IMF Chief Economist: Fed's Scaling Back of Forward Guidance Is 'Entirely Appropriate'
0xBroomberg
IMF Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas on June 26 publicly endorsed Fed Chair Warsh's move to strip forward guidance from policy statements, calling it 'entirely appropriate' — the first senior international-institution backing for the Fed's new communication style, though he drew a clear line: dropping guidance altogether is not realistic.
What is forward guidance, and why cut it?
Forward guidance — a central bank telling markets in advance what it plans to do next — was long seen as a transparency tool. But Gourinchas argued that strong-form guidance locks the central bank in.
His exhibit A: the 2021–2022 U.S. inflation surge. The Fed had pledged to keep rates steady and could not act in time. The cost, he said, was "extremely high."
This means → the problem was never transparency itself — it was that a promise became a straitjacket, leaving policy frozen while the economy shifted.
What has Warsh done since taking over?
After taking office last month, Warsh steered his first policy meeting to adopt a stripped-down policy statement, removing all near-term forward guidance.
He also launched a comprehensive review of the Fed's decision-making and communication framework.
In plain terms = the new chair's first move was to say less — no more telegraphing the next step.
How much weight does Gourinchas's endorsement carry?
As IMF Chief Economist, Gourinchas's statement marks the first public endorsement from a major international institution of Warsh's communication overhaul.
He noted that the IMF has observed other central banks moving in the same direction, even though many still need to guide expectations on inflation one to two years out.
This reflects a broader shift: scaling back forward guidance is not a one-country experiment but a global central-bank trend.
But can central banks really give no guidance at all?
Gourinchas was explicit: no. Markets form expectations whether or not the central bank speaks.
Central banks still need some degree of signaling to steer long-term rates — and if market expectations drift off target, they will communicate differently to pull them back.
This means → the change is in form, not substance: central banks are moving from explicit promises to implicit steering, and whether policy transparency actually changes remains to be seen.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.