U.S./Israel-Iran War: the Middle East On Edge
NextFin News - With the Federal Reserve's policy meeting hours away, Morgan Stanley became the latest Wall Street giant to reverse course, forecasting a quarter-point rate hike this week and joining Goldman Sachs in an 11th-hour hawkish flip that leaves almost no major broker betting against a move. The shift, delivered in a note on Monday, caps a frantic fortnight in which hotter-than-expected inflation, oil above $100 a barrel, and a bond-market rout have dragged the probability of a September increase past 90%, up from roughly 70% before the inflation shock. The question now is not whether the Fed hikes — markets price it as near-certain — but whether Chair Kevin Warsh and his colleagues believe in the hike they are about to deliver, and what that says about the next leg of the cycle.
The Situation: A Wall Street Stampede Into The FOMC
Morgan Stanley now expects the Federal Open Market Committee to raise the federal funds rate by 25 basis points at its September 15-16 meeting, and to deliver a second quarter-point increase in December. The bank described the disinflation process as "slower and less convincing" than policymakers are likely to require, and said it expects the central bank to signal further tightening before officials pause as inflation moderates. The brokerage also revised its European Central Bank call, forecasting an additional 25-basis-point increase in December that would lift the deposit rate to 2.75% — a reversal of its previous view that the ECB's tightening cycle had ended — and now sees just one rate cut in 2027, in December.
The timing is the story. Goldman Sachs had already switched its call, in a note dated Sunday, from no change at this week's meeting to a 25-basis-point hike — a striking about-face for a firm whose chief U.S. economist, David Mericle, wrote just days earlier that it saw no strong economic case for raising the funds rate because all of the overshoot above the Fed's 2% target could be attributed to one-time factors. The two banks are not alone. J.P. Morgan, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank also forecast a quarter-point hike this week, while UBS and Barclays have each called for two increases this year. What began as a minority view earlier in 2026 — when many economists expected the Fed to stay on hold following a quarter-point cut in December 2025 — has become the overwhelming consensus inside a single month.
The trigger was unambiguous. U.S. consumer prices rose 0.4% in August, double the 0.2% economists had expected, leaving headline inflation at a 3.4% annual pace. Core inflation, which strips out food and energy, accelerated 0.3% — its largest monthly increase in four months and again above the 0.2% forecast. A 3.9% jump in gasoline prices accounted for more than a third of the monthly increase, and the producer-price report earlier in the week also came in hot. With oil trading above $100 a barrel on renewed hostilities in the Middle East, the market's reaction was swift and severe: the 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 5% on Monday, touching 5.01% intraday, its highest level since October 2023. Gold slipped as real-rate expectations repriced. Inflation has now run above the Fed's target for five and a half years.
Rate futures reflect the repricing. As of Monday afternoon, traders were pricing a better-than-92% probability of a rate increase at this week's meeting, along with a more-than-75% chance of a follow-up in December, according to the CME Group's FedWatch gauge. The federal funds rate currently stands at 3.50% to 3.75%. A month earlier, after Chair Kevin Warsh's unexpectedly hawkish Jackson Hole address, the implied odds of a September hike were closer to 60%; before the August inflation print, they sat near 70%.
Why The Banks Flipped: Credibility, Not Conviction
The most revealing detail in this episode is not the direction of the reversal but its motivation. Goldman Sachs, in its Sunday note, made an almost confessional distinction: it still expects two Fed rate cuts in 2027, though later than previously forecast, and it views this week's expected hike as driven more by market pricing than by inflation fundamentals. In other words, Goldman is not hiking because it believes inflation has structurally reaccelerated — it is hiking because the market has left it no credible alternative.
"We do not see a strong economic case for raising the funds rate," Goldman Sachs economist David Mericle said in a client note. "We think that all of the overshoot of 2% can be attributed to one-time factors whose impact is likely to fade."
Morgan Stanley's reasoning runs along a different axis. Its note acknowledged arguments on both sides — a hike and a hold — but concluded that "signs of second-round effects from energy prices, strong demand tied to AI-related investment, a neutral rate that is possibly temporarily higher, and concerns about credibility mean the balance of risks now argues for a somewhat more restrictive policy." That is a materially different diagnosis. Where Goldman sees a temporary overshoot, Morgan Stanley is flagging the possibility that the neutral rate itself has shifted, at least temporarily, and that AI-driven capital expenditure is adding genuine demand-side pressure to credit markets. The two banks arrived at the same forecast through opposite logic.
