「Fed's Microphone」: Powell's Debut has Three Key Points, with a Focus on Whether the 'Dovish Tone' Wording will be Removed

**June 18: Key Takeaways from Powell’s First Fed Meeting (Per Nick Timiraos)** Nick Timiraos, widely known as the "Fed’s Whisperer," identifies three critical questions surrounding Chair Jerome Powell’s debut Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting at the U.S. central bank: 1. Will the Fed drop the phrase "accommodative stance" from its policy statement—and, if so, what will replace it? Since 2024, the line about "additional adjustments" has signaled to markets the next interest rate move is more likely a cut than a hike. That wording sparked debate at the last FOMC meeting and now looks increasingly outdated. Removing it would satisfy all sides: hawks have long pushed for the language’s removal, while Powell can frame the change as a procedural tweak rather than a hard shift to a hawkish policy stance. Even former President Trump hinted at this move during Powell’s swearing-in ceremony for his second term as Fed chair. 2. Will the "dot plot" become the primary guidance tool for markets moving forward? The Fed will release its latest set of rate forecasts—its first since March. Back in March, 12 of 19 Fed officials projected at least one interest rate cut by 2026; today, most expect no cuts are needed. Of particular note: how many officials now predict rate hikes ahead, and whether Powell—who has long been skeptical of the dot plot—will submit his own forecast or downplay the tool’s significance by abstaining from voting on the projections. 3. How will Powell communicate during his post-meeting press conference? A Fed chair’s remarks move markets because investors trust he controls the FOMC majority, meaning his words reflect the committee’s collective direction, not just personal views. But Powell leads a divided group that is not fully unified behind him. If he accurately conveys his colleagues’ views, he will start to build authority as the committee’s spokesperson. If he fails to do so, dissenters will air their disagreements publicly (for example, through dissenting votes on the policy statement). For a chair inclined to dial back explicit policy signaling, those dissenting votes could themselves become a tool for communicating policy stances. Source: Golden Finance