Executive Summary:
Kevin Warsh’s nomination to succeed Jerome Powell as the next Federal Reserve Chair marks more than a change of personnel; it raises the prospect of a structural reset in how the central bank thinks about its balance sheet, its mandate, and its coordination with Treasury.
A Starting Point
From a market perspective, the pick looks somewhat “surprising” in the near term but arguably more consistent with a long‑run effort to preserve confidence in the dollar system by reinforcing the Fed’s credibility as an inflation‑fighting institution.
Warsh’s record offers a clear starting point for investors. During his prior stint on the FOMC from 2006–2011, he was one of the most hawkish voices, repeatedly warning of “upside risks to inflation” even in deeply disinflationary conditions.
In April 2009, seven months after the Lehman collapse, with core PCE at just 0.8% and unemployment near 9%, Warsh told colleagues, “I continue to be more worried about upside risks to inflation than downside risks.” That bias has been paired with persistent opposition to balance‑sheet expansion, including highlighting “significant risks” around QE2 in late 2010.
More recently, Warsh has argued that the Fed should shrink its balance sheet while lowering policy rates, contending that today’s inflation stems more from fiscal excess than from easier monetary policy. He argues that under the current policy mix, “Wall Street is doing great, but Main Street is not doing as well,” and that cutting interest rates will “support households and small and medium-size businesses.” He has called for a “new Treasury‑Fed accord” to clarify the role of the Fed’s portfolio and has been critical of the Fed’s “hesitancy to cut rates” in mid‑2025.
In July, he floated a closer Fed–Treasury “alliance” to coordinate debt management and balance sheet policy in ways that could help lower borrowing costs; a stance that simultaneously reassures bond markets on long‑term discipline while raising fresh questions about day‑to‑day independence.
What May Happen to Rates?
Front end: In the near term, Warsh’s recent comments support the current easing trajectory, but his hawkish history means there is a non‑trivial risk the committee acts independently and shifts the discussion from cuts back toward hikes if inflation or term premia re‑accelerate. Expect some trimming of terminal‑cut pricing and a bit more sensitivity to upside data surprises.
Balance sheet and term premium: A chair who believes “the Fed should not have a balance sheet or interfere in markets” increases the odds of faster or more durable quantitative tightening over the cycle. That argues for a structurally higher term premium, putting gentle upward pressure on 10‑ to 30‑year yields relative to a Powell baseline and supporting a modest bear‑steepening bias over time.
Curve shape and real rates: Warsh’s preference for low real rates only in conjunction with tighter fiscal policy and a smaller Fed footprint is closer to a European‑style stance: less tolerance for large, permanent central‑bank portfolios, more emphasis on fiscal discipline. That combination points to higher equilibrium real yields than under a more QE‑friendly regime, with the curve likely oscillating between short‑run cuts and a higher perceived long‑run neutral rate.
There are important caveats. Warsh still needs Senate confirmation, and Republicans such as Senator Thom Tillis have signaled resistance to seating a new chair while legal questions around the current one remain unresolved. The FOMC is also a committee: how far policy moves toward Warsh’s long‑held preferences will depend on where the center of gravity sits among governors and regional presidents who have, to date, backed a slower, data‑dependent pivot.
For now, the nomination looks less like an immediate shock and more like the start of a new “regime‑risk” chapter: one in which investors must price not only the next few cuts, but also a Fed that may ultimately seek a smaller footprint, higher term premia and a tighter alignment between monetary and fiscal sustainability.
Please share your comments below and click here for prior editions of “Treasury & Rates.”
More Treasury & Rates columns
- Trump’s $200B MBS Push Sets Up Volatility, Not Lasting Affordability
- Japan’s Bond Shock Is a Quiet Headwind for Lower U.S. Rates
- Hidden Leverage: Why the Treasury Market’s Quiet Stability May Be Deceptive
- Duration Divergence: Bond Markets Signal Disbelief in the Fed’s Inflation Narrative
- Floating Rates, Firm Reserves: How the Fed Is Quietly Resetting the Front End
- Rate Volatility Looks Mismatched to the Fed and Macro Risks Ahead
- Bond Return Forecasting Enters New Era of Complexity
- Bond Market’s “Soft Landing” Trade Looks Stretched as Long-End Yields Defy Inflation Math
- AI’s Capital Crunch Hits the Bond Market
- Is the Bond Market Ignoring America’s Debt Time Bomb?
The post Warsh Nomination Signals Potential Regime Shift, New Curve Playbook appeared first on Connect CRE.