Over One-Third of Fed Officials Voice Support for Warsh's Proposal to Cut Policy Meetings
nashnova research
At least a third of Federal Reserve officials are open to cutting annual policy meetings from 8 to 6 — giving new Chair Kevin Warsh early momentum for the Fed's first serious scheduling overhaul since 1981.
What exactly is Warsh proposing?
Warsh proposed at the July meeting: cut formal rate-setting meetings from 8 to 6 per year, and add 2 separate sessions for major economic topics.
The Fed's legal minimum is 4 meetings a year. The current 8-meeting cadence has been fixed since 1981.
This means → it is not a calendar tweak — it is the first attempt in over 40 years to redefine how often the Fed makes decisions.
Who supports the idea — and how firmly?
At least 6 regional Fed presidents have publicly expressed openness, including Cleveland's Beth Hammack, Kansas City's Jeffrey Schmid, and Philadelphia's Anna Paulson.
But the support is conditional. Paulson said explicitly: "I'd like to better understand the trade-offs between 6 and 8."
In plain terms = officials are saying "let's talk," not "let's do it" — formal adoption is still a long way off.
What would fewer meetings actually change?
The most direct impact hits the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) — including the dot plot. The Fed currently publishes it 4 times a year, at the March, June, September, and December meetings.
If meetings drop to 6, the frequency and timing of forecasts would need a full redesign.
This means → markets would have fewer anchor points each year to price the Fed's next move, changing the rhythm of rate-expectations trading.
Why does Warsh think this can work?
He has a precedent. In 2014, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney commissioned Warsh to review the BoE's transparency practices. Warsh recommended cutting BoE meetings from 12 to 8, arguing that the economy rarely moves fast enough to justify monthly policy changes — the BoE adopted the recommendation.
Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at BNY and a former senior Fed economist, argues fewer meetings would reduce how often the Fed faces political pressure. "It shrinks the Fed's bull's-eye," he said.
This reflects a reform logic that goes beyond efficiency — there is a political-insulation dimension as well.
When could this actually happen?
Warsh has set up 5 external-expert working groups to review Fed communications. They are expected to submit recommendations to the FOMC by year-end.
But whether the September 15–16 meeting can discuss the proposal in depth remains uncertain — inflation trends and the rate-hike question are expected to dominate the agenda.
In plain terms = reform sits behind firefighting — as long as inflation is the top agenda item, meeting-frequency changes have to wait.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。