Finance
Fed minutes reveal lively September debate about whether first rate cut should be big or small
There was a divide within the Federal Reserve about whether its first interest rate cut in more than four years should be big or small, according to minutes from the central bank’s September meeting released Wednesday.
A “substantial majority” of Fed officials supported lowering rates by 50 basis points at the last meeting, but “some” would have preferred to have lowered by 25 basis points and “a few others indicated that they could have supported such a decision,” the minutes read.
Those who argued for a 25 basis point reduction noted that inflation was still somewhat elevated, while economic growth was strong and unemployment low.
Several said a smaller cut would line up more with a gradual reduction in the policy rate that would be more predictable and allow more time to assess any impacts on the economy.
Those who argued for a jumbo-sized cut said a 50 basis point move would help sustain strength in the economy and the job market while continuing to bring down inflation.
Some even said there had been a case for a 25 basis point rate cut at the previous meeting in July, and that recent data offered even more evidence that inflation continues to drop while the labor market cools.
Some of this internal division at the Fed was made public on Sept. 18 as the decision to cut by 50 basis points was announced, with Fed governor Michelle Bowman dissenting and saying she preferred 25 basis points.
No Fed official has voted against a policy decision in two years, matching one of the longest such streaks in the past half-century. Moreover, no Fed governor has dissented on a rate decision since 2005.
The Fed’s rate-setting committee was also almost evenly split on the number of additional rate cuts expected this year, with seven policymakers favoring one additional 25 basis point rate cut before year-end and nine members favoring 50 basis points of additional easing. Two policymakers expected no more rate cuts.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, in a press conference with reporters last month, acknowledged the dissent but also said there was “broad support” for the cut and a “lot of common ground” among his fellow policymakers.
In the week since the decision, several policymakers have offered public support for a jumbo rate cut of 50 basis points, citing progress on inflation and a cooling job market.
Atlanta Fed president Raphael Bostic has said that residual concerns might have led him to trim by a smaller 25 basis points at the September policy meeting, but that would have ignored a recent cooling in the job market.
Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari said he voted in favor of cutting by 50 basis points because “the balance of risks has shifted away from higher inflation and toward the risk of a further weakening of the labor market, warranting a lower federal funds rate.”
Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee also said he was “comfortable” with a 50 basis point cut, viewing it “as a demarcation” that the central bank is now back to thinking as much about achieving maximum employment as it is price stability.
But a stronger-than-expected jobs report released last week now has analysts wondering whether the central bank will curtail rate cuts or if it moved too quickly with a 50 basis point reduction. There are also worries that inflation could be re-elevated as a concern.
Fed officials will get a fresh reading on inflation Thursday when the Consumer Price Index is due out. That measure is expected to keep in line with what officials want to see.
Economists expect core inflation — which eliminates volatile food and energy prices the Fed can’t control — held steady on an annual basis in September at 3.2% from the same level in August. Month over month, CPI is expected to have grown by 0.2%, compared with 0.3% in August.
Some Fed officials are urging a gradual path to cuts as they look to balance downside risks to unemployment with continuing to bring down inflation.
Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan became the latest official to voice that view on Wednesday, saying in a speech that “a more gradual path back to a normal policy stance will likely be appropriate from here to best balance the risks to our dual-mandate goals.”
Powell made it clear in remarks on Sept. 30 that the central bank isn’t in a “hurry” to bring interest rates down and would prefer smaller cuts.
He also reiterated that the consensus of Fed officials outlined at the September meeting was for two more 25 basis point rate cuts this year, saying, “it wouldn’t mean more fifties.”
Other officials, including New York Fed President John Williams, St. Louis Fed president Alberto Musalem, and Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, all have said recently they favor bringing interest rates lower “over time.”
At the September meeting, according to the minutes, officials said it’s important to communicate that lowering rates should not be interpreted to mean the Fed believes the economic outlook has soured or that the Fed will lower rates more rapidly than the path laid out.
“Some participants emphasized that reducing policy restraint too late or too little could risk unduly weakening economic activity and employment. A few participants highlighted in particular the costs and challenges of addressing such a weakening once it is fully under way,” the minutes read.
