With so much dissension and disagreement in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the minutes of recent meetings have become more revealing. The minutes from the December Fed meeting shed more light on the character of those disagreements than Powell was willing or able to share at the press conference. During that press conference, Powell emphasized consensus amid uncertainty and portrayed disagreement within the Fed as a natural consequence of a multidimensional policy environment. Read alongside those remarks, the minutes reveal a more fractious narrative, one marked by deep and structural differences that are likely to shape monetary policy well into 2026. Powell framed disagreement as technical. The minutes suggest it is structural.

A Committee Without An Anchor

As a reminder, the FOMC members displayed striking dispersion with their votes. While the nine votes in favor of a 1/4 percentage rate cut were sufficient to carry the decision, the minutes indicated that a few of the yes votes came from FOMC members who “indicated that the decision was finely balanced or that they could have supported keeping the target range unchanged”. Two votes opposed the rate cut outright and wanted to leave rates unchanged. The third opposing vote wanted a 1/2 percentage point cut. Specifically, in favor were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michael S. Barr; Michelle W. Bowman; Susan M. Collins; Lisa D. Cook; Philip N. Jefferson; Alberto G. Musalem; and Christopher J. Waller. Stephen I. Miran wanted the deeper cut. Austan D. Goolsbee and Jeffrey R. Schmid wanted no change.

Powell’s Consensus Narrative vs. the Reality in the Minutes

Powell framed the lack of unanimity as a question of risk-weighting rather than disagreement over fundamentals. “Everyone around the table agrees that inflation is too high and that we want it to come down,” he said, adding that officials also agree the labor market has softened. Where views diverge, Powell claimed, is “how do you weight those risks and what does your forecast look like,” describing the decision as a “close call” driven by the “complicated, unusual, difficult situation” tugging on the Fed’s dual mandates. Powell’s claim about inflation attitudes is particularly important given the Fed will likely spend a lot of time talking up its inflation-fighting credibility even as it cuts rates this year due to political and economic pressures.

The minutes suggest that the tension is forcing the Fed to confront a confluence of opposing economic views that resists clean consensus and raises the odds of persistent dissension. Importantly, a tension between inflation rhetoric and employment risk runs through the minutes.

Inflation: Confidence in Theory, Unease in Practice

Powell expressed confidence that inflation will continue to move lower over time. In aggregate, the minutes reflect that view. However, “a majority of participants remarked that overall inflation had been above target for some time and had not moved closer to the 2 percent objective over the past year”. The Fed’s staff reinforced these concerns by concluding that the upside risk to inflation has become more precarious given that inflation has remained above the Fed’s 2% target for four straight years. Still, some participants claimed that those upside risks have declined.

In a likely reference to the Fed’s Beige Book (which in 2025 was full of vivid descriptions of inflation pressures), the minutes reported that “some participants stated that their business contacts had reported persistent input cost pressures unrelated to tariffs”. Several of these participants in turn reported that “weaker demand limited the ability of some firms to raise prices or that business productivity gains might enable some firms to manage these cost pressures”. 

The minutes reported that “some participants highlighted the risk that elevated inflation might prove more persistent than expected”. These fears likely stem from the lingering and uncomfortable uncertainty about the ultimate impact of a fluid tariff regime. The minutes reported that a majority of participants expected disinflation in housing services to continue while a few participants also saw ongoing disinflation in core nonhousing services. As usual, this suggests the Fed finds plenty of comfort in the relatively tame long-term expectations for inflation based on survey and market data. As usual, these assessments suggest the Fed finds plenty of comfort in relatively tame long-term inflation expectations based on survey and market data.

If inflation will actually making a soft landing to the Fed’s 2% target in 2027 and 2028 as the current central tendency in the projections insists, the journey will likely continue to feature sticky inflation… and plenty of jawboning to convince financial markets the Fed will not allow tariffs, for example, to cascade into persistently high inflation. According to the minutes, “some participants noted concerns that a more prolonged period of above-target inflation could risk an increase in longer-run expectations”. Four years already seems like a prolonged period, so I am not convinced that a few more years above 2% will dissuade the Fed from continuing to cut rates to try to address weakness in the labor market.

