#美联储政策 Seeing Powell's latest statements, the first thought that flashed through my mind was—I've seen this playbook before.

The end of 2015's rate hike cycle was also a similar situation: internal disagreements within the Federal Reserve, officials repeatedly debating between rate hikes, holding steady, or cutting rates, with decision-making becoming increasingly hesitant. Back then, the market was also testing the waters amid this uncertainty until the black swan event in early 2016 completely changed the rhythm.

The current divergence is even more painful. Three consecutive rate cuts should have been a clear policy direction, but Powell is essentially telling the market—there's no real consensus within us. Some want to continue cutting, others want to wait and see. This isn't normal policy implementation; it's a genuine chaos in the decision-making leadership's assessment of the situation.

What alarms me most is the mention of "stagflation risk." We all know the lessons from the 1970s—when inflation becomes sticky and employment cools down, policy stops and starts can actually solidify the problem. A UBS economist put it very plainly: "After interest rates approach neutral levels, supporters of each rate cut are decreasing." What does this mean? It means there's really little room left.

Looking at history as a benchmark, this stage is usually when risk assets are most likely to lose direction—uncertain policies, fluctuating data, and wavering sentiment. Having experienced two bull-bear cycles, I know that at such times, the seemingly safest choices are often the most dangerous.

Powell's term ends in May, with only three rate hike meetings remaining. Maintaining rates unchanged in the short term is basically certain, but what about afterward? Can the market provide an answer?