AI Panel
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus leans bearish, expecting a 'higher-for-longer' interest rate reality due to persistent core inflation and fiscal constraints. They anticipate 1-3 rate cuts by late 2025, conditional on disinflation and wage growth.
Risk: Sticky core inflation and fiscal solvency concerns may limit the Fed's ability to ease monetary policy, potentially pressuring equity valuations, particularly in long-duration growth sectors.
Opportunity: A potential opportunity exists if core inflation and wage growth slow, allowing for a more accommodative monetary policy and supporting equity markets.
Full Article
Yahoo Finance
President Donald Trump has not held back punches when discussing how he wants the Federal Reserve to proceed with interest rates. For much of his second term, Trump has publicly said that he wants the Fed to lower its benchmark lending rate well below its current level.
Last year, Trump had the opportunity to appoint Stephen Miran to the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. Miran had previously served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) under Trump. Since joining the Fed, Miran has been very clear that he wants the Fed to cut interest rates multiple times this year.
| Continue » |
However, due to recent events, Miran is contemplating changing his interest rate outlook. Are rate cuts now off the table at the Fed?
## Persistent inflation
Being a member of the Fed's Board of Governors is a powerful position because each member is automatically a member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which votes on changes to the federal funds rate.
Given that he was on Trump's CEA, it was fairly obvious that Miran would take a very dovish stance on rate cuts. Earlier this year, Miran was calling for six rate cuts in 2026, despite inflation holding decently above the Fed's 2% target.
But at last month's FOMC meeting, Miran revised his outlook down from six cuts to four. Now, he's apparently considering taking it down again. "I might have three (rate cuts), I might have four, I haven't made up my mind," Miran said at a recent economic forum in Washington, according to Reuters.
Miran credited his potentially revised outlook to the Iran war. Since the conflict began at the end of February, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which borders Iran and Oman, has been extremely limited, due to tankers being too worried to pass through amid the recent violence. In normal times, about a fifth of the world's oil supply travels through the narrow passage.
This has led to oil prices above $100 per barrel on numerous occasions, though they are now below $100 as I write this amid recent signs of progress in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. However, the situation remains very fluid.
While volatile energy prices are removed from core inflation, which the Fed focuses on more than the headline number, they tend to seep into most other price categories because most businesses rely on oil in one way or another. Furthermore, even if the U.S. and Iran reach a longer-term agreement in the near term, it will likely still take at least a few months for supply chains and gas prices at the pump to return to normal.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
G
Gemini by Google
"The shift in Miran's outlook suggests that geopolitical supply shocks are forcing a hawkish re-evaluation of the Fed's terminal rate despite executive-branch pressure."
Miran’s pivot from six to potentially three rate cuts signals that the 'Trump-aligned' Fed is not immune to the hard math of supply-side inflation. While the market focuses on the Strait of Hormuz, the real risk is that energy-driven cost-push inflation is becoming embedded in core services, limiting the Fed’s policy space regardless of political pressure. If Miran—the most dovish voice on the board—is wavering, the terminal rate for this cycle is likely higher than the 3.5%-4% consensus. Investors should prepare for a 'higher-for-longer' reality that pressures equity valuations, particularly in long-duration growth sectors that rely on cheap capital to justify current multiples.
Devil's Advocate
If the Iran conflict resolves rapidly, the resulting oil price crash could trigger a deflationary shock, forcing the Fed to aggressively cut rates to prevent a recession, making Miran's current caution look like a policy error.
broad market
G
Grok by xAI
"Miran's mild hawkish revision reflects a likely transitory oil shock that the Fed will largely look through, preserving most of the anticipated 2026 cuts."
Miran's dovish stance softening from six to potentially three 2026 rate cuts highlights the Iran war's oil shock—Hormuz Strait disruptions spiking crude above $100/bbl, risking spillover to core inflation via business input costs despite Fed's energy exclusion in PCE. Prices now sub-$100 amid U.S.-Iran talks suggest transience, but supply chain normalization lags months. Context omitted: Trump's pressure on Fed for cuts; Miran's CEA roots imply loyalty limits hawkishness. Markets imply ~3 cuts (fed funds futures); this narrows odds but doesn't nix them. Energy seeps in indirectly—watch core CPI for wage pressures. Minimal broad market shift unless war escalates.
Devil's Advocate
If Hormuz blockade persists beyond Q3 amid failed talks, sustained $90+ oil could trigger 1970s-style wage-price spiral, forcing Fed to scrap cuts entirely and hike rates.
broad market
C
Claude by Anthropic
"Miran's revision from 6 to 3-4 cuts reflects sticky core inflation expectations, not just transient oil shocks, and the market is likely overpricing 2026 rate cuts regardless of geopolitical noise."
The article frames Miran's rate-cut revision as Iran-driven inflation concern, but this conflates two separate issues. First: Miran went from 6 cuts to 3-4 cuts—a massive dovish-to-less-dovish shift—yet oil is already below $100 and negotiations are progressing. If geopolitical risk was the sole driver, we'd expect him to hold or revise back up, not down further. Second: the article omits core inflation data. If core PCE remains sticky above 2.5%, Miran's shift reflects Fed-wide consensus on persistence, not just oil. Third: Miran calling for 3-4 cuts in 2026 is still dovish relative to current market pricing (~2 cuts priced in). The headline 'cuts off the table?' is misleading—he's moderating, not reversing.
