence stance: a conditional commitment

On the highly scrutinized issue of Federal Reserve independence, Warsh's statements are meticulously crafted, presenting an internally layered logical structure.

He commits that "monetary policy execution will remain strictly independent," but surprisingly adds that independence largely "depends on the Federal Reserve itself." He stated that when elected officials—including the president, senators, or representatives—express opinions on interest rates, he does not see the operational independence of monetary policy as being substantially threatened, "central bank officials must be strong enough to listen to diverse voices from all sides."

According to the UBS report, this statement constitutes an unexpectedly nuanced shift—Warsh's commitment to independence is not unconditional: in terms of monetary policy, the independence is the strongest, while in other functions authorized by Congress, the Federal Reserve must remain accountable to Congress. He clarified that Federal Reserve officials do not enjoy the same level of special exemptions in public fund management, bank regulation, and international finance.

Bloomberg columnist Authers interprets the above statement as a skilled "political tightrope walk"—sufficient to reassure the market about monetary policy independence, while also signaling goodwill to the Trump administration, showing that the Federal Reserve is willing to cooperate in non-monetary functions.

Shift in stance on interest rate cuts: from hawkish to advocating easing

One of the anticipated focal points of the hearing is Warsh's change in attitude towards interest rates.

Warsh has long been known for his hawkish stance, previously criticizing ultra-loose monetary policy. However, he has recently shifted to openly advocating for interest rate cuts, a reversal likely to be directly questioned by senators.

Warsh did not directly address this shift in his written statement. His wording about inflation—"inflation is a choice, and the Federal Reserve must take responsibility for it"—is strong and difficult to interpret as a clear dovish signal. However, observers noted that he neither publicly denied the recent advocacy for interest rate cuts nor made any directional judgment in his written testimony regarding the current interest rate path.

This deliberate ambiguity is consistent with the systemic avoidance of monetary policy details throughout his statement. According to UBS economists, senators may raise questions about this during the Q&A session, but the probability of Warsh giving substantive commitments remains limited.

Hearing is more about form than substance, results have long been concluded

Authers points out that the reason the Warsh confirmation hearing is not treated as a significant event by the market is fundamentally because: the key variable determining whether he can take office is not in the hearing room. Tillis's stance depends on the direction of the Powell case, rather than on any statement from Warsh. The market's basic assumption is that this political obstacle will eventually be cleared, and Warsh will obtain this most powerful position in the global economy.

In terms of the role positioning of the Federal Reserve, Warsh's opening statement has preliminarily set boundaries: the independence of monetary policy is paramount, but the Federal Reserve's functions in public fund management, bank regulation, and international finance do not enjoy the same special exemptions. He warned that the Federal Reserve faces the greatest risk to its independence when it "deviates into the areas of fiscal and social policy," and that it "should not act as a catch-all agency for the U.S. government."

Authers cites historical precedents to further illustrate that confirmation hearings are not a reliable window for predicting future policy directions of the Federal Reserve Chairman. During Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing in 2005, terms like "quantitative easing," "balance sheet," "subprime," "CDO," and "Lehman" did not appear—yet these issues later dominated his entire term.

Earlier cases similarly confirm this pattern: Alan Greenspan, who was a staunch opponent of the existence of central banks as a disciple of Ayn Rand, implemented numerous interventionist policies throughout his entire term. There has historically been a significant disparity between a candidate's past record and their actual behavior after taking office.

Warsh praised former Secretary of State George P. Shultz in his statement, holding him up as a policy model. However, according to the UBS report, Shultz himself also has a historical record of pressuring Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns to ease monetary policy during the Nixon administration—this detail is seen by some observers as an intriguing footnote.

For investors betting on his policy direction, the real answers may only be revealed after Warsh officially takes office.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。