Taken together, the minutes show a Fed that is far more concerned about labor-market fragility than its public messaging suggests. By incorporating that calculus, the bar for another rate cut looks lower than current market pricing implies”.

Labor Markets: Where the Fed’s Anxiety Really Shows

The FOMC sounded more unified about the employment picture. As a result, I expect in due time the Fed will give sway to cutting rates again sooner than later, as soon as January. According to the CME’s FedWatch tool, the current odds for a rate cut sit at a paltry 15% for the January 28th meeting, so I realize my perspective is an outlier. However, in a coming year that should deliver its share of outlier events, I think a January rate cut will be the least of the economic and financial surprises.

In December’s press conference, Powell acknowledged labor market softening. Powell said the Committee agreed that “the labor market has softened” and emphasized that employment faced “further risk”. However, he downplayed the urgency of the perceived deterioration. By contrast, the minutes uncovered some deeper anxieties about the employment picture and now give me further reason to believe in the high possibility for a January rate cut. For example, the minutes reported that several participants presented a case of potential signals of “greater fragility in the labor market”.

Why I am Expecting a January Rate Cut

The minutes reported that “participants generally assessed that, under appropriate monetary policy, the labor market likely would stabilize next year.” This conditional framing supports my expectation for more rate cuts than the market currently assumes. Notably, the central tendency of the Fed’s projections pegs 2025 as the peak year for unemployment. Any negative divergence from that assumption would strengthen the case for additional rate cuts.

Conclusion

The Fed as a group positions its statements for downside risks to employment and upside risks to inflation. However, the balance of its attention suggests the Fed is prepared to act as though inflation is well under control and employment is the more fragile component of the economic picture. I assume the stock market’s complete comfort with the current tensions comes from an abiding belief in the lower trajectory for interest rates. The market has already been gifted three rate cuts with the indices at or near all-time highs. The central tendency for rates in 2026 is 2.9% to 3.6%. The non-zero possibility that the Fed does not cut rates at all this year looks to me like window dressing meant to preserve the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility.

I am betting on rate cuts to continue in January and an still positioned in the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as a main hedge against the stagflationary potential for more rate cuts in the face of sticky inflation. GTIP currently yields 4.2% and gained 1.9% in 2025. GTIP is down about 17% from its 2021 all-time high.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

The post Lessons from the Fed Minutes: Why Division and Dissension Are Likely to Dominate Monetary Policy in 2026 appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In a recent interview, Fundstrat Co-founder and Head of Research Tom Lee made a convincing but incomplete argument for team non-inflationary when describing the economic impacts of tariffs. From Lee’s perspective, a tariff is a tax that simply reallocates money in the economy. Money transfers from companies and/or consumers in the supply chain to the government. That money goes right back into the economy through government spending. Thus, money just flows from one set of hands to another. This argument seems to rely on a monetary theory of inflation, where an increase in the money supply is the main driver of inflation; tariffs do not increase the money supply.

The Limits of Monetarism in Today’s Economy

Milton Friedman made monetary theory, or monetarism, famous through quotes like: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Monetarism seemed to work well to explain the economy of the 1970s and 1980s but waned over time according to the IMF. Still, given the fluid and dynamic nature of today’s economies, I am fully willing to accept that monetarism can and will become relevant under the right circumstances. Today’s tariff regime is not creating the right circumstances.

Tariffs, Wages, and Supply Chain Reactions

Because Lee thinks of tariffs as a transfer of money from people and companies to the government, he implied that instead of hiking rates to counteract inflationary effects, the Fed should cut rates in order to counteract a drop in demand from higher prices. However, Lee does not explicitly account for the potential responses to tariffs across the supply chain. As prices rise, consumers may ask for higher wages to cover increased costs in the economy. These higher wages are in turn paid for with higher prices. And so on. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller countered this fear by insisting that today’s economy does not grant workers such economic power, certainly not like they had in the immediate wake of the pandemic. However, as strict immigration policy tightens the U.S. workforce, remaining workers in significant portions of the economy could find themselves with renewed economic power to demand higher wages to offset any real or perceived tariff-driven cost increases. The final or net impacts are hard to predict.

