Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
It looks like the Fed will not be lowering rates in June or July, based on today's guidance from Nick Timiraos, who is the Fed's 'unofficial mouthpiece' at the WSJ. The Fed routinely provides guidance through Timiraos, and today's article sounds pretty definitive that we shouldn't expect a rate cut until Sept at the earliest.
This could explain some of the bond market's big selloff today, since rates aren't coming down anytime soon, although the news didn't seem to bother the stock market -
>>> The May Jobs Report Lets the Fed Stay on Hold for the Summer <<<
https://www.wsj.com/news/author/nick-timiraos
---
>>> The Trump economic plan that could be much riskier than tariffs
Yahoo Finance
by Rick Newman
March 31, 2025
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/commentary-the-trump-economic-plan-that-could-be-much-riskier-than-tariffs-122738860.html
What if tariffs are only the beginning? What if President Trump has a far bolder plan to reshape the US economy, regardless of the consequences?
Investors hope it isn’t so. But they’re still paying attention to a concept known as the “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” which would dramatically rewire global capital flows by permanently devaluing the US dollar, refinancing trillions of dollars of US debt, and putting the United States in a much more adversarial role with its trading partners. Most doubt it will amount to anything, but Trump is so unpredictable that investors are learning to prepare for the unthinkable.
The idea of a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” comes from Stephen Miran, who was a senior strategist at investing firm Hudson Bay Capital last November when he wrote a 41-page essay on “restructuring the global trading system.” Miran wrote from a Trumpian perspective, explaining how the incoming president’s fondness for tariffs and protectionism could be the basis for reshaping much of the global economy.
The paper probably would have gotten little notice, except that Trump tapped Miran to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He started the job this month. Trump himself hasn’t said anything publicly about Miran’s Mar-a-Lago plan.
But now that Miran is a Trump whisperer, investors want to know what he might be whispering. “Wall Street can’t stop talking about the Mar-a-Lago Accord,” MarketWatch declared earlier this month.
The basic premise behind Miran’s plan is that the US dollar has been overvalued for decades, leading to chronic trade deficits — and the migration of manufacturing out of the United States to other countries such as China. Reversing that imbalance would therefore require a devaluation of the US dollar, something Trump does seem to favor.
Man with a plan: Stephen Miran, President Trump’s chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
When the dollar is relatively strong, imports become cheaper to Americans, while US exports to other countries become more expensive. That shows up as a growing trade deficit in goods, as the gap between imports and exports grows. The goods trade deficit was $1.2 trillion in 2024, the highest ever and 175% larger than the deficit in 2000.
Trump thinks the growing trade deficit is inherently bad. Economists don’t necessarily agree.
The US economy is powered by consumption, and more imported products at lower prices boost the buying power of Americans. Running a trade deficit isn’t harmful if the US economy is otherwise healthy, with high levels of investment, innovation, and job creation.
Many experts also think a strong dollar is better for the United States than a weak dollar. "A Mar-a-Lago Accord would be pointless, ineffectual, destabilizing, and only lead to the erosion of the dollar’s pre-eminent role in the global financial system," economists Steven Kamin and Mark Sobel of the American Enterprise Institute wrote recently.
They argue that a strong dollar gives American businesses privileged access to overseas markets while enhancing economic stability at home.
It’s true that a lot of lower-level assembly-line work has left the United States and that manufacturing employment has dropped. But manufacturing has been declining for years as a percentage of output in all the world’s advanced economies as growth comes from technology and services. Since the 1980s, manufacturing as a share of US GDP has dropped from around 25% to less than 10%. Yet America’s industrial output is nearly as high as it’s ever been. Manufacturers simply make more with fewer workers due to automation, technology, and innovation.
If there’s a fatal flaw in Trump’s economic thinking, it’s his fetishization of manufacturing.
The service economy employs 86% of American workers today. Just 8% work in manufacturing. And the United States has a longstanding trade surplus in services, exporting more than it imports. "Are assembly jobs good jobs? Yes," economist Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said on the latest episode of the Yahoo Finance Capitol Gains podcast. "But there are lots of other good jobs in the US."
Despite some rough patches, the United States has had the world’s most dynamic and durable economy for at least 40 years. If the United States has somehow been handicapped by a lost blue-collar economy and a gamed trading system, it’s a handicap any nation would gladly endure.
Trump, nonetheless, is basing his whole economic plan on boosting the manufacturing sector.
In the Mar-a-Lago plan, tariffs would only be the beginning. Devaluing the dollar would come next. To do that without printing money and triggering runaway inflation, the Trump administration would have to intervene in currency markets. If other nations happened to agree with Trump’s plan to devalue the dollar, the signatories could all gather at Mar-a-Lago and ink an accord similar to other marquee events in financial history.
Voluntary agreement is unlikely, however, since trading partners would end up at a disadvantage. “The circumstances do not look good for a voluntary currency agreement,” Capital Economics explained in a recent analysis of the idea. “But a coercive deal forced on others by the US using threats or inducements may be possible.”
A “coercive” deal would involve some way of reducing the flow of foreign money into US dollar assets, especially Treasury securities. Miran, for instance, suggested a new user fee on some foreign purchases of Treasurys, which would reduce demand for Treasurys and weaken the dollar. But that would force interest rates higher in the United States, and Trump wants lower rates, not higher ones.
So there would have to be some corrective for rising rates.
One concept here is that the Trump team could somehow force current foreign holders of Treasury securities, which have a maximum maturity of 30 years, into a new “century” bond with a 100-year maturity. The catch is that century bonds would be hard to trade in public markets the way Treasurys trade now. So there would have to be some new way of providing liquidity if century bondholders needed it, such as short-term loans from the Federal Reserve.
There are other twists and wrinkles. Trump, for instance, has talked about establishing a US sovereign wealth fund, which, if it ever existed, he could use to force the dollar lower by purchasing massive amounts of foreign assets. The United States could exploit its role as a defense guarantor for nations such as Taiwan, South Korea, and much of Europe to try forcing them into buying century bonds. Trump could also dangle tariff relief as an incentive for foreign help devaluing the dollar.
If this scheme sounds remarkably convoluted, well, it is.
“There’s no easy road to dollar weakening,” Oxford Economics said in a March 20 report. “Achieving the size of depreciation that we think would be needed to have a significant impact on the trade deficit would involve swimming against a strong tide. The costs imposed on the economies and financial markets in the US and beyond could be large.”
Those costs would most likely include sharply higher prices for both imported and domestic goods, higher interest rates, and whatever economic damage the disruption might cause.
A worst-case outcome would be wrecking investor confidence in the sanctity of US Treasurys, which could happen if the United States did anything markets interpreted as a default, or refusal to pay, what Treasury holders are legally entitled to. That would devalue the dollar for sure, but at the devastating cost of much higher rates on Treasurys to compensate holders for the higher risk of losing their money. If that happened, US government borrowing costs would explode, and the gigantic national debt, now $36 trillion, could quickly become unsustainable.
Economists also point out that there are better ways of addressing some legitimate problems in markets. One reason the dollar might be slightly overvalued today is the sheer amount of debt the Treasury has issued to finance annual deficits that now run close to $2 trillion per year. “If the reduction in US domestic demand were done via fiscal tightening, that would have the added benefit of putting the US public debt onto a more sustainable path,” Capital Economics said.