That divergence matters because it exposes the trap the Fed now faces. If the dominant banks are hiking to preserve the central bank's credibility rather than because their own models demand it, then the Fed is being led by the market rather than leading it. Former New York Fed president Bill Dudley put the point bluntly in a television interview: "With the market priced this way, it would be shocking if he came in and did nothing. It would really damage his credibility because it would basically be all talk, no action." A credibility-driven hike is a defensive move — and defensive monetary policy has a poor track record of getting ahead of the problem it is trying to solve.
The Vote Math: A Hike Is Likely, But The Margin Is The Message
The mechanics of this decision are unusually fraught. At the July meeting, the FOMC voted 9-3 to hold rates steady. The three dissenters — Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan, Cleveland Fed president Beth Hammack, and Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari — all supported a quarter-point hike. Assuming their positions have not changed, and nothing in their public comments suggests they have, four additional members would need to switch from hold to hike for a rate increase to pass.
The most closely watched voter is Governor Christopher Waller. In remarks on September 3, Waller voiced support for another hold, albeit with the standard data-dependent caveats. "What's the cost of waiting one meeting?" he asked. "Hiking 25 basis points, one meeting right now, is not going to bring the consumer price index down to 2%." New York Fed president John Williams, whose office is traditionally part of the influential troika at the center of the Fed, has advocated a wait-and-see approach and said he believes inflation has peaked. Governor Michael Barr has expressed concern about temporary inflation taking deeper hold and said he is open to a hike, though not set on one.
Chair Kevin Warsh, who took over in May, has repeatedly avoided offering guidance on the likely path of rates — a deliberate posture that now leaves him with little room to maneuver. If he presses the case for a hike, the question is whether those on the fence cross over in the interest of presenting a united front. JPMorgan Asset Management's chief global strategist, David Kelly, noted that if a majority coalesces around a hike, other members may well join to portray unity, meaning the final vote could show two, one, or no dissents. "It should be noted that, if the Fed does indeed raise rates this week, it may not look, in retrospect, like a close call," Kelly wrote.
That is why the updated dot plot matters more than the 25-basis-point move itself. This release includes the first-ever projections for 2029, and Warsh withheld his own dot in the June update. A narrow 10-8 split in favor of one hike would signal that many participants are ambivalent about the move and reluctant to push market expectations higher. Mericle has warned that such a split would indicate "some participants might be ambivalent about the first hike and some might want to avoid pushing market expectations any higher." The risk scenario is a majority for two hikes — a signal that policymakers now view a September increase not as an anomaly but as the start of a series, driven by higher oil prices and AI-driven demand.
Cyclical Or Structural: This Inflation Impulse Is Mostly Cyclical — And That Is The Problem
The central analytical question is whether the current inflation impulse is cyclical and mean-reverting, or structural and self-sustaining. On the evidence available, it is predominantly cyclical. Three historical-cycle comparisons make the case. First, the 2022 energy shock: gasoline and crude spiked on the Russia-Ukraine war, pushed headline CPI well above 9% annually, and then receded as supply chains rerouted and prices normalized — without the Fed needing to hike into a multi-year tightening cycle beyond what was already underway. Second, the 2011 commodity spike: oil touched $110 a barrel after the Arab Spring, core inflation held, and the Fed looked through it. Third, the pattern of supply-driven price shocks generally: they raise the price level once, then their contribution to the year-over-year inflation rate mechanically fades as the base effect rolls through.
The August print fits that pattern. A 3.9% monthly jump in gasoline accounted for more than a third of the CPI increase; strip out energy and food, and the core rate, at 2.4% annually, remains far closer to target than the headline 3.4%. Tariffs and the energy supply shock from the Iran war are one-time level shifts, not persistent growth rates in the price index. On that reading, Goldman's "one-time factors" thesis is the stronger call, and the inflation overshoot should fade without a sustained tightening campaign.
But a cyclical verdict does not imply the Fed can stand pat. Here is the uncomfortable second-order point: when inflation is cyclical but expectations are not anchored, the central bank must still act to preserve the credibility that keeps expectations anchored. Morgan Stanley's four cited risks — second-round energy effects, AI-driven demand, a possibly higher neutral rate, and credibility — are not all cyclical. AI-related capital expenditure is a structural demand shock to credit markets; a higher neutral rate, even if temporary, changes the level at which policy is restrictive. The Fed is being asked to fight a cyclical price spike with a policy framework calibrated to a structural regime it has not yet confirmed exists.
This is the mechanism behind the banks' flip. It is not that the inflation data forced their hands on a fundamentals basis — the data are consistent with a one-time overshoot. It is that the market's reaction to the data — a 10-year yield above 5%, a dollar that has strengthened, inflation expectations drifting — forced their hands on a credibility basis. The transmission channel runs: hot print → bond-market repricing → financial conditions tighten on their own → the Fed must validate the market's move or appear behind the curve → banks reprice the Fed to stay aligned with the market they advise. The hike, in this reading, is less a monetary decision than a coordination exercise between the central bank and the institutions that price its liabilities.