Demand Destruction and Fed Caution

Consumers will find little comfort or relief knowing that their higher costs boost government coffers. For example, the recent budget bill held as a premise that money is better left in consumer pockets and corporate treasuries than in government accounts. Thus, a tariff-induced price hike will induce responses from the payers of that tax in order to offset real economic impacts. In the interview, Lee appears to lean toward demand destruction as the deflationary counterbalance that can relieve pressure on consumers. Yet, with the looming uncertainty about the path of tariff policy and its eventual impacts, the Federal Reserve is well-served to proceed with caution. For example, cutting rates to offset demand destruction could entrench the inflationary impulse that pressured demand. In the optimistic scenario, the Fed could do well to wait on businesses and suppliers to work out efficiencies to avoid passing on tariff costs into the rest of the economy.

The Inflationary Impact Is Real and Already Here

In the middle of all the swirl on inflationary impacts from tariffs comes a recent Federal Reserve study that has already detected inflationary impacts from the current tariff regime and has concluded that the first trade war with China from 2018–2019 also boosted inflation. From “Detecting Tariff Effects on Consumer Prices in Real Time“:

“…we find that US import tariffs led to a statistically significant increase in consumer goods prices. For the 2018–19 tariffs, our local-projections approach reveals that tariff changes were passed through fully and quickly—within two months of tariff implementation—to consumer goods prices. For the February and March 2025 tariffs implemented on imports from China, we find that tariffs have already passed through partially to the consumer goods prices that we can observe through March. Our results indicate that the 2025 tariffs have so far led to a 0.3 percent increase in core goods PCE prices, contributing to a 0.1 percent increase in core PCE prices (goods and services prices, excluding food and energy) as a whole.”

An illustrative research paper from the San Francisco Federal Reserve, “The Effects of Tariffs on Inflation and Production Costs” by Bart Hobijn and Fernanda Nechio, makes an even more stark case for the inflationary impacts of tariffs:

“Estimates suggest that the impact on prices for investment goods is likely to be much larger than for consumption goods. For example, if an across-the-board 25% tariff is fully passed through to finished goods, near-term price increases are estimated to be about 9.5% for investment goods and 2.2% for consumption goods.”

Hobijn and Nechio further explain that “the import content is much larger for investment goods than for consumption goods. This is because domestic markups tend to be smaller for investment goods than for consumer goods, making the import content of their costs much larger.”

Thus, even if aggregate inflation somehow sustains minimal impact because of fortuitous offsets, significant parts of the economy could suffer. Without tariffs, the inflation rates in both periods could have been lower. With inflation still above the Fed’s 2.0% target, a cut in rates in the middle of so much uncertainty carries all types of risks.

Bostic Speaks for Team Inflation

In commentary hearkening back to the warning signs from the last Beige Book, Raphael Bostic, President of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, cautioned in a CNBC International interview that the Fed’s business contacts have clearly signaled their willingness and readiness to raise prices in response to tariffs. In commentary that could be referencing the recent Fed study, Bostic also claimed that inflation is already showing up in current tariffs. Most interesting to me in this inflationary story is Bostic’s counter to the theory posed by Waller and others that tariffs create a one-time price shock and then inflation just goes back to normal (emphasis mine):

“The textbook story for economics is if you do tariffs, it’s a one-time shift. It happens quickly. Everyone understands what’s going on and then the world goes back to how it was before. So you should look through that. What we are seeing today though is not just a one-time shift. It’s actually something that’s being stretched out over a much longer period of time. I think that runs the risk that people start to feel like inflation is always with them. This elevated level of inflation is always with them. And that then runs the risk that there might be some structural changes that businesses and consumers, for that matter, make in terms of how they respond and how they engage in the marketplace.”

Bostic sums up very well why the Fed must proceed with caution. Without clarity on the shape, timing, or magnitude of tariff policy, predictions and models are precarious. Rushing to cut rates risks worsening any upcoming inflation surprises.

