{"id":439643,"date":"2026-10-08T01:01:08","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T18:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/market-news\/fomc-minutes-most-participants-assessed-another-hike-would-likely-be-appropriate-by-year-end-439643\/"},"modified":"2026-10-08T01:01:08","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T18:01:08","slug":"fomc-minutes-most-participants-assessed-another-hike-would-likely-be-appropriate-by-year-end","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/market-news\/fomc-minutes-most-participants-assessed-another-hike-would-likely-be-appropriate-by-year-end-439643\/","title":{"rendered":"FOMC Minutes: Most participants assessed another hike would likely be appropriate by year end"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<p>Ahead of the Minutes, the market was pricing in a 19% chance of a hike this month and fully priced for a December hike.<\/p>\n<p>Highlights:<\/p>\n<ul dir=\"ltr\">\n<li>All participants supported raising rates to 3.75-4.00%<\/li>\n<li>Most participants say another hike will likely be appropriate by year-end<\/li>\n<li>Almost all assessed that labour market risks had diminished and were now broadly balanced<\/li>\n<li>A majority said the labour market had strengthened a bit recently<\/li>\n<li>Inflation risks skewed to the upside; some said more skewed in recent months<\/li>\n<li>Many saw a higher rate path as prudent on risk-management grounds<\/li>\n<li>A number said a higher path was needed based on their modal outlook<\/li>\n<li>Several viewed the current policy rate as not restrictive or only mildly restrictive<\/li>\n<li>A couple raised their estimate of the neutral rate<\/li>\n<li>Some worried that after more than five years of above-target inflation, expectations and wage and price setting could be affected<\/li>\n<li>Many said the longer energy prices stay high, the greater the risk of broader price pressures<\/li>\n<li>Some said the AI buildout could push demand ahead of supply over the medium term<\/li>\n<li>Many said financial conditions remained supportive of growth despite higher Treasury yields<\/li>\n<li>Staff estimated August PCE at 3.8% headline and 3.4% core (3.6%\/3.2% under the new BEA methodology)<\/li>\n<li>Staff doesn&#8217;t see inflation back at 2% until 2029<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p> The vote was 12-0, but the minutes go further: all participants supported the move, including the seven non-voters. Waller and Williams were flirting with a pause two weeks before the meeting, and the August CPI print erased that completely.<\/p>\n<p>The line the market will focus on is &#8220;most participants assessed that another increase&#8230; would likely be appropriate by year end.&#8221; Note the phrasing: by year end, not at the next meeting. That&#8217;s the escape hatch Williams walked through in Buffalo on September 29 when he said there was &#8220;no need for urgency.&#8221; <\/p>\n<p>everal participants don&#8217;t even think policy is restrictive at 3.75-4.00%. A couple bumped up their neutral rate estimates. A &#8220;number&#8221; of officials needed the hike based on their central forecast, not as insurance. That&#8217;s the Logan\/Hammack\/Kashkari camp, and it&#8217;s bigger than three people now. When you&#8217;ve got officials arguing a 4% fed funds rate is barely restrictive with core PCE at 3.4%, the terminal debate isn&#8217;t about one more hike.<\/p>\n<p>                            This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Ahead of the Minutes, the market was pricing in a 19% chance of a hike this month and fully priced for a December hike. Highlights: All participants supported raising rates to 3.75-4.00%&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":216,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-439643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-market-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/216"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=439643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=439643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=439643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.swingfish.trade\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=439643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}