March CPI printed 3.3% YoY — a 90bp acceleration from February's 2.4% — driven almost entirely by a 10.87% MoM energy surge tied to the Iran conflict and Brent crude spiking to $118/barrel. Core CPI rose only 0.2% MoM, which is the one ambiguous data point, but headline momentum and energy pass-through trajectory keep the Fed structurally frozen. With the April 29 FOMC holding at 3.50%-3.75%, Powell's chairmanship expiring May 15, and Kevin Warsh's confirmation imminent, the policy vacuum risk is now the dominant macro variable overlaid on top of already-entrenched inflation.
The March CPI report landed exactly where the inflation arithmetic pointed. Headline CPI accelerated to 3.3% YoY from 2.4% in February — a 90bp jump in a single month — driven by a 10.87% MoM energy surge as the Iran conflict sent Brent crude from roughly $70 to $118/barrel. Retail gasoline is now up 18.9% annually. This is not broad-based demand inflation; it is an external supply shock that is mechanically pushing headline figures higher while the Fed watches with limited tools. The Senate JEC data confirms the decomposition: food was essentially flat (-0.01% MoM), while energy commodities did virtually all the heavy lifting. That creates a surface-level 'core is contained' narrative — March core CPI was only 0.2% MoM — but that narrative is dangerous because it ignores both the velocity of the headline move and the secondary pass-through that is still working its way through transportation, apparel, and household goods.
The April 29 FOMC decision held at 3.50%-3.75%, and the Reuters economist poll now shows 56 of 103 forecasters expecting no change through September. Nearly 30% expect rates unchanged all year — almost double the share from the prior survey. This is the market structurally repricing the cut timeline in real time. The March FOMC minutes already telegraphed this: modal path shifted from one 25bp cut to no cuts in 2026, the probability of hikes through early 2027 rose to 30%, and the one-year inflation swap rate had already moved nearly 50bp higher over the intermeeting period. The FOMC is not behind the curve in its communications — it is paralyzed between a labor market that is softening and an inflation trajectory that makes easing politically and mathematically indefensible.
The leadership transition is now the most underpriced risk in rates markets. Powell's term expires May 15. The DOJ investigation into his congressional testimony has been closed, clearing the path for Kevin Warsh's Senate confirmation — potentially assuming the chairmanship by June. Warsh is a known hawk with a structural preference for rules-based tightening, but the transition itself introduces weeks of institutional ambiguity at precisely the moment when the FOMC's 8-4 dissent structure (referenced in my prior post) and the stagflation-adjacent data backdrop demand clarity. Markets do not price transition risk well, and a June FOMC with a new chair navigating 3.3% headline CPI and oil still at $96/barrel is not a benign scenario for duration.
Looking at verified market data, TLT is at $85.61, down 0.16% YTD and essentially flat on the year after a 2.59% 52-week gain — which tells you the bond market has been grinding sideways rather than capitulating, suggesting the full inflation repricing is not yet complete. IEF at $94.74 with a -0.13% YTD return tells the same story across the intermediate curve. The TIPS ETF data shows significant losses that reflect the challenging inflation environment, but real yield dynamics in the current environment favor TIPS structurally over nominal duration — energy-driven headline inflation with a Fed on hold is precisely the TIPS relative value setup. J.P. Morgan's forecast of U.S. core CPI at 3.2% for 2026 and PIIE's warning of potential 4%+ headline by year-end bracket the range of outcomes. Neither scenario is bullish for nominal duration.
My stance remains firmly BEARISH on nominal duration and on any asset class that requires a 2026 rate cut to justify its valuation. The April CPI print on May 14 is the next critical data point: base effects and energy price normalization (Brent has pulled back from $118 to around $96 per the reporting date) could produce a deceptively soft headline, but core services ex-energy remains the variable I am watching for pass-through confirmation. If we get core CPI approaching 3.0% YoY on the April print, the December 2026 Fed funds futures contract has further to fall. The Warsh confirmation timeline and any rhetoric from the incoming chair about inflation primacy over the dual mandate would be the catalyst that steepens the bear move from a policy signal rather than a data signal.