沃什被提名后，华尔街不再盯着降息，6.6万亿的“大包袱”才是风暴眼

Core Viewpoint - The nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Federal Reserve Chair has shifted market focus from short-term interest rates to the Fed's $6.6 trillion balance sheet and its role in the market [1] Group 1: Warsh's Critique and Potential Actions - Warsh has been a vocal critic of the Fed's balance sheet expansion, suggesting he may quickly act to reduce asset size, which has led to speculation about rising long-term U.S. Treasury yields and a stronger dollar [1][2] - He believes the Fed has overstepped its bounds, aligning with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's desire for reform, but acknowledges that significant changes could impact long-term rates and major markets crucial for global financial institutions [1][2] - Warsh's past support for quantitative easing (QE) has turned into criticism, leading to his resignation from the Fed due to dissatisfaction with ongoing asset purchases [2][4] Group 2: Implications for Government and Market - If the Fed withdraws, it may conflict with the government's goal of lowering long-term borrowing costs, potentially increasing pressure on the Treasury and other U.S. agencies to manage the market more actively [2] - Warsh's approach could lead to a tightening of financial conditions, allowing the Fed to cut benchmark rates significantly [2][4] - The need for a new Treasury-Fed agreement, similar to the 1951 accord, has been emphasized by Warsh to redefine the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury [5] Group 3: Market Sensitivity and Future Outlook - The financial market has shown sensitivity to even minor changes in liquidity, as evidenced by past instances where the Fed had to intervene to alleviate funding pressures [5][6] - Analysts suggest that there is some flexibility within the Fed's definition of "ample" reserves, which could allow for adjustments in asset purchases and financing costs [7][8] - The current framework makes it difficult to envision a shift in policy soon, but the addition of a more hawkish member to the Fed could suppress future asset purchases or reinvestment policies [8]