Financial institutions discover Bitcoin as a price catalyst in 2026: A new macroeconomic perspective

The traditional world of finance is changing its perspective on cryptocurrencies. Rick Wurster, CEO of Charles Schwab, one of the largest investment platforms in the United States, recently presented an analysis that links Federal Reserve monetary policy with the potential price growth of Bitcoin by 2026. His statement, made during an interview on the Schwab Network platform, points to specific economic mechanisms that could serve as catalysts for the digital asset. It is worth paying closer attention to these connections.

What is really happening in the money markets?

Instead of relying on speculative narratives, Wurster based his insights on three interconnected elements of fiscal and monetary policy. First, the possibility of a return to quantitative easing (QE) programs. Second, the Federal Reserve’s actions related to bond purchases. Third, decreasing demand for U.S. Treasury securities. Each of these factors individually impacts the economy, but together they create an environment of increased liquidity and potential concerns about fiat currency devaluation.

Historically, whenever such conditions materialized, both large institutions and smaller investors sought alternative stores of value. Bitcoin, with its limited algorithmic supply and decentralized structure, can be a natural beneficiary of such a scenario. This is not purely speculative — it is an understanding of capital flow dynamics in response to central bank actions.

Historical lessons: When the Fed prints money, Bitcoin rises?

Quantitative easing is a term describing the infusion of new money into the economy through the purchase of government bonds and other assets by the central bank. The goal is to lower interest rates and stimulate lending. However, a side effect is the expansion of the monetary base — in effect, more money in circulation.

What happened after the 2008 financial crisis? Prolonged QE coincided with a sharp increase in interest in Bitcoin among institutions and individual investors. When Treasury yields approached zero and central banks flooded the market with liquidity, digital “gold” began to attract attention.

A similar scenario played out in 2020-2021, when monetary responses to the COVID-19 pandemic preceded one of the largest bull runs in the cryptocurrency market. History shows a clear pattern: When the Fed actively buys assets, capital flows shift toward alternative stores of value.

Why should this matter to us now?

Wurster’s perspective is significant due to Charles Schwab’s position in the investment ecosystem. The company manages assets worth trillions of dollars for millions of retail clients. The fact that a leader of such an institution publicly analyzes the correlation between Fed policy and Bitcoin valuation signals a shift in institutional attitudes toward cryptocurrencies.

This is not an isolated opinion. Other macroeconomic analysts observe similar relationships between Treasury bond market dynamics and Bitcoin price volatility. When demand for bonds weakens, the U.S. government must offer higher yields to attract buyers. This increases debt servicing costs. To avoid this, the Federal Reserve may be forced to intervene — by purchasing more securities. This sequence leads to long-term weakening of the dollar’s purchasing power.

In such an environment, assets with verifiable scarcity, like Bitcoin, have historically attracted capital. Wurster’s statement formalizes this cause-and-effect chain from the perspective of traditional finance.

The role of the Federal Reserve: From balance sheet to price

The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: maximum employment and stable prices. Its tools include the federal funds rate and open market operations (asset purchases and sales). When the Fed initiates bond purchase programs, it increases the money supply in the economy.

This activity lowers yields on traditional “safe” assets — such as 10-year Treasury bonds, which previously offered reasonable returns. Investors, with fewer options offering good returns, must look for alternatives. Some turn their attention to assets with limited supply, such as Bitcoin.

The table below shows how Fed decisions have impacted digital markets in recent years:

Wurster’s forecast for 2026 assumes that the Fed will continue or even intensify easing policies in response to potential economic turbulence.

Weak demand for bonds: The missing link in the chain

Weakening demand for U.S. Treasury securities is a complex but key component of Wurster’s thesis. The traditional buyers include:

• Foreign governments — Japan, China, and other countries historically hold large reserves of U.S. bonds
• Domestic banks — Regulatory requirements force them to hold significant amounts of government debt
• The Federal Reserve itself — The Fed owns enormous quantities of securities from its balance sheet
• Pension and investment funds — Seeking safe, income-generating assets

If demand from these entities wanes, yields must rise to attract new buyers. Higher interest rates on government debt can slow economic growth — something the central bank aims to avoid. The solution may be Fed intervention as a last buyer — effectively financing government spending through money printing.

Many economists see this as inflationary action. In such an environment, Bitcoin, with its fixed supply of 21 million coins, becomes theoretically more attractive as a hedge against erosion of fiat currency value.

Questions investors are asking themselves

Does Charles Schwab offer direct Bitcoin trading?
As of today, in 2026, Charles Schwab does not allow clients to trade cryptocurrencies directly. However, the platform offers access to related products, such as spot Bitcoin ETFs, reflecting the integration of digital assets into traditional finance.

What exactly did Wurster say?
He stated that the macroeconomic environment should favor Bitcoin’s price growth to 2026. He pointed to quantitative easing, Fed bond purchases, and weak demand for U.S. Treasury securities as catalysts for this change.

How does QE influence valuation?
Quantitative easing increases the money supply, which over time raises concerns about inflation or devaluation. Bitcoin, with its limited supply, is seen by many as a hedge against loss of purchasing power, which theoretically boosts demand.

Why does the bond market matter for crypto?
Weak demand for government debt can force the Fed to intervene — more money printing and potential inflation. This environment has historically favored digital assets with limited supply.

Should I change my strategy?
Macroeconomic analyses from financial leaders provide valuable research context but do not constitute personalized investment advice. Every investor should tailor their decisions to their own risk tolerance, time horizon, and financial goals.

Current state of the Bitcoin market

The current Bitcoin price is 91.45K USD (data from January 12, 2026). Over the last 24 hours, it has increased by +0.70%, but over the week, it shows a decrease of -1.20%. Over the past month, Bitcoin has risen by +1.21%, but on a yearly basis, it shows a decline of -3.33%.

These data indicate that despite short-term fluctuations, Bitcoin remains of interest to institutional and retail investors, supporting Wurster’s thesis about the evolving role of digital assets in portfolios.

Summary: Why 2026 could be a turning point?

Rick Wurster’s forecast is not based on emotions or speculation — it is a pragmatic analysis of capital flows in response to monetary policy. His statement as CEO of Charles Schwab carries weight because it signals a shift in institutional financial narratives toward Bitcoin.

If a return to QE, weak demand for securities, and Fed intervention indeed occur, everything suggests that Bitcoin will become a catalyst for investors seeking protection against inflation and dollar devaluation. The central bank’s balance sheet, bond market conditions, and capital flows are variables that every serious investor should monitor until the end of 2026 and beyond.

Ultimately, Bitcoin’s valuation may depend not only on technological adoption but also on a fundamental question: will traditional financial systems be able to maintain trust in fiat currencies without massive money printing? Wurster’s perspective suggests that the answer is increasingly leaning toward monetary policy rather than purely technical fundamentals.