On April 30, 2026, London and Washington made seemingly opposite yet converging choices under the same interest rate sky. The Bank of England, at its third consecutive monetary policy meeting, chose to remain inactive, locking the benchmark interest rate at 3.75%. On the surface, this was "in line with expectations," but behind it lay repeated considerations of inflation shadows and energy prices—scenario analysis assumed international oil prices would peak at around $108 per barrel, with the most pessimistic scenario even pushing the UK inflation rate above 6% by early 2027. In this setting, monetary policy resembled a tethered balloon tied to oil prices, unable to rise high or be released. However, the market was not satisfied with this stagnation: traders had already bet that by 2026, the Bank of England would accumulate an additional 73 basis points of tightening, driven by high inflation and energy shocks pushing the venerable central bank toward the cliff of "higher rates for longer," with the actual landing spot still controlled by the unpredictable energy curve.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the story unfolded in another way. Led by Michael Gapin, a team of economists from Morgan Stanley, after closely reading the latest FOMC decisions, statements, and press conferences from the Federal Reserve, simply revoked all expectations of rate cuts in 2026—delaying the easing cycle to 2027 and only allowing for two small moves of 25 basis points each. The BoE was "trapped" at high levels by inflation and energy prices, while the Fed was "forced" to delay its pivot by reassessing economic resilience and inflation stickiness: different paths yet similar endpoints—the time spent at elevated global rates was prolonged, and the narrative of liquidity easing had to be rewritten. For global risk assets, especially cryptocurrencies, this meant having to search for pricing anchors in an overall tighter financial environment for the next few years; the straightforward logic of "waiting for rate cuts" could be postponed until after 2027.

London Hits the Pause Button: 3.75% Interest Rate Held Firm

London appeared quite calm. On April 30, 2026, the Bank of England chose to "do nothing" at its third consecutive monetary policy meeting—the benchmark interest rate remained unchanged at 3.75%, matching market expectations and looking like a tedious routine. Yet if one reads through the resolution documents, it becomes evident that this "pause button" concealed a high level of tension: until inflation risks are decisively managed, decision-makers would rather lock the rate at a high level than endorse any notion of an "early pivot," with energy prices explicitly written into the evaluative framework becoming a core variable that cannot be circumvented in the entire policy approach.

The real conflict did not occur on meeting day but on the market floor. Trader pricing had long indicated another path: by 2026, the market wagered that the Bank of England would still accumulate about 73 basis points of rate hikes. In other words, on one side, the official stance was three consecutive "motions to remain inert," signaling patience, while on the other, capital was betting real money on "you still need to tighten further." The tension between policy and market expectations was clearly laid out in the interest rate curve and futures contracts—in the face of two uncertain sources of inflation and energy, it was momentarily difficult to determine who was overestimating risks and who was underestimating them.

The Bank of England's own scenario analysis resembles a cautionary warning for the market. In scenarios A and B, international oil prices are assumed to peak at around $108 per barrel (according to a single source); at this level, even with subsequent declines, the "high plateau" of energy costs is enough to keep price levels elevated for longer. In the more pessimistic scenario C, the UK's inflation rate is projected to possibly rise above 6% by early 2027 (according to a single source). Under this path setting, the current interest rate of 3.75% is no longer the "already sufficiently restrictive endpoint," but more like a defensive line: if the energy shock does not recede as scripted, the central bank will find it hard to discuss easing, and the 73 basis points the market is betting on morph into a magnifying glass on the energy and inflation curves.

Wall Street Shifts: Morgan Stanley Pushes Rate Cuts to 2027

While the UK was still calculating scenarios for oil prices and inflation, on the other side of the Atlantic, the most sensitive individuals on Wall Street had already moved their abacus beads back a notch. Led by Michael Gapin, the Morgan Stanley economist team collectively withdrew their previous expectations of "easing" for the Federal Reserve following the latest FOMC decisions, statements, and press conferences—not merely fine-tuning, but directly overturning the previous schedule.

The first thing they did was remove a full year of rate cut expectations from their model: the rate cut originally scheduled for 2026 is now entirely withdrawn by Morgan Stanley. In its place is an almost flattened easing path: the team now only retains two rate cuts of 25 basis points each in 2027. In other words, in their view, the Federal Reserve's true "beginning of the easing cycle" will not occur until 2027, and the extent will be limited. This drastic postponement reflects an acknowledgment that the resilience of the U.S. economy may be stronger than previously judged, and a vote that inflation stickiness has not genuinely eased—so long as growth holds up and prices do not completely revert, there remains a rationale to keep high rates in place.

What is even more striking is the contrast between this shift and prior market consensus. For some time, mainstream discussions around the Federal Reserve have been stuck on the race to "when can we cut rates earlier," while now Morgan Stanley has simply dragged the finish line to 2027, essentially telling everyone focused on the dollar funding price: high rates are here to stay longer. The Bank of England is passively observing at high rates, while the Federal Reserve is passively "extending life" at high rates, and the expectation adjustments by Wall Street, represented by Morgan Stanley, push the timeline for this endurance further back, adding another layer of anchoring to the global environment of "higher rates for longer."