There are also real casualties of global trade, including American manufacturing towns that lost employers with nobody to take their place. Luring growth industries such as green energy, data centers, warehousing, and healthcare to such areas would likely be more effective than trying to hold onto the enterprises of the past. There’s also an ongoing need for tradespeople and a mismatch between the skills companies need and the skills workers have that policymakers could do a much better job of reconciling.
Trump, of course, sees tariffs as a kind of multitool that can solve many problems, including some that might not be problems at all. Investors generally dislike Trump's tariffs, which have dented stock values and raised new inflation fears.
But tariffs may be tame medicine compared with other potions Trump might try to brew up.
<<<
---
Rickards - >>> Trump and the Fate of the Dollar
by James Rickards
March 27, 2025
https://dailyreckoning.com/trump-and-the-fate-of-the-dollar/
Trump and the Fate of the Dollar
What is the Mar-a-Lago Accord? And what would a Mar-a-Lago Accord mean for the value of the U.S. dollar?
We begin our analysis with the name itself. Mar-a-Lago Accord is an echo of the three major international currency accords since the original Bretton Woods Agreements reached in 1944.
Accords Through The Years
The first was the Smithsonian Agreement in December 1971. This came in the aftermath of President Nixon’s decision on August 15, 1971, to end the convertibility of U.S. dollars into physical gold by U.S. trading partners at the fixed rate of $35.00 per ounce. The major countries in the global system (U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands) met at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC to decide how to reopen the gold window.
The main U.S. goal was to devalue the dollar. In the end, the price of gold was increased by 8.5% to $38.00 per ounce (revalued to $42.22 per ounce in 1973), which equaled a 7.9% dollar devaluation. Other currencies were revalued against the dollar, including a 16.9% upward revaluation of the Japanese yen.
The effort to reopen the gold window failed. Instead, major countries moved to floating exchange rates, which remains the norm to this day. Gold moved to free market trading and is currently about $3,050 per ounce. That gold price represents a 98.8% devaluation of the dollar measured by weight of gold since 1971.
The period from 1971 to 1985 was tumultuous in foreign exchange markets including the Petrodollar agreement (1974), the Herstatt Bank collapse (1974), the sterling crisis (1976), U.S. hyperinflation (50% from 1977-1981), a gold price super-spike (1980), and a major global recession (1981-1982). By 1983, inflation was subdued, the dollar was gaining strength, and strong economic growth was achieved in the U.S. under Ronald Reagan.
The next major economic gathering on foreign exchange was the Plaza Accord in September 1985. This was convened by U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker at the Plaza Hotel in New York and included the U.S., Germany, the UK, Japan and France. At the time, the dollar was at an all-time high relative to other currencies. The dollar had even strengthened against gold, which had dropped in price from $800.00 per ounce in January 1980 to around $320.00 per ounce in 1985.
The purpose of the meeting was to devalue the dollar in stages. In this respect, the meeting was a success. Importantly, the method of devaluation was to be gradual and it was to be accomplished by central bank and finance ministry interventions in the foreign exchange markets. It was not a fiat devaluation; it was a finesse.
In practice, the market interventions were quite few. Once foreign exchange traders got the message, they took the dollar where it needed to go on their own. No foreign exchange dealer wanted to be on the wrong side of the trade if the central banks decided to intervene on any particular day.
The Louvre Accord, signed on February 22, 1987, among the U.S., UK, Canada, France, Japan and Germany was, in effect, a victory lap following the Plaza Accord. Between 1985 and 1987, the dollar did devalue against other currencies. The dollar also fell against gold, which rose from $320 per ounce to $445 per ounce by the time of the meeting. It was mission accomplished for Treasury Secretary James Baker. The purpose of the Louvre Accord was to lock down the accomplishments of the Plaza Accord, stop further dollar depreciation, and return to a period of relative stability in foreign exchange markets.
This accord was also a success. The dollar was mostly stable after 1987, despite the introduction of the euro in 2000 (the euro bounced between $0.80 and $1.60 in the early 2000s. Today it’s $1.09, which is not far from its original valuation of $1.16).
The other wild card was gold. After hitting bottom at around $250 per ounce in 1999, gold surged to $1,900 per ounce in 2011, a 670% gain for gold and a de facto devaluation of the dollar when measured by weight of gold. The period of relative stability in foreign exchange markets lasted until 2010 when a new currency war was unleashed by President Obama.
A New Mar-A-Lago Accord
Which brings us to discussion of a possible new international monetary conference in the chain of conferences from the Smithsonian Agreement to the Plaza Accord to the Louvre Accord. Given Donald Trump’s dominance on the world economic scene today and his love of ornate architecture of the kind seen at the Plaza Hotel and the Louvre (Trump owned the Plaza Hotel from 1988 to 1995),it’s not a stretch to expect that Trump would convene any new world monetary conference at his equally ornate Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.
The first discussion of a Mar-a-Lago Accord appears in Chapter Six of my book Aftermath (2019), published six years ahead of current attention to the topic. That chapter is titled “The Mar-a-Lago Accord” and contains extensive discussion of the evolution of the international monetary system starting in 1870, including the more recent accords noted above.
It then moves through my private meetings with IMF head John Lipsky and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner with a focus on a possible new gold standard and the attempted replacement of gold by the Special Drawing Right (SDR), created in 1969 and used among IMF members ever since. It ends with the classic 1912 quote from Pierpont Morgan that, “Money is gold, and nothing else.” and recommends that investors acquire physical gold for their portfolios. The dollar price of gold has risen 120% since that recommendation.
Today’s vogue in Mar-a-Lago Accord research began with a November 2024 paper written by Stephan Miran titled “A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System”, published by Hudson Bay Capital. Although the title refers to the trading system, it explains how currency devaluation can be used to offset the impact of tariffs and refers to “persistent dollar overvaluation.”
From there, it’s a short leap to the ghost of the Plaza Accord and the need for a new Mar-a-Lago Accord. (Shortly after the paper was published, Trump appointed Miran as Chair of his Council of Economic Advisors, which gives his views added weight).
Issuance of 100-Year Bonds
In the currency section of the paper (pages 27-34), Miran not only suggests a devaluation of the dollar; he proposes that the U.S. issue 100-year bonds. In Miran’s view, 100-year bonds will be attractive to foreign reserve managers and will reduce any dollar selling needed to prop up their own currencies. Those long-term dollar holdings will mitigate short-term dollar devaluation in a way that moves the entire international monetary system toward a desirable equilibrium. Miran specifically uses the term Mar-a-Lago Accord to describe his proposed system.
There are many more technical details in Miran’s plan that we don’t have room to discuss in this article. These include use of the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, the Fed’s Bank Term Funding Program, and Fed currency swap lines. Miran also suggests using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose withholding taxes on interest payments to foreign holders of Treasury securities (a form of capital controls) as a way to discourage trading partners from holding Treasuries and therefore a way to devalue the dollar.
Trading partners would be evaluated using a traffic-light system. Countries would be ranked green (friendly), yellow (neutral) and red (adversary). Green countries would get U.S. military protection and the most favorable tariffs, yellow would get reciprocal tariffs, and red countries would get no security help, punitive tariffs and possible capital controls.
A Financial Catastrophe in the Making
In effect, Miran is trying to have it both ways. He wants to devalue the dollar and at the same time keep the dollar at the center of the International Monetary System. Nixon did this in 1971 and Baker did it in 1985. With regard to Miran, one cannot resist a paraphrase of Lloyd Bensen – “Stephan, you’re no Jim Baker.” The success of the Plaza Accord depended entirely on close cooperation of the major country finance ministries. No such cooperation exists today given sanctions on Russia, tariffs on China and the U.S. isolation of the EU with respect to the War in Ukraine.