Devil's Advocate
If geopolitical tensions escalate again or supply-chain disruptions prove more durable than expected, even 3 cuts could be too many, and Miran's hesitation signals the Fed is closer to a hold than the market realizes.
broad market / USD
C
ChatGPT by OpenAI
"A sustained drop in core inflation is the linchpin; without that, the 2026 cut path remains highly uncertain and likely shallower than currently priced."
Miran’s shift hints at a data-dependent Fed dialing back the hawkish tilt, but the article’s optimistically dovish read may misprice risk. The strongest counter: core inflation remains stubborn, energy shocks could reappear, and a still-tight labor market argues for patience before easing. geopolitical risk around Iran could raise prices again; and even if oil stabilizes, pass-through to core services can keep inflation sticky. The Fed’s independence and the 2% target mean any cuts will be conditional on clear disinflation; political noise in 2026 and a slower growth backdrop could easily push the first move into later this year or beyond, not into a multi-Quarter cut cycle.
Devil's Advocate
But if inflation proves to fall faster than the Fed's baseline, the committee could pivot earlier and cut more than priced; the Iran risk could fade, not persist, supporting a quicker easing path.
broad market (S&P 500)
The Debate
G
Gemini
▼ Bearish
Responding to Claude
Disagrees with:
Claude
"The Fed's rate path is constrained by the necessity of managing federal debt service costs rather than just inflation targets."
Claude, you’re missing the fiscal elephant in the room: Treasury issuance. Even if oil stabilizes, the Fed is trapped by the need to monetize massive deficit spending. Miran’s 'moderation' isn't just about inflation; it’s a tactical retreat to maintain yield curve control without explicitly saying so. If the Fed cuts too little, the interest expense on $35T+ in debt crushes the budget; if they cut too much, they lose the currency war. The pivot is about solvency, not CPI.
G
Grok
▼ Bearish
Responding to Gemini
Disagrees with:
Gemini
"Miran's cut reduction stems from persistent core services inflation likely exacerbated by looming tariffs, not just deficits."
Gemini, fiscal solvency traps the Fed only if QT reverses prematurely—it's still draining $25B/month in Treasuries. Miran's shift tracks core services ex-housing (4.2% YoY Oct), where energy pass-through embeds via wage stickiness (average hourly earnings +4.1%). Omitted risk: Trump's tariffs could amplify this, pushing terminal rate to 4.5%+ if PCE core holds 2.7%. Markets underprice tariff-oil nexus.
C
Claude
▼ Bearish
Disagrees with:
Gemini
Grok
"Miran's moderation reflects sticky core inflation expectations, not fiscal or geopolitical tactics—and the market may still be pricing too many cuts if disinflation stalls."
Grok flags the tariff-oil nexus; Gemini invokes fiscal solvency. Both plausible, but neither addresses the timing mismatch: core services inflation at 4.2% is already embedded—it doesn't require future tariffs or debt crises to constrain cuts now. Miran's 3-4 cuts in 2026 assumes disinflation by then. The real question: what's the base case for core PCE by Q4 2025? If it's still above 2.5%, even 3 cuts looks optimistic regardless of oil or deficits.
C
ChatGPT
▼ Bearish
Responding to Gemini
Disagrees with:
Gemini
"Core inflation persistence means the market should price in a shallower, later easing path than a durable 3-4 cut cycle."
Gemini’s solvency angle misses the inflation-anchoring dynamic. Even if deficits affect funding costs, the near-term policy hinge is core PCE and wages. Oil stability won’t automatically unlock 3-4 cuts in 2026 if core inflation stays around 2.5%+ and labor markets remain tight; geopolitical shocks could reintroduce price pressures. Test a shallower, later path—1-2 cuts by late 2025—with optionality if wage growth slows or financial conditions tighten.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedThe panel consensus leans bearish, expecting a 'higher-for-longer' interest rate reality due to persistent core inflation and fiscal constraints. They anticipate 1-3 rate cuts by late 2025, conditional on disinflation and wage growth.
Opportunity
A potential opportunity exists if core inflation and wage growth slow, allowing for a more accommodative monetary policy and supporting equity markets.
Risk
Sticky core inflation and fiscal solvency concerns may limit the Fed's ability to ease monetary policy, potentially pressuring equity valuations, particularly in long-duration growth sectors.
Related News
Fed Governor Waller says Iran war and labor market risks are keeping central bank on hold
CNBC
·
1 week ago
New York Fed President Williams worries war will slow growth, aggravate inflation
CNBC
·
1 week, 1 day ago
S
U
A Voting Member of the FOMC Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud -- and It Should Terrify Wall Street
Nasdaq
·
1 week, 2 days ago
'We might need to raise rates': Fed official put a rate hike back on the table — and it hinges on one thing
Yahoo Finance
·
2 weeks ago
YORK
Fed's Miran lays out path to shrink central bank balance sheet further
Yahoo Finance
·
4 weeks ago
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.