Almost all participants saw upside risks to the inflation outlook as having diminished, while downside risks to employment were seen as having increased.
While Fed officials generally viewed the job market as solid, some said that the recent pace of job increases had fallen short of what was required to keep the unemployment rate stable on a sustained basis, assuming a constant labor force participation rate.
Many said that evaluating the job market had been challenging, with increased immigration, revisions to reported payroll data, and possible changes in the underlying growth rate of productivity.
Several participants emphasized the importance of continuing to use disaggregated data or information provided by business contacts as a check on readings on labor market conditions obtained from aggregate data.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
Finance
Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’
Property markets move in cycles, and with interest rates rising and other pressures like high fuel costs, some markets are clearly slowing down. Many first-home buyers who have only ever seen markets going up are conditioned to think that when purchasing, competition is always intense and decisions need to be made quickly.
In those times, buyers often feel they need to act fast, stretch their budget and secure a property at almost any cost. But things have definitely changed.
In a softer market, the dynamic shifts. Properties take longer to sell, competition thins, and it’s the vendors who begin to feel pressure.
RELATED
For buyers who understand how to navigate that change, the balance of power quickly moves in their favour. The opportunity is not simply to buy at a lower price. It is to negotiate from a position of strength.
If that’s you right now, these are the key skills first-home buyers need to take advantage of in softer market conditions.
The most important shift in a soft market is psychological. In a rising market, buyers often feel like they are competing for limited opportunities. In a softer market, the opposite is true. There are more properties available, fewer active buyers and less urgency overall. This gives buyers options.
When buyers understand that they are not competing with multiple parties on every property, their decision-making improves. They are more willing to walk away, compare opportunities and avoid overpaying. Negotiation strength comes from not needing to transact immediately. When that pressure is removed, buyers are able to engage more strategically.
One of the most common mistakes first-home buyers make is continuing to apply strategies that only work in rising markets. Auction urgency is a clear example. In strong markets, auctions often attract multiple bidders and create competitive tension. In softer conditions, properties are more likely to pass in, shifting the process away from a public bidding environment into a private negotiation.
This is where leverage increases.
Private negotiations allow buyers to introduce conditions that protect their position. These may include finance clauses, longer settlement periods or price adjustments based on due diligence. Opportunities that are rarely available in competitive markets become standard in softer ones.
Finance
Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent
The Board of Visitors Finance Committee met Thursday and approved a 3.6 percent average increase in tuition, a 4.8 percent average increase in meal plan costs and a 5 percent increase in the cost of double-room housing for the 2026-27 school year. The approval was unanimous amongst Board members, though some expressed resistance to the increases before voting in favor of them.
The Committee heard from Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Donna Price Henry, chancellor of the College at Wise, about reasons for the raise in tuition and rates. According to Davis and Henry, salary increases for professors and legislation passed by the General Assembly contribute to tuition and rates increases.
The Finance Committee, chaired by Vice Rector Victoria Harker, is responsible for the University’s financial affairs and business operations, and the Committee manages the budget, tuition and student fees.
Changes in tuition vary between schools, with the School of Law seeing at most a 5.1 percent increase, the School of Engineering & Applied Science seeing at most a 3.2 percent increase and the College of Arts and Sciences seeing at most a 3.1 percent increase in tuition for the 2026-27 school year.
For the 2026-27 school year at the College at Wise, the Committee also unanimously approved a 2.5 percent average increase in tuition, a 3.8 percent increase in meal plans and a 2 percent increase in the cost of housing.
Last year, the Committee approved a 3 percent average increase in tuition, a 5.5 percent increase in meal plans and a 5.5 percent increase in the cost of housing for the University.
Davis cited increased costs as the primary reason for the approved increase in tuition. She said that the budget that could be passed by the General Assembly for June 30, 2027 through June 30, 2028 could increase professor salaries — University professors receive raises via this process. Davis said that the Senate and House of Delegates have separate proposals dealing with the pay increases that are currently unresolved, with House Bill 30 raising salaries by 2 percent and Senate Bill 30 raising salaries by 3 percent.
