Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh has raised the possibility of reducing the number of regularly scheduled meetings at which the central bank sets interest rates — a structural change that would mark the most consequential shift in how the Fed operates in more than four decades.

Warsh floated the idea internally at this week’s Federal Open Market Committee gathering, according to a New York Times account published Friday citing people familiar with the discussion who were not authorized to speak publicly. Those sources indicated a decision on the calendar could come before the committee’s next meeting, set for Sept. 15-16.

The Fed has held eight regularly scheduled policy meetings a year since 1981, supplemented by emergency sessions convened during crises. Any reduction would be the first change to that cadence in 45 years.

Consistent with a long-held view

The proposal is not a departure from anything Warsh has said publicly. Before taking over the Fed in May, he had argued that central banks meet too often and telegraph too much — criticizing the Bank of England’s monthly schedule as suboptimal and recommending it move to eight meetings a year, on the reasoning that outside of crisis periods the economic picture changes slowly.

That philosophy has already reshaped the Fed’s output. Warsh has stripped forward guidance from the post-meeting statement, which is now markedly shorter than under his predecessor, and he has declined to commit to press conferences beyond the end of this year, though he confirmed Wednesday that the remaining 2026 briefings will go ahead as scheduled. He has also stood up a set of internal task forces, one of them devoted specifically to how the institution communicates.

Fewer meetings would extend that logic to the calendar itself. Each scheduled meeting is a date the market prices around; removing some would eliminate several fixed points where the Fed is expected to explain itself.

The trade-offs

Supporters of the approach argue that eight meetings a year invites over-management — that a committee meeting that often feels obliged to react to each data release, and that spacing decisions further apart would restore the flexibility earlier chairs surrendered by all but pre-announcing their moves.

The objections are equally direct. A leaner calendar makes policy slower to respond when inflation or the labor market turns, and it thins the flow of information to markets and the public at a moment when the outlook is unusually murky. There is also a practical concern: with fewer scheduled decision points, expectations get filled in by whichever officials happen to be speaking, which cedes the chairman’s control over the narrative rather than concentrating it.

That dynamic is already visible. In the run-up to this week’s meeting, the clearest read on where policy was headed came not from Warsh’s two days of congressional testimony but from remarks by his colleagues.

Coming off a contentious meeting

The timing lands immediately after one of the more fractious FOMC sessions in years. The committee voted 9-3 on Wednesday to hold the benchmark federal funds rate in a range of 3.5% to 3.75% — the fifth consecutive hold — with Cleveland’s Beth Hammack, Minneapolis’ Neel Kashkari and Dallas’ Lorie Logan all dissenting in favor of a quarter-point increase. Three dissents pushing in the same direction is the most since September 2016.

Warsh described the disagreement as “a good family fight” and said he had asked for it. He told reporters the decision to hold was prudent given the uncertainty, and pressed the point that the Fed has no soft or implicit inflation objective and remains committed to 2% after more than five years of overshoot.

Markets did not take it calmly. The 30-year Treasury yield jumped roughly 12 basis points to about 5.21%, its highest in 19 years, while the two-year yield fell — a steepening that reads as investors marking up long-run inflation risk while pricing less near-term tightening.

The inflation picture is complicated by the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict, which continues to cloud the energy and supply-chain inputs feeding into price data. Several forecasters have argued that absent further escalation, the Fed stays on hold through year-end.

What it means for business

For businesses that plan around the rate calendar — commercial borrowers timing refinancings, treasurers hedging exposure, banks setting deposit pricing — fewer scheduled meetings would mean fewer, larger, and less predictable adjustment points. Longer gaps between decisions raise the odds that any single move is bigger, and raise the odds of off-cycle action when conditions shift mid-gap.

President Trump has publicly backed Warsh this week, calling him fantastic while criticizing other Fed officials. Warsh is scheduled to speak at the Jackson Hole symposium Aug. 27-29, the most likely venue for a fuller public airing of his thinking before the September meeting.

JBizNews Desk | Washington, D.C.

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.