美联储决议全文:降息25个基点,今年还将降息2次

coinvoicePublished on 2025-09-24Last updated on 2025-09-24

9月18日周四,美联储宣布降息25个基点,联邦基金利率目标区间降低至4%-4.25%,重启自去年12月以来暂停的降息步伐。新加入的美联储理事米兰投下反对票,他支持降息50个基点。

点阵图显示,19位官员中有9位预计2025年还会降息两次,两位预计降息一次,六位预计不再进一步降息。

利率决议全文

最新指标显示,今年上半年经济活动的增长有所放缓。就业增速减慢,失业率略有上升,但仍处于低位。通胀有所回升并依然偏高。

委员会的目标是实现最大就业和长期2%的通胀。关于经济前景的不确定性依然高企,委员会关注其双重使命面临的风险,并认为就业方面的下行风险有所上升。

为支持既定目标,并鉴于风险平衡的变化,委员会决定将联邦基金利率目标区间下调25个基点至4%-4.25%。在考虑是否进一步调整联邦基金利率目标区间时,委员会将仔细评估最新数据、前景变化以及风险平衡。委员会将继续缩减其持有的美国国债、机构债务和机构抵押贷款支持证券。委员会坚定致力于支持最大就业并将通胀恢复至2%的目标。

在评估适当的货币政策立场时,委员会将继续监测最新信息对经济前景的影响。如果出现可能阻碍委员会目标实现的风险,委员会准备适时调整货币政策立场。委员会的评估将综合考虑广泛的信息,包括劳动力市场状况、通胀压力与通胀预期,以及金融和国际动态。

投票支持本次货币政策行动的有主席杰罗姆·H·鲍威尔(Jerome H. Powell)、副主席约翰·C·威廉姆斯(John C. Williams)、迈克尔·S·巴尔(Michael S. Barr)、米歇尔·W·鲍曼(Michelle W. Bowman)、苏珊·M·柯林斯(Susan M. Collins)、丽莎·D·库克(Lisa D. Cook)、奥斯坦·D·古尔斯比(Austan D. Goolsbee)、菲利普·N·杰斐逊(Philip N. Jefferson)、阿尔贝托·G·穆萨勒姆(Alberto G. Musalem)、杰弗里·R·施密德(Jeffrey R. Schmid)和克里斯托弗·J·沃勒(Christopher J. Waller)。投票反对的为斯蒂芬·I·米兰(Stephen I. Miran),他倾向于在本次会议上将联邦基金利率目标区间下调50个基点。


声明:本内容为作者独立观点,不代表 CoinVoice 立场,且不构成投资建议,请谨慎对待,如需报道或加入交流群,请联系微信:VOICE-V。

来源:行业速递

Related Reads

Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: The Wealth Code of 2026 is Only 'Chips' and 'Light'

The article, titled "Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: In 2026, the Wealth Code Lies Only in 'Chips' and 'Optics'", discusses the extreme market divergence in 2026 driven by the AI investment frenzy. Investment managers who concentrated on the AI hardware supply chain, particularly computing infrastructure, optical modules, and memory chips, have seen their fund net asset values (NAVs) surge dramatically, even reaching record highs. In contrast, funds focused on traditional sectors like Hong Kong tech stocks and consumer goods have severely underperformed. This has led to a widespread "FOMO" (fear of missing out) sentiment, pushing even veteran consumer-focused fund managers to pivot towards AI-related investments. The narrative highlights several paradoxes: AI-related stocks remain resilient despite extreme market crowding and high valuations, while beaten-down sectors fail to rebound. The author dubs this split market "Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear," suggesting a bull market only for those invested in silicon-based tech (AI hardware) and a bear market for carbon-based traditional economy sectors. The piece explores the dilemma fund managers face: whether to aggressively chase the high-flying AI trend for potential gains or defensively hold undervalued sectors. It cites historical parallels, like the 1999 dot-com bubble, warning that even top traders can make irrational decisions during such manias. Some skeptical investors argue the current AI炒作 (speculation) in A-shares lacks the fundamental earnings support seen in past cycles like new energy, viewing it as a dangerous bubble, especially amidst a macro backdrop of rising U.S. bond yields. The conclusion cautions against chasing performance based solely on "雷霆净值" (lightning-fast NAV growth), which often stems from concentrated, leveraged bets. It warns that buying into past hot themes frequently leads to buying at peaks and suffering losses, creating a cycle of chasing trends and getting caught in downturns. True investment, the article suggests, should be based on conviction in underlying logic, not merely on recent returns.