The Same Inflation, Different Damage: A UK-US Comparison Under Energy Shadows

This time, the UK is forced to keep its policy focus fixed on the oil price curve. The scenario analysis of the BoE in A and B assumes international oil prices must peak around $108 per barrel (according to a single source), and the interest rate path is almost dragged along by this hypothetical oil price plateau; if oil prices peak later or decline slower, the timeline for lowering inflation shifts overall. The more aggressive scenario C lays the risks out in the open: if the energy shock continues and imported pressures remain stubborn, the UK's inflation rate might still surge above 6% by early 2027 (according to a single source). For a central bank that has been stuck at a 3.75% high rate for multiple meetings, this means the policy is not micro-adjusting around domestic demand but is being "hijacked" by external energy prices to hold high, even as domestic growth is already feeling strained.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Federal Reserve faces another type of "the same inflation, different damage." After the latest FOMC, Morgan Stanley withdrew all prior expectations for rate cuts in 2026, only reserving a window for two rate cuts of 25 basis points each in 2027 for the Federal Reserve. This extremely restrained path comes from their unified interpretation of the decisions, statements, and conference: inflation stickiness has not been thoroughly pierced, and the resilience of the U.S. economy may be greater than previously imagined, allowing high rates and strong growth to coexist. Rather than saying the Fed is "held back by oil prices," it is more accurate to say that in an economy still capable of withstanding high rates, they choose to continuously push back the timing of easing, using time to whittle down residual price pressures.

On one side is the Bank of England, highly sensitive to external energy prices and constrained by imported inflation, while on the other side is the Federal Reserve, actively delaying easing amid robust economic and inflation stickiness. The causes are entirely different: the UK is counting the oil price cost, while the U.S. is calculating the long-term game of demand and prices; yet the two paths converge to write the same footnote on the global funding environment—rates need to remain elevated for longer. For all funds priced in pounds and dollars, this is not a simple UK-US divergence but a collective push of the "when will easing truly arrive" timeline further into the future.

High Rates Locking In Risk Appetite: Passive Response from Crypto Assets

As the Bank of England holds firm at a 3.75% benchmark rate, the market is still preparing for an additional 73 basis points by 2026; on the other side, Morgan Stanley has pushed the time window for the Fed to genuinely start cutting rates to only making two small moves of 25 basis points each in 2027, facing the same reality globally: the risk-free rate is elevated overall and difficult to change quickly within one or two years. As an anchor for dollar funding prices, the Fed's stance raises the "floor of funding costs" globally, while the Bank of England's persistence grants this high cost durability across currencies and markets, collectively squeezing the allocation space for all high-volatility assets, with crypto assets naturally included.

In the set-up of "higher rates, lasting longer," the asset allocation calculations will be reassessed. Government bonds and various money market instruments offer considerable nominal interest returns with very low credit risks, while the latest pricing of UK and US interest rate paths suggests such returns will not disappear quickly. For institutional investors, the same unit of risk budget will be allocated to securing returns through bonds and money market instruments that are easier to price, rather than placing it in highly volatile, macro-sensitive crypto assets; the answer will skew more toward the former than in recent years. The result is that the "necessary return rate" for the crypto market gets passively elevated—if it cannot significantly outperform these risk-free or low-risk tools in potential returns, valuation must compensate for risk through price discounts.

This pressure for discounts creates a dislocation with the long-term narrative within crypto assets. On one end is the short term: under the framework of high rates pressuring down, with easing expectations pushed to 2027, crypto assets are treated by the market as typical high-beta bets, overreacting to every minor adjustment in rate expectations, with prices fluctuating in response to the words and expectation curves of central banks in the UK and US. On the other end is the long term: some investors still view crypto assets as tools to hedge against inflation and fiat currency credit risks, believing that as long as the Bank of England is still scenario-planning for a potential peak inflation of around 6% and the Fed dares not truly pivot toward easing, the long-term erosion of currency purchasing power will eventually provide a stage for this narrative. Two narrative threads exist simultaneously, yet driven by the same set of rate expectations, causing sentiment to oscillate violently between "high rates killing valuations" and "high inflation raising values," leaving the crypto market only able to passively seek its pricing balance amid this macro tug-of-war.

From Illusion of Easing to Long-Term High Pressure: Investors Need to Rewrite the Script

From the Bank of England’s inactivity on April 30, 2026, continuing to focus decision-making on international oil prices and inflation scenarios, to Morgan Stanley completely revoking rate cut expectations for the Fed in 2026, only maintaining a symbolic two cuts of 25 basis points each in 2027, the illusion of an imminent pivot toward easing has been systematically dismantled. The paths differ: the Bank of England is holding on at a high rate of 3.75%, while pressing the market with scenarios of oil prices peaking at around $108 per barrel and inflation potentially exceeding 6% by early 2027; the Fed, on the other hand, is interpreted by investment banks as pushing back the true easing window entirely. Yet both lines point to the same conclusion—global rates will remain elevated for an extended period, with "higher rates for longer" replacing "soon shifting to easing" as the new macro narrative.

In such a framework, oil prices and inflation expectations are no longer merely background macroelements but directly shape the script for asset pricing and risk appetite over the coming years. If investors continue to bet on risk assets, especially crypto assets, around "the next rate cut trade," they can only passively endure the volatility of sentiment pulled repeatedly by rate expectations; what truly needs to be rewritten is shifting the perspective from seizing short-term inflection points to conducting long-term games around slow-moving variables centering on inflation and interest rates. This signifies that portfolio management must more precisely monitor three lines: the trend of energy prices, the evolution of inflation data and expectations, and each minor adjustment in forward guidance from the central banks of the UK and US, subsequently adjusting positions and holding periods dynamically. In an extended high-pressure cycle, those who abandon the illusion of rapid easing earliest will have the opportunity to engage in pricing actively under a new macro narrative.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。