Bostic also has support in other economic research. The following quote from an NBER working paper, “Tariffs As Cost-Push Shocks: Implications for Optimal Monetary Policy” by Iván Werning, Guido Lorenzoni, and Veronica Guerrieri, suggests that calls to “see through” tariff shocks represent more economic bravery than some may admit (emphasis mine):

“A widely held tenet in the practice of central banking is that a shock like a tariff shock, that entails a mechanical increase in some prices, is a shock that requires the central bank to “see through it”, in other words, to let the mechanical effect of the tariff in prices to affect the overall price level, but avoid
larger increase in prices. To be fair, this is a rule of thumb which, as far as we know, does not correspond to any result in economic theory.”

Conclusion: Stagflation at the Center

Ultimately, all this back and forth on the potential inflationary impact of tariffs tells me that stagflation remains front and center in the economic window. The Fed is right to remain cautious, but as time drags on, economic risks increase for both inflation from tariffs and for an economic slowdown from demand destruction or even ongoing cyclical factors. Today’s predictions will turn out wrong in surprising ways. The Federal Reserve is caught in a tough position where it needs to wait but may find the rising risks and costs of waiting increasingly difficult to absorb.

The staglfationary risks and dilemmas come through in the following quote from the NBER working paper:

“Is a tariff expansionary or contractionary? The answer depends on how monetary policy responds… Based on our equivalence result, a tariff is best understood as a supply-side disturbance—not a demand-side disturbance—that introduces a trade-off for monetary policy. If the central bank prioritizes price stability, the tariff will lead to a sharp short-run contraction. Alternatively, the central bank can offset this contraction by pursuing an expansionary response. In sum, the notion of a “neutral” monetary policy is not well defined.”

In the meantime, I remain committed to Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as my hedge on the Fed’s increasingly precarious stagflationary bind. For now, the ETF has bounced around at the whims of long-term Treasury bonds, vacillating from nervousness over the U.S.’s ballooning debt to reassurances over the economy to mild flight-to-safety flows.

Source: Tradingview.com

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

Tom Lee’s inflation commentary comes at the 7:25 mark in the video below…

The post Tom Lee Dismisses Tariff Inflation — But Data, Theory, and Research Say Otherwise appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Source: April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, Federal Reserve Bank Philadelphia

At the same time economic activity fell off a cliff, prices paid accelerated higher. A steady uptrend in prices paid was in place since last year, but in April they jumped to levels last seen in July, 2022. After spiking in January, the prices received flattened out. So the good news, for now, is that firms in aggregate are not passing along the surge in prices paid. Either firms are facing the reality of a loss in pricing power in a softening economic environment, and/or they are trying to wait out the current economic chaos. Either way, the underlying stagflationary pressures are roiling just under the surface for the manufacturing sector.

Note that since these measures are diffusion indices (see definition in the above chart), the magnitude of these effects is not visible. Still, given policymakers closely watch these economic surveys to inform policy, the stagflationary signals are sure to bleed out into monetary policy.

The Fed Trap

Based on the speeches from members of the Federal Reserve, the stagflationary signals are already bleeding into monetary policy. For example, concerns about stagflation appeared in Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s answers to questions in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago last week.

“the administration…is implementing significant policy changes and particularly trade now is the focus and the effects of that are likely to move us away from our goals. So unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows in all likelihood and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public. So that’s the strong likelihood…”

This economic bind has the Fed trapped between inflation and economic weakness. For now, all the Fed can do is hope for the best. Hope as monetary policy came through as Powell continued: “…my hope is that we’ll get through this and get back…we’ll be moving away from those goals [of maximum employment and price stability] probably for the balance of this year and then or at least not making any progress and then we’ll resume that progress as we can.”

The Fed is clearly not thinking about responding to the current economic chaos with price cuts. Powell insisted that “our role is to make sure that this will be a one-time increase in prices and not something that turns into an ongoing inflation process.” The Fed cannot contain higher prices and higher inflation expectations with rate cuts. Thus, the Fed will likely sit on its hands as long as possible in the face of weakening employment. I expect the Fed to resort to creative “Fedspeak” in lieu of action in the hopes stagflationary pressures will wind down on their own.