Since Miran’s paper, the topic has spun completely out of control. A recent MarketWatch headline says “Wall Street can’t stop talking about the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord.’”Some analysts propose that gold on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet (actually a gold certificate) would be revalued from $42.22 per ounce to the market price (now $3,050 per ounce) with the “profit” added to the Treasury General Account. Another idea is to use U.S. assets such as land and mineral rights to collateralize U.S. debt.
As of now, no one knows what a Mar-a-Lago Accord would actually be or whether it will even happen, so it’s impossible to describe the impact. Still, the best-known version of the plan would have unintended consequences that could lead to a global financial catastrophe.
There’s no need to force holders to swap short-term debt for long-term debt. You simply let the short-term debt mature and replace it with new 100-year bond issues through the existing primary dealer underwriting system. No coercion is needed; there would be huge demand for 100-year debt.
Dollar devaluation does not fight potential inflation from tariffs (there isn’t any). It actually causes inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods. Any gold price mark-up on the Fed’s books is simply an accounting entry. The suggested “audit” of Fort Knox by Trump and Elon Musk (if it happens) will be nothing more than a staged photo-op. Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed.
Again, the Mar-a-Lago Accord as it’s envisioned today would cause a global financial crisis. That’s because it fails to understand the importance of short-term Treasury debt as collateral for inter-bank lending and derivatives. Substituting 100-year Treasury debt for short-term Treasury bills would make those bills scarce. Treasury bills are the most liquid collateral in the world and are at the root of the Eurodollar system and the $1 quadrillion derivatives market. Scarcity of Treasury billswould implode bank balance sheets and lead to the greatest banking crisis in history.
The big winner in this context is gold. The BRICS are moving toward gold as fast as they can. Investors can do the same. Don’t be left behind.
<<<
---
Rickards says the Fed may be considering a rate cut at their next meeting (May 6, 7), so another data point for active traders to consider. Some key dates are emerging for the period ahead (below). Since the tariffs are only just beginning, their effects on the economic numbers may not become apparent for several months. So the main market moving events could be April 2, and May 6, 7, assuming no big surprises (yet) from the GDP, unemployment, CPI, PPI -
Mar 27 -- GDP number
April 2 -- Trump's 'Liberation Day', when the extent of the tariff policy is clarified, reciprocal aspects, etc.
April 4 -- Unemployment number
April 10 - CPI number
April 11 - PPI number
April 30 - GDP number
May 2 -- Unemployment number
May 6, 7 -- Fed meeting, decison on rate cuts, etc.
---
Rickards - >>> The Fed’s Backdoor QE
By James Rickards
March 21, 2025
https://dailyreckoning.com/the-feds-backdoor-qe/
The Fed’s Backdoor QE
On Monday, we offered readers the following forecast of what would happen at the FOMC meeting this week:
On Wednesday, the Fed will continue its pause in interest rate cuts. That decision will leave the federal funds target unchanged at 4.50%. The Fed’s current rate lowering cycle began with a 0.50% rate cut on September 18, 2024, followed by additional rate cuts of 0.25% each on November 7 and December 18, 2024. The pause in cutting rates began at the Federal Reserve meeting on January 29, 2025. This pause is a reflection of the Fed’s concern about rising inflation and a desire to see additional data before deciding on its next move.
Here’s What Happened
The Fed did continue the pause in its cuts in the fed funds rate as we predicted. This kept the Fed’s target rate unchanged at 4.50%. The rate pause was widely expected. The Fed does not like to produce surprises if they can possibly avoid it. This is the no drama Fed.
Here’s the text of the Fed’s press release issued at 2:00 pm EDT on March 19, 2025:
In support of its goals, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities. Beginning in April, the Committee will slow the pace of decline of its securities holdings by reducing the monthly redemption cap on Treasury securities from $25 billion to $5 billion. The Committee will maintain the monthly redemption cap on agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities at $35 billion. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.
A Sign of Rate Cuts Resuming
The most significant part of this statement is the reduction in the “redemption cap” on Treasury securities from $25 billion to $5 billion. This refers to the pace at which the Fed allows its balance sheet to shrink.
When Treasury securities on the Fed’s balance sheet mature, the Fed has a choice between doing nothing (a form of monetary tightening) or rolling over the position by buying new securities (a form of monetary ease or QE). By lowering the cap, there will be more rollovers and less balance sheet reduction. That is a dovish move that indicates monetary easing – a backdoor form of QE or even a rate cut.
The FOMC vote on this policy statement was 11-1 in favor. The dissent came from Governor Christopher J. Waller who disagreed with the reduction in the run-off of the Fed’s balance sheet.
This meeting included the “dots,” technically the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) offered by 19 Fed governors and regional reserve bank presidents and presented in graphical form as a dot plot. The dots show individual forecasts of key variables such as unemployment, interest rates, inflation, and economic growth. The dots do not deserve serious attention as forecasting tools. The Fed has the worst forecasting record of almost any institution.
That said, the dots did include some significant developments. The SEP lowered its inflation expectations and reduced its 2025 U.S. growth forecast from 2.1% to 1.7%. The SEP also kept the unemployment forecast unchanged. Taken in combination with the decision to reduce the run-off in the balance sheet, this is a slightly dovish turn of events. It certainly strengthens the case for a rate cut at the Fed’s next meeting on May 7.
Despite discussion of the dots, analysts focused even more closely on Jay Powell’s comments at his 2:30 pm ET press conference that followed the FOMC meeting.
The Fed’s Enemy of Choice
Most of Powell’s press conference focused on the policy dilemma we highlighted in our pre-meeting report last Monday. The Fed’s “dual mandate” requires the Fed to maintain price stability and create jobs at the same time. This is practically impossible to do on a consistent basis. There is no strong correlation between interest rates and employment.
Therefore, the Fed is forced to choose which part of the mandate it wants to address while it either ignores the other half of the mandate or concludes that it’s not a problem and can safely be left alone. The Fed’s action on Wednesday clearly shows it is less concerned about inflation for now and more willing to look at further rate cuts in future.
After a long period of stubbornly high inflation, inflation seemed to be coming under control and heading toward the Fed’s 2.0% target. Inflation, which peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, had been coming down steadily. The trend from March 2024 to September 2024 showed a drop from 3.5% to 2.4%. That trend was heading toward the Fed’s goal of 2.0% inflation.
The trend reversed suddenly in October 2024 when inflation rose to 2.6%. It then rose further in November 2024 hitting 2.7% then rose again to 3.0% in January 2025, the highest rate since last July. The reading for February 2025 was 2.8%, (the latest data available). That reduction from January to February is a move in the right direction, but not enough to get the Fed to cut at this meeting. The Fed will need to see further progress against inflation before shifting its focus from inflation to unemployment and growth.
Here’s the tale of the inflation tape using the Consumer Price Index on a year-over-year basis:
Date CPI (year-over-year)
September 2024 2.4%
October 2024 2.6%
November 2024 2.7%
December 2024 2.9%
January 2025 3.0%
February 2025 2.8%
(The CPI data for March 2025 will be released on April 10, 2025).
