Waller votes "No" for a "6 to 5"! The key to the Federal Reserve’s September rate hike decision might actually be Powell?

Less than two weeks remain until the US Federal Reserve’s September 16 FOMC meeting, the voting pattern is highly divided, and Powell’s silence has become the market’s biggest suspense.

Jim Bianco, founder of Bianco Research, pointed out on social media that, in addition to the game of macro data, the vote breakdown has become the key factor impacting the Fed’s current policy direction. He wrote:

I’ve always thought watching the Fed now is just a matter of counting votes.

With Governor Waller recently indicating a preference to hold rates steady, Bianco summarized the current vote as: 6 votes (hold) versus 5 votes (hike), with one vote unknown—the Fed Chair Powell’s.

Bianco’s personal vote tally

Powell: Deliberately low-profile, but the key variable

Bianco pointed out that Powell hasn’t spoken publicly since the May press conference, “He wants to step out of the public spotlight.”

According to Bianco, this strategy has a context: constant criticism from Trump towards the Fed has made the committee more concerned about its independence, so FOMC voters have turned to clearly stating their positions in public rather than behind closed doors.

However, Powell’s silence has now created uncertainty. Bianco wrote:

If everyone votes according to their public statements, Powell’s single vote will be decisive.

Rate hike probability: It’s actually 50/50

Bianco’s conclusion is direct and clear:

That’s why, less than two weeks before the meeting, the probability of a rate hike is actually 50/50.

On August 30, he previously predicted the September 16 voting result would be 7 to 5, but the direction was still uncertain—“I’m just not sure if it’ll be 7 to 5 for a hike, or 7 to 5 for holding.”

Currently, with Waller joining the ‘hold’ side, the ‘hold’ camp leads 6 to 5, but Powell’s vote can still break the deadlock, leaving the final result unresolved.

Bianco believes that Trump’s ongoing pressure on the Fed is an important factor in understanding the current vote split.

He explained that concerns for independence have made FOMC members prefer to clarify their own positions through public statements rather than relying on internal consensus-building. This allows outsiders to track policy direction relatively clearly by “counting votes.”

Since 1936, there has never been a 6–6 tie in a vote. The closest were 6–5 results in 1963, 1964, and 1973. There is no provision for a tie in the US Federal Reserve Act. He wrote:

Presumably, this would mean maintaining the status quo—since no agreement has been reached, the Fed would keep the federal funds rate steady. Of course, they could agree to hold a second (or even third) vote until the tie is broken.