Five Pressures on the Fed

---

Five forces are converging on the central bank, and each one limits the response to the others.

US markets are now large enough relative to the economy that a 20% drawdown would meaningfully cut consumption, because roughly 50% of US consumption comes from the top 10% of households. The national debt interacts badly with any sustained rise in rates. 

Structural inflation has been elevated for six years, driven by populist and protectionist forces rather than monetary ones. Populism itself keeps rising as inequality widens. And the confrontation with China adds supply-chain and commodity risks that further push prices up.

Any one of these pressures is manageable with the tools the Fed has. All five together produce a setup in which every available response makes another problem worse.

Why rate cuts no longer reach the people pressing for them

By design, a rate cut is a supply-side tool. It lowers the cost of borrowing for firms, wealthier households, and asset holders. The bottom 50% of Americans are not major borrowers and do not directly benefit from a cut. They benefit indirectly through whatever job creation a stronger investment cycle produces.

The current labor market complicates that logic. Real wages are falling and multigenerational households are at an all-time high. Underemployment among recent college graduates is around 50%. The political pressure on the Fed is coming from a group that rate cuts cannot directly help, and the gap is what makes a traditional response politically costly even when it might be economically defensible.

The transmission mechanism the Fed has historically relied on was also broken after COVID, when stimulus went directly to households rather than through the banking system. Money handed to people moves with a velocity close to one. That’s why inflation appeared the way it did in 2021 and 2022, and why the Fed's traditional tools, which work through banks, have less grip on the situation than the textbooks assume.

What the Hank Paulson Bloomberg appearance was about

A few weeks ago, Hank Paulson, Former United States Secretary of the Treasury, appeared on Bloomberg and argued, with directness, that the United States faces a coming Treasury crisis and needs to backstop the long end of the curve. He made the case multiple times. That kind of message, from someone of his stature, almost certainly didn’t come without coordination with current Treasury leadership.

The implication is that the work of stabilizing markets is likely to shift toward Treasury action rather than Fed action. A Treasury buyback at the long end of the curve is one available tool. A sovereign wealth fund that directly purchases US equity is another. A coordinated absorption of fiscal function by the Fed, formal or informal, is a third. All three are starting to be discussed publicly after years of being unspeakable.

Why a sovereign wealth fund solves several problems at once

One framework worth considering is that the United States is moving toward a partial sovereign wealth fund model that buys US equities directly, funded with new debt and existing federal assets, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However unusual that sounds, the logic potentially addresses several problems at once.

It absorbs Treasury issuance demand by giving the government an additional balance sheet to use. It supports the equity market, which, through the wealth effect, supports consumption. It provides a vehicle for industrial policy, including infrastructure and competition with China, and it offers a partial response to populism, because the equity purchases could be distributed to households as a form of universal basic income funded in shares rather than in cash. The shares can be sold or held, and the household balance sheet improves either way.

Japan has done something close to this for years through Bank of Japan equity purchases. The US has not, and the constitutional architecture isn’t designed for it. The argument is that the pressure to do something like this is becoming hard to resist regardless of the original design intent.

Is the Fed's mandate changing?

The Fed's stated mandate is to balance inflation and employment. The unstated mandate over the next two years is increasingly going to be debt management and market stabilization. That change doesn’t need to be announced to be real. It can be revealed in what the Fed does, in what the Treasury does in coordination with the Fed, and in what does not get pushed back on by either institution.

Kevin Warsh's character and history suggest he will resist a return to zero interest rates and a relaunch of QE. He stepped down from the Fed in 2011 in protest of QE and described it as Robin Hood for the rich. The harder question is what he does when forced. The historical pattern is that Fed chairs who walk in with strong views about discipline often end up implementing the opposite policy under pressure, because the pressure is structural and the tools to resist it shrink as the crisis arrives.

Why crisis may be the necessary mechanism

There’s an uncomfortable observation worth considering. 

The Fed was created in part to smooth the business cycle. Smoothing the cycle has worked for decades, but it has also disrupted a mechanism the Republic depended on. Crisis is what produces the political unanimity to pass real structural changes, to reform institutions, and to renew the contract between citizens and government. A century of smoothing has prevented that periodic refresh from happening.

If the coming chapter requires the Fed to absorb a much larger role, or the Treasury to act in ways that look more like an emerging-market central bank than a G7 one, the political reaction will be significant. That reaction is probably what eventually produces the structural reform the system has been postponing for a generation.

Why investors should focus less on rates and more on liquidity

A takeaway consistent with what has been happening for several years: The most important decisions in US monetary policy aren’t happening at the rate decision. They’re happening in the balance sheet, in the contract language between Fed and Treasury, and in the slow public preparation for a chapter that does not look like anything the modern US has run before.

The portfolio implication could go like this: Stay long the assets the policy response will support. Hold real downside protection, because transitions in this kind of system tend to come fast, and hold inflation-sensitive assets, because the political response to the position the Fed is in will almost certainly be to inflate around the problem rather than let it correct.

---

DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a conversation from Top Traders Unplugged and reflects themes, ideas, and perspectives discussed during the episode. The views expressed are those of the guest and participants in the conversation and should not be interpreted as investment advice or as the official views of Top Traders Unplugged.

To receive future episodes, research, and weekly insights from the world of investing, macro, and trend following, sign up for our newsletter or subscribe on your preferred podcast platform.