The Counter-Thesis: What If The Banks Are Right, And Goldman Is Wrong?
The strongest case against the analysis above is that the "one-time overshoot" framing is a comforting illusion, and that the overshoot is already becoming entrenched through the very channels Morgan Stanley names. The counter-thesis runs as follows: second-round effects from energy are real — transport and services prices do eventually feed through when oil stays above $100; AI-driven investment is not a fleeting boom but a multi-year capex cycle that keeps demand above potential; and a neutral rate that has risen, even temporarily, means the current 3.50%-3.75% funds rate is less restrictive than policymakers believe, requiring more than one symbolic hike to restore restraint.
This view has institutional backing. Deutsche Bank continues to expect 50 basis points of hikes this year, at the September and December meetings, and raised its call after Warsh's Jackson Hole address, which the bank said "surprised us in its specificity about the economy and outlook and with its lean in a decidedly hawkish direction." UBS, which had forecast no policy change in 2026, revised to two hikes after the August jobs report showed 162,000 payrolls added and unemployment holding at 4.1% — evidence that the labor market is not weakening fast enough to cool demand. J.P. Morgan, citing the same inflation reports, raised its estimate of the long-run policy rate to 3.25% and forecasts another hike this year. These are not fringe calls; they are the consensus of the Street's largest research houses.
The counter-thesis deserves its weight because it attacks the core of the cyclical verdict at its foundation: if the neutral rate has genuinely shifted and AI capex is structurally lifting demand, then waiting for the overshoot to fade is a policy error, and the banks that flipped are not capitulating to the market — they are recognizing a regime change the data has not yet fully confirmed.
So which view is right? The falsifying signal is quantifiable and near-term. If core PCE prints at 0.3% month-over-month or higher for two consecutive months — August and September — while oil remains above $100 a barrel, the "one-time overshoot" thesis is wrong, and the economy is entering a multi-hike cycle that justifies two or more increases this year. Conversely, if core PCE cools to 0.2% or below in the next two readings and oil falls back below $85, the overshoot was transitory, the hike was a credibility-preserving one-and-done, and the banks that flipped will have front-run a move the Fed does not need to repeat.
What Comes Next: Three Horizons And Three Scenarios
The forward look splits cleanly by time horizon. In the short term — the next 24 to 72 hours — everything hinges on the FOMC statement, the dot plot, and Warsh's press conference on Wednesday afternoon. The market needs to know whether this is a preventive hike, delivered to anchor expectations while the Fed signals a pause, or a reactive hike that opens the door to December. A 10-8 vote with a single-hike median projection would read as the former; a majority for two hikes would read as the latter.
Over the medium term — the rest of 2026 and into 2027 — the path depends on the data the banks are now watching. The base case is one hike this week, a pause through the fourth quarter as the energy base effect rolls through, and two rate cuts in 2027, though later than previously forecast, as Goldman expects. The upside case for rates is a majority dot plot for two hikes, core PCE holding at 0.3% or above, and oil staying above $100 — a scenario that would push the 10-year yield toward its October 2023 high of 5.02% and beyond, with equity multiples under pressure as the discount rate resets. The downside case is a narrow vote, soft core prints, and a rapid normalization of energy prices — a scenario in which this week's hike looks like an overreaction and the market prices cuts back in by mid-2027.
For investors, the asymmetry is clear. Beneficiaries of a credibility-restoring, one-and-done hike are short-duration fixed income and the dollar, which gains from a Fed that acts decisively without committing to a grinding cycle. The exposed are long-duration equities, particularly the rate-sensitive growth names that rallied on the December-2025 cut, and any sector whose valuation depends on the neutral rate staying low. If the counter-thesis proves right and two hikes materialize, the pain broadens to credit spreads and housing, where the 10-year yield is the binding constraint.
What to watch, in order: the August core PCE print due this week; the FOMC vote margin and dot plot on Wednesday; Warsh's press conference language on whether the committee sees this as a series or a single adjustment; and oil prices, which remain the swing factor in every inflation forecast on the Street. One data point can still change the narrative — but after Monday's bank flips, the market has already decided.
The irony of this episode is sharp enough to state plainly: the two banks that flipped last are the two whose research teams were most skeptical of the economic case for hiking. When Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley abandon their own fundamentals-based view to align with the market's pricing, the hike stops being a statement about inflation and becomes a statement about the Fed's relationship with the market that prices its debt. This week's 25 basis points may be small in isolation. What it signals about who is leading whom is anything but.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