Davis said every percent increase in faculty salaries costs the University $15 million annually, and the Commonwealth will increase funding to the University by $1-2 million to help pay for that increase. According to Davis, the most common way to stabilize the budgetary imbalance caused by raised salaries is through tuition raises.
Beyond the increase in salary, Davis cited the minimum wage increase, inflation and Virginia Military Survivors & Dependents Education Program as increased costs to the University. VMSDEP is a program that gives education benefits to spouses and children of disabled veterans or military service members killed, missing in action or taken prisoner. Davis said that the program is “partially unfunded” and could cost the University somewhere between $3.6 to $6 million, depending on how many students qualify for the program.
Davis spoke on other contributing factors to the increase in tuition, specifically collective bargaining — which allows workers to bargain for better wages and working conditions.
“If we look at other institutions or other states that have collective bargaining, [collective bargaining] does put an upward pressure on tuition,” Davis said.
Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Committee heard the proposal for tuition increases from Davis and Henry April 6 in a Finance Committee tuition workshop with public comment. During the tuition workshop, tuition increases ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent for the University and 2 to 3 percent for the College at Wise. Both increases approved Thursday are within the ranges originally proposed.
Meal plan costs, on average, will be increasing by 4.8 percent in the upcoming academic year. Davis said that the University has been expanding dining options with the opening of the Gaston House and new locations for the Ivy Corridor student housing that is still in progress. She also said that the University has been taking steps to increase the availability of allergen-friendly food options.
Davis shared that the 5 percent cost increase in housing is due to the expansion of student housing in the Ivy Corridor. Davis also said that there will be 3,000 new units added to the Charlottesville housing market by 2027, of which 780 beds will be for University housing. Davis said that she hopes the Ivy Corridor housing would “free up” the city housing supply by having more students live on Grounds.
Board member Amanda Pillion said she was “concerned” about how tuition increases would harm rural families — she said the constant increases in cost could make a University education out of reach for middle-income Virginians.
“This is the second governor I’ve served under. Both times I’ve heard affordability, affordability, affordability,” Pillion said. “We need to really be conscious of the fact that … there is a large group of people that [are middle-income] that these increases [in tuition and fees] are really tough for.”
The Committee also approved a renovation for The Park — an 18-acre recreational hub in North Grounds — which will cost $10 million. As part of the renovation, The Park will include a maintenance facility, storm water systems and a maintenance access route. Davis said the renovation will address safety and security issues for the 200 people that use The Park daily. According to Davis, the University will use $2 million of institutional funds and issue $8 million of debt to fund the renovation.
The Finance Committee will reconvene during the regularly scheduled June Board meetings.
Finance
A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ongoing war in Iran is casting a long shadow over the climate finance commitments countries agreed to in 2024, experts warned, as surging oil prices and rising defense budgets put further pressure on the limited pot of money developing nations are counting on to stave off worsening impacts from a warming planet.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s annual spring meetings are underway in the capital this week, with a focus on a coordinated global response to a world economy under pressure from slower growth and rising debt, exacerbating global inequities.
The U.S. war in Iran adds new supply-chain challenges. In a press briefing Tuesday, the IMF slashed its growth forecast to 3.1 percent for the year, down from 3.3 percent in January, with global inflation rising to 4.4 percent.
“Our severe scenario assumes that energy supply disruptions extend into next year, with greater macro instability. Global growth falls to 2 percent this year and next, while inflation exceeds 6 percent,” said Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s director of research.
The blunt assessment has caused a scramble to determine what financial support the institution can offer to member states. And it has raised fresh questions about climate-finance obligations, already under strain from donor-country budget cuts and the United States jettisoning global climate commitments under the second Trump administration. One of President Donald Trump’s first actions back in office last year was ordering the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries that promised climate finance have experienced widening fiscal deficits and rising debt, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found in its latest assessment. As a result, aid from donor countries has already declined sharply—dropping almost 25 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Even before the Iran conflict began, that was projected to drop further this year.