A GTIP Dip

Three weeks ago I made the case for buying the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as one way of meeting the investing challenge of a stagflationary environment. GTIP fell soon after that as long-term bond yields suddenly soared with waning confidence in the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar. I used this period to accumulate GTIP at lower prices since I do not foresee long-term yields going much higher absent an extreme crisis of confidence. GTIP will get its next big test when April’s CPI rolls out next month. Will it demonstrate businesses restraining from passing along tariffs to end consumers? Will it warn of resurgent inflationary pressures? The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey suggests GTIP has tailwinds.

The Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) briefly dropped toward the bottom of its recent range.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

The post An Early Look At Stagflationary Pressures appeared first on Inflation Watch.

TIPS are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. The name implies that purchasing these bonds provides a way to protect your money from inflation. Per the Treasury website: “As the name implies, TIPS are set up to protect you against inflation…The principal (called par value or face value) of a TIPS goes up with inflation and down with deflation.” A lot of people likely stopped reading there. However, TIPS are still bonds. So when interest rates go up, the value of the bond decreases. The crux of the failure in TIPS in 2022 was a double whammy: the inflation rate peaked along with an aggressive rate hike cycle by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Thus, the rate hikes eroded the bond value faster than inflation increased the value of the bond.

Is It Time to Buy GTIP?

The weekly chart below of the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) shows how buying in anticipation of inflation made a lot of sense. Now, inflation is proving sticky, and in due time, with the backdrop of slowing growth, the Fed will be under increasing pressure to CUT rates. This stagflationary combination should provide a golden moment for TIPS.

With growth pressures ahead, the Fed is unlikely to hike rates anytime soon. This reality is an important backstop for GTIP. As soon as the Fed started to hike rates in 2022, GTIP topped out. GTIP plunged about 18% before it bottomed in 2022 and did not hit a final bottom until after the Fed’s last rate hike in July, 2023.

Note that GTIP has been on the rise in 2025. With a current yield of 3.5%, GTIP is “close enough” to many high yield savings accounts to make GTIP competitive alternative to cash for the conservative part of a portfolio. Even with tariffs creating a “one-time price adjustment higher” in prices, GTIP should get quite a boost in the coming year. Rate cuts from the Fed will provide an extra kicker. In other words, GTIP looks like a good investment option for the potential stagflationary environment to come. This TIPS instrument could even rival the return for stocks in the coming year or more.

Here Comes RBIL

The podcast “Talk Your Book” had an an excellent discussion on TIPS and potential alternatives to TIPS. In “A Better Money Market Fund“, F/m Investments explained why TIPS failed so spectacularly: “People ignored the fact that real yields can go up too…That real rate rise cannibalized any uptick you had in your inflation accrual…It was just typical bond risk.”

F/m Investments offered up the F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (RBIL) as a an alternative to TIPS. Here is the case the company makes for RBIL (shown in graphical detail on the podcast site):

• A multiple bond portfolio consisting of TIPS maturing in a year which strips out rate duration risk and mainly leaves the principal appreciation from the inflation protection.
• Gives a modest coupon and the CPI appreciation
• Will protect purchasing power
• It is a better money market fund
• Avoids the tax complications of TIPS
• Provides the efficiency of an ETF

RBIL is definitely an interesting alternative to buy TIPS outright. But given RBIL just launched in late February, I prefer to buy GTIP for now, especially given my own inflation and rate expectations. In another year or so, I will check on the relative performance of GTIP vs RBIL and adjust as needed from there.

Tariffs Mean Inflation

F/m provided a simpleton’s guide to tariffs and inflation that serves as a summary to their short post on soaring inflation anxieties:

• When you hear tariffs, think inflation.
• When you hear tariffs are delayed or are coming sooner, you have to think more inflation.
• When someone tells you tariffs won’t cause inflation, you have to think Japan….or deep depression.
• We know all the outcomes from tariffs in the short-term will be inflationary – either because they’ve happened, or worse, the fear of coming tariffs drives the hoarding of goods and services which in turn drive short-term prices higher.

Case closed.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: no positions

The post Why TIPS Failed Spectacularly In 2022… And Is NOW the Time to Buy? appeared first on Inflation Watch.