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has also been moving against the Fed’s goals. The U.S. unemployment rate hit an interim low of 3.4% in January 2023. From there, it rose to 3.9% in February 2024 then 4.2% in July 2024. Today, the unemployment rate is 4.1%, down slightly from last July but up significantly from January 2023. Still, the Fed is not overly concerned. At his press conference, Powell said, “we see unemployment pretty close to its natural level.” Powell also said, “overall it’s a labor market that’s in balance.” While recognizing that unemployment could be an individual hardship, he concluded that, “at the national level [layoffs] are not concerning yet.”
That said, the labor situation and prospects for growth are worse than the headlines indicate. The household survey, a Labor Department survey different than the employer survey used to calculate the official unemployment rate, showed significant job losses in February. The number of employed individuals per the household survey dropped by 588,000. The Labor Force Participation Rate (total employed divided by total workforce) also dropped from 62.6% to 62.4%. This is not a crisis, but it is troubling that the Fed seems not to be paying attention.
Major U.S. companies are also issuing warnings that earnings in the first quarter will not meet expectations. Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Kohl’s, American Airlines and Delta Airlines are among those who have revised earnings and revenue forecasts downward.
While these and other developments point in the direction of higher unemployment and slower growth (if not recession) they were still not dire enough to cause the Fed to change its emphasis from fighting inflation to fighting unemployment at this meeting. Still, if these trends continue as we expect, unemployment may return to the fore at the May 7 Fed meeting.
Powell discussed the inflationary aspects of Trump’s tariffs at greater length than expected. He said, “A good part of [expected inflation] is coming from tariffs” and “inflation may be moving up due to tariffs.” Powell added that, “There are going to be tariffs and in the short-term they tend to bring inflation up.”
“Uncertainty”- An Explanation for Everything
Still, Powell was not overly concerned about inflation. With regard to tariffs, he said, “tariff inflation” can be “transitory.” That seems like a bold assertion considering how wrong Powell was about the transitory nature of inflation in 2021-2022. He shrugged off any inflationary threat by adding, “If there’s an inflationary impulse, that’s going to go away on its own, that’s not the time to change policy.”
Another theme in Powell’s remarks was his recitation of uncertainty as a factor in Fed decision making (or non-decision making at Wednesday’s meeting). Powell said with regard to his analysis of interest rates and inflation that “the other factor is really high uncertainty.” He used the term uncertainty about twenty times over the course of the press conference. He added, “when we talk about separating the signal from noise, we mean that things are highly uncertain.” Of course, that’s just a reflection of the flavor-of-the-month phrase from Wall Street analysts and financial media anchors. They talk about uncertainty as an explanation for everything.
Finally, in response to a question about a possible $5,000 per person DOGE dividend check for the American people financed by cuts in government spending identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Powell punted. He said, “I’m gonna’ pass on that one.”
Prospects for a rate cut at the next Fed meeting have been increased due to indications of slower growth and rising unemployment as well as recent stock market declines. Between mid-December 2024 and mid-March 2025, the NASDAQ Composite, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 Index all suffered a technical correction defined as a decline of over 10% from the previous high.
A Powell Put – Not Just Yet
Will the Federal Reserve ride to the rescue of stock investors? Not directly. The Fed actually doesn’t care about the stock market unless it becomes “disorderly.” We’re not there yet. Down is not the same as disorderly. If markets crash as they did in March 2020, the Fed probably would activate the Powell Put and quickly cut rates. But the Fed won’t do anything specific to help stocks based on what we’ve seen so far. That’s not their job.
Still, the Fed could factor the recent stock market declines into their analysis about a potential rate cut at the May meeting alongside unemployment and slower growth (and assuming further progress on inflation). The Fed may return to rate cuts by their May meeting as a result. Fed Chair Jay Powell will focus on the dual mandate of low unemployment and price stability as required by law. But the Fed can juggle which part of the mandate (jobs or inflation) takes precedence at any point in time.
The next Fed meeting is May 7. Powell was noncommittal on what the Fed will do then. He said, “we do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance.” He then added, “We’re at a place where we can cut, or we can hold.”
The Fed’s policy move at the May meeting will be a close call. The Fed may cut interest rates again by 0.25% given the deteriorating employment situation. On the other hand, the Fed could stand pat in view of the inflation metrics, which declined slightly for February but remain too high for the Fed. We’ll know the likely outcome before the meeting and advise our readers accordingly.
The May decision is truly data dependent and will be made on the basis of new inflation readings including CPI on April 10. New employment reports will be released on April 4 and May 2, both before the May 7 meeting.
This kind of data dependence is revealing because it shows the Fed is following markets and not leading them. That’s bad news for investors because if the Fed were leading the economy, they would get ahead of the coming recession. They’re not doing either.
<<<
---
Timiraos - >>> Fed Projections See an Economy Dramatically Reset by Trump’s Election
Not long ago, Federal Reserve officials presumed that 2025 would simply be about getting to the soft landing
The Wall Street Journal
by Nick Timiraos
March 19, 2025
https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/fed-forecast-inflation-tariffs-trump-economy-5a5098a1
The Federal Reserve’s first set of projections since Donald Trump’s inauguration underscored—in the central bank’s understated and technocratic fashion—just how much the president’s plans to press ahead with widespread tariffs have turned the economic outlook on its head.
Months ago, policymakers presumed they would spend 2025 gradually cutting rates to keep inflation heading down without a big rise in joblessness to achieve the so-called soft landing. The latest projections point to the prospect that tariffs covering a swath of goods and materials will send up prices while sapping investment, sentiment and growth, at least in the short run...
<<<
---
>>> Fed to Shrink Balance Sheet at Slower Pace Until Debt-Ceiling Deal Reached
Bloomberg
by Alexandra Harris
March 19, 2025
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-shrink-balance-sheet-slower-181330692.html
(Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve said it will start shrinking its balance sheet at a slower pace starting next month, reducing the amount of bond holdings it lets roll off every month.
Officials, who left interest rates unchanged on Wednesday, said they’ll lower the cap starting April 1 on the amount of Treasuries allowed to mature without being reinvested to $5 billion from $25 billion. The Fed will leave the cap on mortgage-backed securities unchanged at $35 billion.
Chair Jerome Powell said that officials had seen some signs of increased tightness in money markets, a key deliberation for the timing and path of QT, even as reserves remain abundant in the financial system. He also said the decision shouldn’t impact the size of the balance sheet over the medium term.
The central bank has been winding down its holdings since June 2022 — a process known as quantitative tightening, or QT — by gradually increasing the combined amount of Treasuries and mortgage bonds it allowed to run off without being reinvested. It last lowered its monthly cap in June 2024 to $25 billion from $60 billion.
The latest decision comes as lawmakers look to strike a deal on the debt ceiling, the statutory limit for outstanding Treasury debt. The US hit that limit in January. Fed Governor Christopher Waller was the lone dissenter among officials on the runoff, though he supported leaving interest rates steady.
“Waller’s dissent on QT is notable and suggests some mixed opinions on balance sheet policy,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US interest rate strategy at TD Securities. “The reason they moved the Treasury QT cap lower to just $5 billion is so they are able to re-accelerate the pace of runoff after the debt ceiling is resolved. It’s easier to re-accelerate the pace when the cap is already non-zero.”
The longer it takes Congress to either suspend or lift the limit, the more cash that will make its way back into the financial system. That has the potential to artificially boost reserves — currently $3.46 trillion — masking money-market signals that could indicate when is the right time to stop QT.
