NextFin News - The Federal Reserve raised interest rates on Wednesday for the first time since 2023, ending a nine-month pause and a three-year easing cycle - but Richard Clarida, a former vice chairman of the central bank, warned the move may not be "one and done," signaling that at least one more increase could follow before year-end.
The Federal Open Market Committee lifted the federal funds target range by 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00% in a unanimous 12-0 vote, the first rate change under Chair Kevin Warsh and the first increase since July 2023. The benchmark rate had sat at 3.50%-3.75% since December 10, 2025, after six cuts totaling 175 basis points that began with a half-point move in September 2024.
The decision itself was almost fully priced in. Traders using CME Group's FedWatch tool assigned roughly a 90%-93% probability to a quarter-point increase heading into the announcement, and a poll of 101 economists found an 85% majority expecting the same move. What was not priced in is the path after it - and that is where Clarida's warning matters.
In a television interview on Wednesday, Clarida, now a global economic advisor at PIMCO, said the September hike should not be read as a self-contained adjustment. His message reframes the meeting: the Fed has crossed from cutting to hiking, and the reversal may have only just begun. Inflation has remained above the central bank's 2% target for 65 consecutive months, and a single quarter point does little to change the real policy stance when prices are still rising at a 3.7% annual pace.
The Reversal the Market Already Priced
The consensus that produced Wednesday's hike formed in less than two weeks. In the survey taken September 4 to 9, about 56% of economists said the Fed would hold rates steady for the rest of the year. In the survey taken after Friday's inflation report, 85% said the Fed would raise rates this week, and most of those expected at least one more increase by the end of March. That is a near-53% majority of forecasters, 37 of 70, who now see at least one further rate increase by end-March, compared with 56% expecting steady rates the week before.
Three data releases did the work. On September 4 the August jobs report showed 162,000 new positions against an expected 53,000, with unemployment steady at 4.1%. On September 10 producer prices came in at 0.4% for the month. On September 11 consumer prices matched that, and the core reading came in a tenth above forecast. Interest-rate futures moved with the data, pricing close to a 90% chance of an increase this week and roughly four increases by end-July 2027.
The data left inflation stuck well above the Fed's 2% target. The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, the Fed's preferred gauge, ran at a 3.7% annual pace in June and July. Headline consumer inflation read 3.4% in August, driven largely by energy: the energy component of the consumer price index is up 16.3% over twelve months, and Brent crude traded around $107 a barrel, up roughly 60% from a year ago and about 20% since the end of August. Strip out food and energy and core inflation is 2.4%, and it has fallen in each of the last three months - a detail that gives the "one and done" camp its strongest footing.
The committee's own projections were already leaning hawkish before the data turned. In June, policymakers were evenly split: nine of the 19 officials submitting forecasts saw rates rising by at least a quarter point by the end of 2026, while the other nine expected rates to hold or fall. Three members dissented in favor of a hike at the July 28-29 meeting - Beth M. Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie K. Logan, the presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of Cleveland, Minneapolis and Dallas - and the July statement left little doubt about the direction of travel.
"Inflation remains elevated relative to the Committee's 2 percent goal, in part reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy," the July statement said. "The Committee will deliver price stability."
"Underlying inflation data do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved," Warsh said in his keynote speech at the Jackson Hole economic symposium on August 28. "We need to be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed."
That speech did the heavy lifting before the meeting even began. Following Warsh's prepared remarks, the probability of a 25-basis-point hike in September jumped to 61.7% from 35.4% in a single session, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
Why Clarida Says the Work Is Not Finished
Clarida's warning rests on a reading of the committee's reaction function rather than on any single new data point. In an interview after Warsh's Jackson Hole speech, Clarida said "every meeting, including September, is live," adding that "there may be work to do." He called Warsh's acknowledgment that the Fed still has "work to do" the most important line from the speech. On Wednesday, with the first hike delivered, his message was that the work is not finished - and the arithmetic supports him.
A single 25-basis-point increase barely changes the real policy stance when inflation is running near 3.7%. Measured against the 12-month PCE pace, the real federal funds rate sits only modestly above zero even after the hike - far from the restrictive territory the committee says it needs. To move policy from neutral to genuinely restrictive, one quarter point is not enough.
There is also the bond market to contend with. Long-term borrowing costs have been tightening financial conditions on the Fed's behalf. Yields on the 10-year U.S. Treasury climbed above 5% this week, a 19-year high, and the 30-year yield closed at 5.37% on September 10, its highest level since July 2004. Since the eve of Jackson Hole, the two-year Treasury yield - the maturity most sensitive to Fed policy - has risen 36 basis points, to 4.56%. The front of the curve is moving faster than the back, which is the market repricing what the Fed does over the next year or two.
Here is the second-order problem that Clarida's warning points to. If the Fed hikes once and then stops while long yields stay above 5%, the yield curve stays steep and financial conditions stay loose relative to the inflation problem. The market reads a one-off hike as a credibility gesture rather than a regime shift, and long yields drift higher on their own - doing the tightening for the Fed, but in the least controlled way possible. The cleaner path, and the one Clarida is describing, is a sequence of short-rate moves that re-anchors the entire curve.
