华尔街解读美联储决议:比预期更鸽派
Hua Er Jie Jian Wen·2025-12-11 01:09

Core Viewpoint - The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by 25 basis points as expected, but the overall tone was less hawkish than the market anticipated, indicating a more dovish stance [1][3]. Group 1: Interest Rate Decision - The Federal Reserve's decision to cut rates by 25 basis points marks the first direct inclusion of a bond purchase plan in the policy statement since the liquidity crisis in early 2020, which analysts interpret as a clear dovish signal [1]. - The dot plot revealed that while six members supported maintaining rates next year, only two dissenters were present, which was below market expectations for a more hawkish stance [1][3]. Group 2: Economic Projections - Bloomberg's chief economist Anna Wong noted that the overall tone was dovish, with the committee raising growth expectations while lowering inflation forecasts, maintaining the dot plot unchanged [4]. - Goldman Sachs' David Mericle highlighted that the decision included subtle hawkish elements but overall aligned with expectations, noting the unusual nature of directly including bond purchases in the statement [4]. Group 3: Labor Market and Economic Uncertainty - Goldman Sachs' Mike Cahill pointed out that the committee maintained the unemployment rate forecast at 4.5% for Q4, suggesting a slowdown in growth, with current unemployment at 4.44% [4]. - Principal Asset Management's Seema Shah expressed skepticism about the Fed's confidence in the economy, predicting a pause to assess the lagging effects of previous tightening policies [8]. Group 4: Policy Uncertainty and Future Leadership - Bianco Research's Jim Bianco mentioned that the upcoming change in Federal Reserve leadership could introduce significant policy variability, as the new chair may be perceived as having a political agenda [7]. - Tikehau Capital's Raphael Thuin noted that the lack of visibility in data forces policymakers to balance between weak labor signals and demand driving inflation down, leading to greater policy uncertainty [6].