It’s those money-market signals that will dictate just how much more the Fed would be able to shrink its $6.8 trillion portfolio of assets before worrisome cracks start to appear, as they did in 2019 ahead of an acute funding squeeze.
Wall Street strategists had been split on their expectations for the Fed’s balance-sheet plans. For months, officials had said very little publicly about when they might stop reducing the their balance sheet.
Minutes of their January meeting, however, revealed policymakers had discussed the potential need to pause or slow the process until lawmakers can strike a deal over the government’s debt ceiling.
The New York Fed’s Roberto Perli, who oversees the central bank’s securities portfolio, reiterated these concerns during remarks earlier this month.
<<<
---
WSJ - Nick Timiraos' recent headlines -
(Note - Timiraos is the Fed's designated 'leaker' at the WSJ. Jim Rickards recommends following Timiraos' comments closely since he is there to provide Fed guidance to Wall Street. He's not sounding very upbeat however)
>>> Fed Dims Economic Outlook, Citing Uncertainty Over Tariffs
Officials extend pause on interest rates while projecting higher inflation and unemployment...
by Nick Timiraos
March 19, 2025
_____________________________
As Debt Ceiling Looms, the Fed Tweaks Its Portfolio Runoff
The process of shedding assets and draining bank reserves could collide with dynamics related to raising the federal debt limit...
by Nick Timiraos
March 19, 2025
____________________________
The Fed’s Wait-and-See Outlook Obscures a Bigger Strategy Shift
Central banks can lower interest rates because of good news or bad news. The window for “good” cuts is closing due to new inflation risks...
by Nick Timiraos
March 18, 2025
__________________________
Powell Contends With Double Threat of Economic Chaos and Political Hostility
The Federal Reserve is navigating the fog of a trade war from an administration ready to blame officials for any economic slowdown...
by Nick Timiraos
March 18, 2025
<<<
https://www.wsj.com/news/author/nick-timiraos
---
>>> Will the Fed Ride to the Rescue?
By James Rickards
March 13, 2025
https://dailyreckoning.com/will-the-fed-ride-to-the-rescue/
Will the Fed Ride to the Rescue?
The stock market has topped out and is headed down.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at 45,014 on December 4, 2024, and was at 41,911 by March 10, 2025, down 3,101 points or 6.9% in just over three months.
The S&P 500 Index peaked at 6,130 on February 18, 2025, and was at 5,614 on March 10, 2025, down 516 points or 8.4% in less than one month.
The NASDAQ Composite Index peaked at 20,174 on December 16, 2024, and was at 17,468 on March 7, 2025, down 2,706 points or 13.4% in less than three months and technically a market “correction” (defined as a 10% or more decline from a previous peak).
None of those index performances is a full-blown crash nor do they represent a market panic. Stock market indices are volatile, and they may partially bounce back by the time you read this. Still, down is down. We have to look at the reasons for this and use our predictive analytical techniques to see where the markets go from here.
A Crash Can Be Profitable
While investors worry about a market crash such as a one-day crash of over 20% (this happened on October 19, 1987) or a one-month crash of over 30% (this happened in March 2020), those are not necessarily the worst outcomes for investors.
The losses from the 1987 crash were almost 60% recovered in two trading days and were 100% recovered in less than two years. Losses from the 2020 crash were fully recovered in four months making it the fastest recovery of any crash in the past 150 years. Buying stocks in the aftermath of a crash can turn out to be a very good trade.
To be clear, not every crash has such a rosy recovery. The 1929 stock market crash took 25 years to recover from its 1932 low. Stocks took 6 years to recover from the 2000 dot.com crash.
A Long Slow Grind Down Is Worse
What is worse than a crash and quick recovery is a long, slow grind down. That does not mean a one-day crash of 10% or more. It could mean a slow grind down perhaps 20% or 30% over six months or even longer. A quick crash can recover quickly. With a slow grind, many investors tell themselves it will come back or “buy the dips” or hang in there. Then it will grind down some more until the retail investor finally capitulates with large losses.
The most striking example of this is the stock market behavior during the lost decade of the 1970s. The Dow Jones hit an all-time high over 1,000 in 1969. From there, stocks fell during the 1969 recession, rallied in the early 1970s, crashed again in 1974, rallied back and then fell sharply in the 1981-82 recession. In fact, from 1960 to 1982, the Dow stayed in a 200-point range for 18 years!
Stocks leveled off with the Dow around 800 in 1982 at which point a rally began and the Dow again hit 1,000 for the first time since 1969. In terms of index points, stocks took 13 years to regain the old high despite volatility along the way. Adjusted for inflation, the new high of 1,000 was worth only 50% of the 1969 high in real terms. While waiting for the index to recover, investors permanently lost half their money in terms of purchasing power. That 13-year episode is what we mean by a long, slow grind down.
Will The Fed Ride to the Rescue?
The Fed actually doesn’t care about the stock market unless it becomes “disorderly.” We’re not there yet. Down is not the same as disorderly. If markets crash as they did in March 2020, the Fed probably will activate the Powell Put and cut rates. But the Fed won’t do anything specific to help stocks in the slow grind scenario. That’s not their job.
The Fed will “pause” again at their next meeting on March 19. There will be no rate cut and no rate hike. The Fed did cut rates beginning last September, but they paused the rate cut cycle in January. The Fed doesn’t turn on a dime. Even though inflation cooled lower than expected in this morning’s inflation report, the Fed need to see a few months of evidence that inflation is under control and unemployment is the bigger problem.
The Fed will return to rate cuts by their May meeting but not yet. Fed Chair Jay Powell will focus on the dual mandate of low unemployment and price stability. He’s required to do so by law. But the Fed can juggle which part of the mandate (jobs or inflation) takes precedence at any point in time.
Lower Rates: Be Careful What You Wish For
Trump says he wants lower rates, but he won’t intentionally sacrifice the stock market to get them. Still, stocks and bond yields may both go down on their own for reasons having very little to do with Trump or the Fed and everything to do with slower growth and possible recession in the U.S. When stocks go down, Trump will simply blame the Fed for not cutting rates more and sooner.
Rates going down is a case of “be careful what you wish for.” Most people think of lower rates as “stimulus.” They’re not. Lower rates are associated with depression and recession. In a strong economy, rates actually go up a bit because higher returns are available, and entrepreneurs compete for funds.
Right now, the signs of recession in the U.S. are everywhere. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta GDPNow tracker just collapsed. Its Q1 forecast for GDP growth was +2.3% (annualized) on February 26. By March 7, it showed -2.4%. That’s a shocking decline in growth and a shocking collapse of 4.7 percentage points in just over a week.
Recession Signs Are Everywhere
Analysts blamed this showing on a surge of imports in February intended to beat the Trump tariffs being imposed now. Imports increase the trade deficit, which hurts GDP. There’s some substance to that take, but it’s not the whole story.
Retail sales and consumer confidence are also down. Labor force participation, a measure of the number of people in the economy actually working (whether technically “unemployed” or not) is also declining. New hiring hit a wall months ago and now layoffs are beginning. Major retailers such as Walmart, Target and Best Buy have all warned that their revenues and profits are slowing.
These recession signs are not limited to the United States. Germany, the UK, Japan and Canada are all in recession or close to it. China’s growth is slowing rapidly. Officially, the Chinese government reports 5.0% growth but the reality is closer to 2.0% once wasted investment is stripped out. Even the Chinese may be headed for recession.
