#美联储降息政策 Seeing the name Waller surface again, there's a sense of familiar historical repetition in my mind. More than a decade ago, after the financial crisis, the selection of the Federal Reserve Chair also triggered market speculation, and Bernanke's policy stance determined the asset allocation logic for the following ten years. Today’s situation feels quite similar, just with a different era background.

Waller’s policy position is actually quite clear—he is a firm supporter of interest rate cuts, and this tendency has already become apparent within the Federal Reserve. From his opposition vote in July to now being a hot candidate, this shift reflects changes in the market environment. His statements about the "job market being very weak" and "not rushing to cut rates" sound contradictory, but this is a typical expression of central banks under political pressure—aiming to signal easing while maintaining technical rigor.

What is truly worth vigilance is the underlying power game logic. Trump’s attitude towards the independence of the Fed has always been clear, and Waller emphasized in interviews that he would "of course" stress independence to Trump. This statement alone reveals the core issue. Having experienced the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, we have seen too many instances where political intervention in rate cuts often stimulates the market in the short term, but at the cost of medium- to long-term asset bubbles and credit expansion.

The change of the Fed Chair is usually an important timing marker. Regardless of who ultimately takes the position, the pace and intensity of this rate-cutting cycle will directly influence asset prices over the next two to three years. History has shown that investors who can identify such policy shifts early are often able to seize the most advantageous allocation windows.