#美联储政策分析 Seeing the voting disagreement data from this Fed meeting, a memory of the policy shift in 2015 flashed through my mind. At that time, there were also disagreements within the Fed, but it was nowhere near as severe as today – 5 out of 12 voting members opposed, which has been rare since 1990.

A glance at the historical accounts reveals that whenever there is such a level of internal division in monetary policy, it often signifies that the market is about to enter a new phase of competition. The tapering controversy in 2018 and last year's interest rate hike disagreements ultimately evolved into significant turning points in the market. This time, however, the involvement of political pressure has made the entire decision-making process more complex — Powell's choice of words may be more critical than the 25 basis point rate cut itself.

What truly deserves attention is not whether there will be a rate cut tonight; the 87.6% probability has already given us the answer. The key lies in the signals of balance sheet expansion and policy guidance. The prediction of a $45 billion monthly Treasury bond purchase plan by American banks for January is the real signal for liquidity being re-injected into the market. The shift from balance sheet reduction to expansion rewrites the asset allocation logic for the entire year of 2026.

Analysts who believe that the market has already digested the interest rate cut actions are not wrong, but they overlook one point—the market has never truly digested the "politicization" shift of the Fed. The biggest highlight of this meeting is where the boundaries of the Fed's independence lie, and how the newly rotated regional Fed presidents will express their views. These details will determine the supply side of liquidity in the coming year, rather than just the level of interest rates.

Those who have experienced several complete cycles know that policy divergence is often a twin of opportunity and risk.