Unemployment in the U.S. has risen from 3.4% in April 2023 to 4.1% today. That’s not a high level or a huge increase but the trend should be disturbing. Inflation has risen from 2.4% (annualized) in September 2024 to 3.0% today. Again, that’s not an out-of-control level but the trend should also be disturbing.
The Fed’s Dilemma
The Fed is between a rock and a hard place. Right now, the Fed is more concerned about inflation. By May, they will be more concerned about jobs. They cannot cut rates to fight unemployment and raise rates to fight inflation at the same time. That’s why they’re basically throwing up their hands and doing nothing. None of this has much to do directly with stock market performance.
The Fed could hardly be less relevant now, but it does have symbolic significance in the minds of everyday investors and market media.
The Fed will not be abolished in the current wave of DOGE demolishing the Deep State. But there is a case heading to the Supreme Court on the ability of Trump to fire the head of a so-called “independent agency.” The court may surprise observers by upholding Trump’s right to fire any agency head on separation of powers grounds. If that happens, there’s no reason why the Fed would be exempt from that ruling.
At that point, Trump would hold the Sword of Damocles over any Fed Chair. I would expect Jay Powell to resign as a kind of protest at which point Trump could appoint a friendly face and it would be Trump’s Fed to all intents and purposes. That will make headlines but, again, it’s of limited relevance to stocks.
Investors should lighten up on equity exposure to reduce losses during this stock market decline.
<<<
---
>>> Fed's QT pause, Treasury's debt plans may offer fleeting relief to US bonds
Reuters
February 21, 2025
By Davide Barbuscia
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-qt-pause-treasurys-debt-201200086.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A potential slowdown of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet drawdown and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's assurance against imminent long-term debt hikes could offer relief in the near term to bond market jitters as fiscal concerns linger.
Fed minutes from the January 28-29 rate-setting meeting released this week showed officials weighed a possible pause or slowdown of the Fed's balance sheet reduction, known as quantitative tightening (QT), as a binding government debt cap could complicate the central bank's ability to gauge market liquidity. Meanwhile, Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday that, for now, expanding long-dated government debt issuance is not on the table.
Treasury yields, which move inversely to prices, declined after the Fed minutes on Wednesday and Bessent's interview injected further optimism pushing yields lower on Thursday.
Still, his remarks did not disrupt market expectations of increased government debt, as investors and analysts anticipate the Treasury will eventually need to borrow more to offset a drop in government revenues from President Donald Trump's proposed tax cuts.
Brij Khurana, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Wellington Management, said it was encouraging to have a Treasury Secretary "who is mindful of the funding costs." Bessent said earlier this month the focus of the Trump administration was to contain the benchmark 10-year Treasury yields.
"At the same time, if yields are materially lower, then they're probably going to do more tax cuts ... if yields go a lot lower, I think Bessent would try to push to longer-dated bonds," said Khurana.
Analysts at JPMorgan said in a note on Thursday bond market concerns over excessive debt supply could recede into the background over the next months, given the focus of the administration on long-term yields. But they said they still expected large government borrowing needs in the next fiscal year will lead to increases in long-dated debt sales.
Trump plans to renew and expand tax cuts he signed into law during his first presidency in 2017, which are set to expire at the end of this year. This could increase deficits by over $4 trillion over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
Federal spending cuts driven by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), along with potential revenue from Trump’s planned tariffs on imports, could help curb deficit growth, though the extent of their impact is uncertain.
"The push and pull here is that on one side you have what looks to be a meaningful increase in deficit spending from the tax deal, and on the other side there's potentially ... some savings to be found from DOGE, maybe some budget cuts," said Brian Kennedy, a portfolio manager at Loomis, Sayles & Company.
"I don't think this changes our opinion that the long end of the Treasury curve is going to continue to struggle to perform," Kennedy said. "Is DOGE going to be that effective that you're going to save a meaningful amount of money to offset these tax cuts? I'm a little skeptical of that."
Musk has pledged to find $1 trillion in savings through his efforts to identify fraud and waste in the government.
DOGE said on its website on Thursday it had saved $55 billion since Trump took office on January 20, but Musk's government cost-cutting effort has so far pared hundreds of relatively small contracts it says have saved U.S. taxpayers $8.5 billion, according to a Reuters analysis this week of partial data published by his team.
Potentially the market's ability to absorb higher government debt supply could, to some extent, benefit from an unwinding of QT, as the central bank would start reinvesting maturing bonds instead of letting them roll off.
The Fed minutes showed officials are also considering a shift to a bond portfolio that mirrors the maturity of the outstanding Treasury market. The Fed's Treasury holdings are currently skewed towards long-dated debt, so this suggests it could, over time, reinvest more in shorter-dated securities.
"On the margin, this will reduce (but certainly not eliminate) any future auction size increases in 2s and 3s," BMO Capital Markets analysts said in a Thursday note, referring to two- or three-year Treasuries.
"That being said, the more relevant impact on any eventual auction size increases will come from the budget process as well as the performance of tax revenues," they said.
<<<
---
>>> The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-Reported
Forbes
ByTracey Greenstein
Sep 20, 2011
https://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/
The media’s inscrutable brush-off of the Government Accounting Office’s recently released audit of the Federal Reserve has raised many questions about the Fed’s goings-on since the financial crisis began in 2008.
The audit of the Fed’s emergency lending programs was scarcely reported by mainstream media - albeit the results are undoubtedly newsworthy. It is the first audit of the Fed in United States history since its beginnings in 1913. The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for “financial assistance” during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) amended the Wall Street Reform law to audit the Fed, pushing the GAO to step in and take a look around. Upon hearing the announcement that the first-ever audit would take place in July, the media was bowled over and nearly every broadcast network and newspaper covered the story. However, the audit’s findings were almost completely overlooked, even with a number as high as $16 trillion staring all of us in the face.
Sanders press release, dated July 21st, stated:
“No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president.”
The report serves as a clear testimony of the Fed’s emergency action plan to bailout foreign corporations and banks in a time of crisis, but the GAO report does not berate the Fed; rather, it provides a lucid explanation of where the money was allocated and why.
According to The Washington Post, “The GAO report did not condemn the Fed’s actions, it simply illuminated them. The GAO also recommended that the Fed make clearer and more rigorous its policies for hiring independent contractors to manage investment programs."
A wider investigation of the Fed is due on October 18th, which will provide more thorough details. The GAO report said that the Fed issued "conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans." The audit will inspect the "conflicts of interest" and the inner-workings of the Fed's emergency-lending programs.
For Sanders, one thing is clear: "The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street."
<<<
---
>>> Elon Musk won't drop the idea of auditing the Fed
Yahoo Finance
by Jennifer Schonberger
February 21, 2025
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wont-drop-the-idea-of-auditing-the-fed-144048097.html
Billionaire Elon Musk once again suggested that the Federal Reserve should undergo closer scrutiny, saying Thursday at a gathering of conservatives that he plans to audit the central bank.
He didn't elaborate on those plans beyond answering yes on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference when asked if that's something he intended to do.
But it marked the second time this month that the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) endorsed a closer look at the Fed — an independent agency that decides the direction of interest rates and regulates the nation's biggest banks.
Musk's comments come after the White House this week moved to tighten control over how the Fed oversees those big banks as part of a new executive order that gives President Donald Trump's appointees more power over independent agencies.
The new order makes clear that monetary policy — the direction of interest rates — will remain under the Fed's full control, but that oversight of the country's biggest banks will now have a closer connection to the policies and priorities of the White House.