COP29, the global climate conference held in late 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, set a commitment of $300 billion per year by 2035, with a broader goal of reaching $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources. Called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the arrangement replaced the previous $100 billion-a-year commitment that wealthy nations had met belatedly in 2022, two years after the deadline.
Developing nations widely criticized the $300 billion figure as grossly inadequate, given the scale of the climate crisis. These countries are among the least responsible for the pollution driving that crisis and among the hardest hit by its effects.
The Iran war has triggered a new set of worries as top economists and experts weigh potential impact and likely mitigation strategies.
“Even before the Iran conflict, reaching the NCQG target would have been difficult, particularly with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The war worsens the outlook,” said Gautam Jain, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

He said sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would exacerbate the problem and the effects would weigh on the global economy. As a result, aid budgets would decline and the political pushback to external spending would increase.
The conflict is “pushing energy security to the forefront of government agendas,” Jain said. That will likely strengthen incentives to deploy more renewables and other forms of domestic clean energy, but the war’s economic convulsions could cut both ways for the energy transition.
“In low-income countries, the transition could be significantly delayed, given limited fiscal capacity to absorb sustained energy price shocks,” Jain said.
One of the main priorities for the World Bank during the meetings in Washington is to develop a new Climate Change Action Plan to replace the one expiring in June. “In the current geopolitical context, progress on this front looks quite unlikely,” Jain said.
Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, which monitors World Bank and IMF policies, said countries that used to fund climate finance are now choosing to spend that money on other priorities.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
The Gulf crisis exposed the fragility of a global economic system tethered to fossil fuel extraction and use, Sward noted. For countries dependent on fossil fuel imports, “this is yet another price shock, and quickly diversifying to renewables is certainly an option that many countries are looking at,” he said in an email.
He said that although multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF have begun to assess the conflict’s fallout, it is not yet clear what their response will be or how the World Bank’s climate finance would be affected.
“All of this points to the need for more serious discussions on pausing debt repayments for affected countries and the mobilisation of non-debt creating forms of finance, in order to address the multiple, overlapping shocks facing countries in the Global South, in particular,” he said in his email.
Experts said that rising security and defense expenditures were also cutting into an already limited pot of money badly needed by developing countries struggling to cope with climate challenges.
“The system was already too fragile given that the U.S. leads all the major multilateral development banks … and has disavowed these targets,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. On top of that, he said, U.S. threats to abandon NATO’s European countries incentivizes them to prioritize defense budgets over climate finance.
He said developing countries are already under pressure to cough up climate funding on their own. The current conflict could make that nearly impossible.
“This year was supposed to be putting together a roadmap to take the $300 billion annual target to the agreed upon $1.3 trillion. This is likely to be abandoned unless new donors such as [the] UAE, China and others step in to fill the gap left from the West,” Gallagher said in an email.
The crisis in the Persian Gulf makes the loudest case for renewables, he said. “The energy security argument from this conflict is to diversify from fossil fuels. The Dutch took that cue after the Middle East oil shock of the 1970s to build the world’s best wind turbines, and China did after Middle East conflicts in this century. Fossil fuels are now a bad bet on security, economic and climate grounds. The writing is on the wall.”
Gallagher said the World Bank should accelerate solar and wind technology programs across the world. “If the Fund and the Bank don’t rise to this occasion,” he said, “not only is the global economy and climate at stake, but so is the legitimacy of these institutions.”
Gaia Larsen, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute, said it’s too early to know whether stronger interest in energy independence through renewables is translating into shifts in investment. But “if we’re trying to think about long-term peace and long-term access to energy, then renewables are really increasing in prominence,” she said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
-
Nebraska4 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada10 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire16 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey22 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico28 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico
-
North Carolina34 minutes agoMemorial service held for former Miss North Carolina Carrie Everett
-
North Dakota40 minutes ago
Richard D. Langowski Obituary April 16, 2026 – Tollefson Funeral Home
-
Ohio46 minutes agoThree Buckeyes Who Proved They Belong at Ohio State Spring Game