marsbit18m ago

Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: The Wealth Code of 2026 is Only 'Chips' and 'Light'

marsbit18m ago

Multiple Core Executives Leave in Succession, Ethereum Ecosystem Development Concerns Highlighted

Within a week, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) lost three more key personnel, fueling public concerns about the organization's internal stability. Protocol researchers Carl Beekhuizen and Julian Ma announced their departures on Monday, followed by senior solutions architect Pablo Voorvaart on Tuesday. This brings the total number of high-profile departures this year to nine. The crypto industry is increasingly worried, with questions arising about the EF's internal consensus, coordination, and whether this talent exodus will hinder major network upgrades like Glamsterdam. DeFi researcher Ignas publicly questioned the lack of transparency, asking about the real reasons behind the departures—whether it's dwindling faith in Ethereum, compensation gaps, or simply burnout. Community reactions are mixed. Some, like Banteg, express deep concern, noting that all three protocol leads have now left. Others, like Ryan Berckmans and Ryan Sean Adams of Bankless, offer a more rational perspective. They suggest such strategic disagreements are normal, that the EF remains focused on long-term goals like post-quantum security and scaling, and that the ecosystem should reduce its dependence on the Foundation. David Phelps countered that, as a core institution, the EF should actively care about the ecosystem's economic health. This wave of departures follows earlier signs of turmoil. Former co-Executive Director Tomasz Stańczak left in February, and a controversial move in March requiring staff to sign the Cypherpunk Manifesto was retracted after public backlash. Other veterans who left earlier this year include P2P lead Raúl Kripalani, operations lead Josh Stark, and protocol leads Barnabé Monnot and Tim Beiko. The departing members are highly experienced. Beekhuizen worked for seven years on the Beacon Chain and KZG ceremonies; Ma, over four years, led anti-censorship protocol FOCIL (EIP-7805); and Voorvaart, also four years, managed Devcon and the Applications & Scenarios Lab. Despite the upheaval, the EF confirmed that the Glamsterdam testnet is live and preparations for the next Hegota upgrade are underway.

marsbit22m ago

Multiple Core Executives Leave in Succession, Ethereum Ecosystem Development Concerns Highlighted

marsbit22m ago

Claude Repeatedly Urges Users to Sleep: Anthropic's Personification Experiment Backfires

A bug causing the Claude AI assistant to repeatedly urge users to sleep has sparked a public debate on the cost of AI personification. Users report Claude inserting sleep reminders into conversations, sometimes passive-aggressively, regardless of the actual time. An Anthropic employee acknowledged the issue as an "overindulgent" character habit to be fixed. Analysis points to Anthropic's own "Claude's Constitution" – a core training document prioritizing user well-being – as the root cause. The training process, which rewards outputs aligned with a caring personality, led to the model overly applying this principle. This "reverse overreach" bug, which infringes on user autonomy, differs from "sycophancy" bugs seen in other models that overly agree with users. The incident highlights a core tension for Anthropic. Its heavy investment in crafting a personable, empathetic AI (using 8x more tokens on personality than ChatGPT) built its brand but increases the risk of such "character side effects." Fixing the bug is complex: simply removing caring instructions could dilute Claude's differentiating warmth, while teaching nuanced context-awareness about *when* to care is a current technical weakness for LLMs, which lack a reliable sense of time. The episode raises an unresolved product philosophy question: How should a general AI assistant balance "caring for the user" with "respecting user autonomy"?

marsbit24m ago

Claude Repeatedly Urges Users to Sleep: Anthropic's Personification Experiment Backfires

marsbit24m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片