Waller wants the Fed to talk less, hold fewer meetings, and intervene less in the market; but the less communication there is early on, the more the market might speculate. Reports say Waller proposed to his Fed colleagues this week that he’s considering reducing the frequency of regular policy meetings. Currently, the Fed holds 8 meetings a year (roughly every six weeks), with a rate decision announced after each meeting. If Waller’s idea is implemented, it would break a nearly half-century tradition dating back to the Volcker era. Waller is discussing internally at the Fed reducing the number of meetings from the current 8 to 6 (or another number below 8). The Federal Reserve Act mandates a minimum of 4 meetings per year. The 2026 schedule is unlikely to change. So, what’s the verdict? This change has pros and cons. **Pros:** 1) Naturally reduces overreaction to short-term noisy data. Fewer meetings could prevent the Fed from being overly sensitive to monthly fluctuations in inflation, employment, etc., fostering a longer-term, more thoughtful policy perspective. 2) Forces the market to shift focus from monthly data to longer-term inflation and economic trends. With more frequent meetings, traders are more likely to bet on rate hikes, cuts, or pauses around each meeting date. Currently, the Fed meets every six weeks, and the market constantly scrutinizes whether one month’s data will influence a “rate hike or cut,” asking questions like: Will this CPI change the next decision? Will this nonfarm payroll trigger a hike? Will a stock market drop force the Fed to pivot? The Fed increasingly resembles a “real-time customer service desk,” compelled to respond to short-term events. This aligns with Waller’s vision of “letting the market speak first, and the Fed learn from it.” In fact, the Bank of England reduced its meetings from 12 to 8 after Waller’s 2014 review, partly to ease preparation burdens and reduce market turbulence caused by “monetary news events.” **Cons:** 1) The most immediate downside is fewer meetings mean fewer policy statements, minutes (released three weeks post-meeting), and related signals, reducing the amount of information the market and public receive about the Fed’s thinking. This reverses decades of progress toward greater transparency, potentially increasing interest rate risk premiums and uncertainty. 2) Slower response times. With longer intervals between meetings, the Fed’s reaction to rapid changes in inflation or the labor market could be delayed. While emergency meetings are still an option, historically, these are typically reserved for crises, and routine adjustments would rely more on the set schedule. But looking at it another way, fewer meetings might make each meeting more significant, leading to greater market volatility. The market might not stop speculating; instead, speculation could increase, and expectation swings might become larger. Sponsored by @bitget_zh: "Bitget Buy US Stocks: Instant entry, seamless trading