This is where the cyclical and the structural split. The energy shock is cyclical: oil spikes wash out of the twelve-month inflation figure on their own, and core prices have already fallen for three straight months. But the shift in long-term borrowing costs is structural - a secular repricing of term premium and sovereign supply that does not revert on its own. Clarida's call is that the structural leg dominates the cyclical one, which is why a single rate hike is not enough to restore a restrictive stance.
The sequencing history is unforgiving. The Fed cut rates six times between September 2024 and December 2025, lowering the target by 175 basis points, then reversed course only about nine months later. Going back to the early 1990s, only one easing-to-tightening reversal was quicker: the Fed cut three times in the autumn of 1998 during the Russian default and the Long-Term Capital Management crisis, then began hiking again on June 30, 1999, roughly seven and a half months after the last cut. Every other turn from easing to tightening took a year or more. A reversal that fast rarely ends with a single adjustment, because the conditions that force a quick pivot - inflation that refuses to fall - do not typically resolve after one quarter point.
Robert Sockin, chief U.S. economist at PGIM, framed the unanimity of Wednesday's vote as the important signal. "If they hike and it is unanimous - that is a strong signal," he said, particularly if the accompanying projections show policymakers expect another increase this year and possibly another in 2027. Sockin sees three U.S. hikes in the cards.
The Strongest Case That This Is a One-Off
The counter-thesis is not weak, and it deserves its due. The first pillar is that the Fed may be buying insurance rather than starting a campaign. Standard Chartered analysts John Davies and Steve Englander argued the central bank should hold this week, writing that "there seems to have been a market echo chamber pushing up expectations despite a limited amount of incoming data" and that "there is a very low cost to waiting." On that view, one hike satisfies the credibility need without committing to a full tightening cycle that could break a labor market that is already showing softness in the margins.
The second pillar is the core-inflation trend. Headline inflation at 3.4% is a problem, but core at 2.4% - falling for three consecutive months - is not. Central banks usually look past an oil shock, because a rate increase does nothing about a disrupted pipeline in Saudi Arabia and the price effect washes out of the twelve-month figure on its own. If energy rolls over and core continues to drift down, the September hike stands alone as a pre-emptive strike that achieved its purpose.
The third pillar is political. President Donald Trump, who appointed Warsh, has said he expected his appointee to lower borrowing costs and has threatened new import tariffs if the Fed does not cut rates. A committee mindful of its independence may prefer to do the minimum necessary and stop, rather than embark on a multi-hike path that invites further confrontation with the White House. One hike demonstrates resolve; a sequence invites a political fight.
Clarida's answer is that credibility cuts both ways. If the Fed hikes once and then signals it is done while underlying inflation remains near 3.7%, it risks losing the very credibility it is trying to restore. The falsifying signal for his view is specific and observable: if the next two monthly PCE prints show core inflation at or below 0.2% month over month - and if the unemployment rate rises toward 4.5% - the case for a second hike evaporates and the September move stands alone. Until then, the burden of proof sits with the one-and-done camp.
What to Watch Next
In the short term, the focus shifts to the updated Summary of Economic Projections and Warsh's press conference. The question is whether the committee describes the hike as a calibration or as the first step of a sequence. Investors pricing four rate increases between now and next June are betting on the latter. If Warsh sounds more cautious than that, the long end of the Treasury curve could sell off even after a hike - the exact risk flagged by a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution: "There's a ton of risk around this meeting and - especially - the press conference."
Warsh has spent his first months in the job removing the tools his predecessors used to tell markets what was coming. He became chair on May 22 and has run three meetings. At his first, he said plainly, "We've dropped forward guidance," and the policy statement shrank to 132 words from 341. He declined to submit his own projection to the June dot plot, so the chair's dot is simply absent. He has set up five internal task forces - covering communications, the balance sheet, data sources, productivity and jobs, and the inflation-analysis framework - all reporting before the end of the year. The absence of guidance makes the press conference the only real signal in the room.
Over the medium term, the path depends on three data streams: the monthly PCE inflation report, the labor market, and the level of the 10-year Treasury yield. A base case consistent with Clarida's view is one more hike before year-end, with the timing data-dependent. An upside case for markets is that energy prices roll over, core inflation prints at or below 0.2% for two consecutive months, and the September hike proves to be the last. A downside case is that inflation re-accelerates and the Fed is forced into a faster, more aggressive sequence - the outcome that would hurt both equities and bonds.
The beneficiaries of a multi-hike path are short-duration fixed income and the U.S. dollar. The most exposed are long-duration Treasuries, growth equities that depend on low discount rates, and rate-sensitive sectors such as housing and commercial real estate. If Clarida is right that this is not "one and done," the market has priced the first hike but not necessarily the second - and that gap is where the risk sits.
The September hike closes one chapter: the easing cycle that began in September 2024 and ran for 175 basis points. Clarida's warning is that it opens another. If he is right, the market has priced the first rate hike - but not the second.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