Musk first suggested he might be in favor of a Fed audit on Feb. 9 in a series of social media posts on his platform, X.
When another X user argued the Fed never had a full audit or a full disclosure of monetary policy decisions, Musk responded: "All aspects of the government must be fully transparent and accountable to the people. No exceptions, including, if not especially, the Federal Reserve."
The Fed is required by law to have its financial statements audited annually by an independent, outside public accounting firm. To ensure auditor independence, the Fed requires that the external auditor be independent in all matters relating to the audit.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve board's Office of Inspector General frequently audit many Fed activities.
But some conservatives, notably former Congressman Ron Paul, have long pushed for a GAO audit of the Fed that would include the central bank's private deliberations on interest rate policy. Paul also authored a 2009 book called "End the Fed."
Musk on Feb. 9 separately responded to a post from another X user stating that Musk was considering tapping the 89-year-old Paul to head an audit of the Fed. Musk stated: "This will be great."
One lawmaker asked Fed Chair Jerome Powell last week during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee about the new calls to audit the Fed, specifically whether he expects that could result in an effort to politically micromanage monetary policy.
"I have no way of knowing really what it is," Powell said.
Powell noted that the GAO "is free to work on every area of the Fed except monetary policy" and the “threat would be if that were to go away you'd have investigations into decisions on monetary policy.”
Powell has talked about such concerns before. In a February 2015 speech, he said he was "concerned" that auditing the Fed interest rate decision-making efforts would "subject monetary policy to undue political pressure and place new limits on the Fed's ability to respond to future crises."
"I believe these proposals fail to anticipate the significant costs and risks of subjecting monetary policy to political pressure and constraining the Fed's ability to carry out its traditional role of providing liquidity in a crisis," he said.
Powell said in 2015 that the audit idea was based on the assertion that the Fed operates in secrecy and was not accountable for its actions during the last financial crisis.
"The Fed has been transparent, accountable, and subject to extensive oversight, especially during and since the crisis," Powell said at the time. "We have also taken appropriate steps since the crisis to further enhance that transparency."
<<<
---
>>> Federal Reserve withdraws from global regulatory climate change group
Reuters
by Pete Schroeder
January 17, 2025
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-announces-exit-regulatory-climate-183656966.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Friday it had withdrawn from a global body of central banks and regulators devoted to exploring ways to police climate risk in the financial system.
In a statement, the Fed said it was exiting the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) because its increasingly broadened scope had fallen outside the Fed's statutory mandate.
The central bank joined the group in 2020. The exit comes three days before President-elect Donald Trump, who is critical of efforts by governments to prescribe climate change policies, is set to take office.
The NGFS, formed in 2017, is charged with helping central banks and bank supervisors with integrating risks stemming from climate change into their work steering monetary policy and policing the financial system. A spokesperson for the group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In recent years, the Fed had taken some steps to integrate climate change into its work via preliminary analysis and reports, but Chair Jerome Powell has repeatedly insisted the Fed has a limited role to play. Powell has maintained the Fed is not responsible for setting climate change policy, and the matter lies in the hands of Congress.
Republicans in Congress have been skeptical of any regulatory efforts to police climate risk in the banking sector, and Trump's impending takeover in Washington has spurred similar exits in the private sector. Also on Friday, Bank of Montreal became the first Canadian bank to announce its exit from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a private-sector climate alliance.
Several of the largest U.S. banks have already announced their own exit from that group.
<<<
---
>>> Trump’s Plan to End Currency War 3.0
By James Rickards
January 3, 2025
https://dailyreckoning.com/trumps-plan-to-end-currency-war-3-0/
Trump’s Plan to End Currency War 3.0
There has been a lot reported in recent days about the return of currency wars. With Trump 2.0 about to begin, let’s review his last term and what to expect in the second.
Trump badly bungled his transition after first being elected president in 2016. He was not ready with a long list of loyal appointees. Many of his senior appointments such as Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, and John Kelly as Chief of Staff secretly disliked Trump but accepted their roles as so-called “adult supervision” around the supposedly reckless Trump.
They thwarted his agenda. That backstabbing came on top of the large number of Obama holdovers in the Deep State who saw themselves as a “resistance” movement.
Trump is doing a better job of preparing for a second term as president, but the resistance is not sitting still either. As reported in The Washington Post, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo Finance and other outlets, Trump is working on a secret plan to devalue the U.S. dollar. The goal would be to cheapen U.S. exports and thereby help the U.S. balance of trade and create exported-related jobs.
But critics say that this will only increase U.S. inflation as Americans have to pay more for their imported goods using cheaper dollars. The critics also say that other countries will retaliate against the U.S. by cheapening their own currencies (that’s the essence of a currency war) and no country will be any further ahead. In fact, the entire world will be worse off.
Rules of (Currency) War
Before looking more closely at what’s actually going on, some basics about a currency war should be explained. The first rule is that the world is not always in a currency war. The periods from 1944 to 1971 (the original Bretton Woods era) and from 1987 to 2010 (the period of the Washington Consensus) were times of currency peace. This contrasts with 1921-1936 (Currency War I), 1967-1987 (Currency War II), and the current period since 2010 (Currency War III).
The second rule is that when we are in a currency war, they can last for fifteen years or longer. It comes as no surprise that the currency war that commenced in 2010 is still going strong 14 years later in 2024. And that points to another key aspect of this debate.
The currency war being written about today by the media is not a new currency war. It’s the same one that has been going on since 2010. We’re simply in a new phase or a new battle.
It is true that cheapening your currency can import inflation. Sometimes that’s a legitimate policy goal if your country has been suffering from deflation. That’s obviously not the case in the U.S. today.
It’s also true that cheapening your currency can export deflation as trading partners pay less for your goods. That’s what China was doing to the entire world from 1994 to 2010 and that’s why the U.S. launched a currency war in 2010 – to fight back against disinflation and borderline deflation caused by cheap Chinese goods.
Currency wars can also shift jobs overseas and destroy domestic manufacturing as the terms of trade shift based on changing currency values. Retaliation is always waiting right around the corner in any currency war. The U.S. dollar hit an all-time low in August 2011, which was consistent with the U.S. goal of trying to import inflation.
But Europe struck back, and the EUR/USD cross-rate crashed from $1.60 to $1.04 as a result. So, it is correct that no one wins a currency war, and everyone is damaged in the process due to volatility, uncertainty, and the costs of conducting the war.
Trump’s Plan: Currency Peace
So, are the critics right that Trump has a secret plan to devalue the dollar? And are they right that this new stage in the currency war will bring inflation and hurt the U.S. economy?
The critics are wrong and don’t understand what Trump is actually trying to do. Trump is not trying to start a currency war; he’s trying to end it once and for all.
In the first place, no president has the power to unilaterally devalue the dollar. That might have been possible under the gold standard or some standard of fixed exchange rates, but that has not been the state of the world since 1973.
Exchange rates fluctuate based on a number of factors including interest rates, industrial growth, exchange controls, central bank interventions, capital flows, tax rates and many other macroeconomic variables. But the idea that the president can just wave his hand and devalue the dollar is false.
Far from the reckless, inflationary process the media claim, Trump’s actual plan is based on the highly successful model developed by James Baker for Ronald Reagan and implemented in the Plaza Accord of 1985 and the Louvre Accord of 1987.
