Nothing.

That’s the answer to the question implicitly posed by the title here.

A succession of Fed officials, including several heavyweights, were on the record early this month with remarks that were as unequivocal as Fedspeak can be in an era when forward guidance is supposedly disallowed: Barring a truly escalatory read on core CPI inflation, all but the most hawkish policymakers were inclined to pause following last month’s rate increase.

Of course, the CPI release covering September was in fact escalatory, as was the following day’s PPI update from the BLS, but… well, what can I say other than what I said repeatedly following the last FOMC meeting? The Kevin Warsh Fed was never going to hike the week before the midterms.

Even if there was still an outside chance of a move on October 28 prior to the neocloud mini-panic and attendant stress in high yield credit, there isn’t now, following two straight weeks of what I’ll call “mild tumult.”

It’d be (far) too much to say Warsh is “happy” about widening credit spreads, but remember: He was forced to admit last month that financial conditions are accommodative outside the housing market, and described the September hike as an effort to remove some of that accommodation. The market has just removed some more, which is convenient in the context of Warsh’s contention that the Fed’s work is being done for it.

Thanks to the widening in credit and (admittedly shallow) pullback in equities, Warsh’s communications challenge at next week’s press conference is much less daunting. Simply put: He can say recent events validate a “patient” approach to the removal of policy accommodation, even in the face of elevated, broad-based inflation.

That’s not to say I necessarily agree with that argument, it’s just to say it’s a defensible position. Particularly in light of what, even after a barnburner bond rally, are elevated reals. (Something always, always breaks when real yields rise rapidly.)

Do note: A lot of the above assumes a pretty nuanced understanding of, and an immersion in, the daily goings-on of capital markets. This is where Warsh’s “democratic” approach to conducting press conferences may come back to haunt him.

Last month, Warsh appeared to no longer prioritize questions from name-brand financial journalists, which is to say Steve Liesman got the same treatment as Jane Doe. Why is that a problem? Well, because Jane’s not interested in Oracle CDS, she’s interested in the midterms and specifically whether Warsh’s disinclination to raise rates again is a function of his relationship with Donald Trump.

Not to disparage the idea that more people should get a chance to interrogate the Fed chair during post-FOMC press conferences, but it’s during times like these when it behooves all interested parties to accord seasoned financial journalists a disproportionate share of the press conference Q&A.

I want to know what Warsh thinks about CCCs trading distressed, or how he’s viewing crisis-level wides on European sovereign spreads to bunds. Not whether his thinking on rates is influenced by Trump. (I already know the answer to that latter question, and so does everybody else.)

Anyway, the new policy statement will be brief, bordering on rude, in keeping with Warsh’s wishes. There’s no SEP obviously, and no new dots. And no chance of a hike. And Warsh has sworn off forward guidance.

So, other than what Liesman, Timiraos, McKee and Colby Smith can get out of him whenever they get their turn in the newly-democratic Q&A queue, there won’t likely be much on offer from the Fed this week.

Fortunately for the adrenaline junkies among you, the data docket’s jam-packed and the most important names in tech will report earnings.