After the severe economic recession of 1982 and Paul Volcker’s policy of moving interest rates to 20%, inflation in the U.S. was finally reigned in. Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980, to 6.1% in 1982, and then 3.2% in 1983. Investment in the U.S. went on a tear. U.S. real growth was 16% from 1983 to 1986. Everyone wanted dollars to invest in the U.S. and the dollar boomed reaching an all-time high in 1985.
Finally, the Reagan administration decided the U.S. dollar was too strong and was hurting U.S. exports and jobs. Treasury Secretary James Baker convened a meeting of the finance ministers of France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the U.S. at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. The purpose was not to fight a currency war. The purpose was to create order in currency markets out of the chaos that had prevailed since 1973.
The parties reached a joint agreement that would devalue the U.S. dollar in an orderly fashion versus the French Franc, Japanese Yen, UK pounds sterling, and the German Deutschemark. Once the targeted level for the dollar was achieved, the parties would use their best efforts, including market intervention as needed to maintain those levels within narrow bands.
A separate meeting in Paris at the Louvre in 1987 agreed that the devaluation phase was over, and the dollar would be maintained at the new parities. This was not currency war; it was currency peace achieved by agreement and implemented in a cooperative fashion. The Louvre Accord (this time including the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Japan and Canada) ushered in a period of global prosperity that lasted twenty years until the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.
Trump’s goal is to repeat the success of the Plaza and Louvre Accords. Trump’s advisor on this is Robert Lighthizer, who is one of the most brilliant financial minds around and was Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative (2017-2021).
Lighthizer was also USTR for Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1985 so he’s a veteran of prior currency wars and was in the administration around the time the Plaza Accord was being developed. Lighthizer is the perfect individual to help Trump achieve the kind of success that Reagan and Baker had in the 1980s.
The media are trying to portray Trump as reckless when in fact he’s proposing something highly beneficial for U.S. jobs and U.S. industry. Don’t be fooled by false claims of new currency wars. Trump is trying to achieve a new era of currency stability and lasting prosperity.
<<<
---
>>> Powell says Fed cannot hold bitcoin, not seeking to change that
Reuters
by Michael S. Derby and Ann Saphir
December 19, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-cant-hold-bitcoin-not-211628096.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said on Wednesday the U.S. central bank has no desire to be involved in any government effort to stockpile large amounts of bitcoin.
"We're not allowed to own bitcoin," Powell said at a press conference following the Fed's latest two-day policy meeting, in which policymakers cut rates as expected while signaling a less certain path for monetary policy in the months ahead.
In terms of the legal issues around holding bitcoin, "that's the kind of thing for Congress to consider, but we are not looking for a law change at the Fed," Powell said.
The Fed chief was addressing the prospect of central bank involvement in the idea of the government building a so-called Strategic Bitcoin Reserve once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Powell's comments on Wednesday dented the value of bitcoin, which has rallied sharply along with other crypto assets since Trump's victory in the Nov. 5 election on the prospect of a more hands-off government approach to a class of assets that rarely functions as actual money, but is instead largely used as a vehicle for speculation.
Trump has suggested he will create a U.S. bitcoin strategic reserve - a concept that has also been widely rejected in Europe.
The incoming president has not provided details on what such a reserve would entail, beyond saying its initial holdings could include bitcoin seized from criminals, a stockpile of about 200,000 tokens worth about $21 billion at current prices.
Bitcoin has more than doubled this year to more than $100,000 on optimism over Trump's pro-crypto stance. The asset has proven volatile in its 15 years of existence, which analysts say reduces its utility as a store of value or a unit of exchange, key attributes of a reserve currency.
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis has introduced a bill to create such a reserve, under which the U.S. Treasury would buy 200,000 bitcoins annually until the stockpile reaches one million tokens. The purchases would be funded by Fed bank deposits and gold holdings.
Funding a strategic bitcoin reserve would likely require the approval of Congress and the issuance of new Treasury debt, according to an analysis published this week by Barclays. Given the likely ways such a reserve could be created, "we suspect such a plan would face stiff resistance from the Fed," Barclays analysts said.
EUROPE AGAINST BITCOIN RESERVES
More broadly, Fed officials have been skeptical of securities such as bitcoin as they have also backed away from their own efforts to create a fully digital dollar in favor of allowing the private sector to innovate payments technologies.
The Fed's main role regarding cryptocurrencies appears to center on how those assets might affect consumer and banking sector safety.
"We regulate and supervise banks and we would want the interaction between the crypto business and the banks ... not to threaten the health and well-being of the banks," Powell said on Dec. 4. But he also noted at that time that when it comes to crypto assets, "we don't regulate it directly."
The European Central Bank’s chief bank supervisor, Claudia Buch, on Tuesday also flagged up risks in the crypto market, including "excessive leverage, intransparency (and) conflict of interest", adding she was keeping a close eye on banks' exposure to that type of assets.
Trump plans to appoint former PayPal executive David Sacks to the newly-created position of White House AI and Crypto Czar, and pro-crypto consultant Paul Atkins to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In Europe, a series of central bankers this week dismissed any suggestion of bitcoin becoming a reserve asset.
Belgium’s central bank governor Pierre Wunsch saw little "appetite for having reserves in bitcoins" in an interview on Wednesday. Outside the euro zone, Hungary’s governor-designate Mihaly Varga said on Monday cryptocurrencies were just too volatile.
"We are following the discussion, especially in the U.S. post-elections, closely," ECB policymaker Olli Rehn said on Tuesday. "But our view has not changed. Cryptos are assets, but they are not currency," the Finnish central bank governor added.
<<<
---
>>> Bitcoin is 'the right asset' to combat the US deficit: Sen. Lummis
by Madison Mills and Seana Smith
December 19, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/td-cowen-upgrades-blackberry-buy-225541053.html
With President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House quickly approaching, investors weigh the prospect of a strategic bitcoin reserve. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), who introduced the bipartisan Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act focused on regulating crypto, joins Catalysts Co-Hosts Seana Smith and Madison Mills to talk about her stance on the Federal Reserve holding bitcoin.
"I want our federal government to have a strategic bitcoin reserve that can help back the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and then serve as a long-term savings account, thereby offsetting our national debt, which is over $36 trillion now," Lummis tells Yahoo Finance.
The republican senator says, "My proposal would have the US purchase, through other assets that already owns, 200,000 bitcoin a year for five years, for a total of a million, hold it for at least 20 years, and at the numbers that we project, that would accrue a fund that's worth about $16 trillion."
Lummis adds the reason why the federal government has not already pursued bitcoin as a solution to the national deficit is because, as indicated by Fed Chair Jerome Powell at the Fed's December meeting, it doesn't believe the central bank has the legal authority to own bitcoin. "We need to give that to them," she says.
Check out Yahoo Finance's full interview with Senator Lummis here. Also catch Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) discuss crypto regulation and Trump's pick for Paul Atkins to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Yahoo Finance.
<<<
---
>>> Elon Musk wants to radically reshape who controls America’s money supply
by Elisabeth Buchwald
CNN
November 12, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wants-radically-reshape-103047960.html
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House already carried the potential for sweeping changes to the Federal Reserve. But now a growing question is not how the central bank will operate under Trump but if it’ll continue to operate at all.
Elon Musk, a key Trump backer who is expected to have considerable sway in helping shape Trump’s policies, included a “100” emoji while resharing Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah’s post on X calling for abolishing the Fed.
“The Executive Branch should be under the direction of the president,” Lee said Thursday in a post on X, hours after Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters he wouldn’t resign if Trump asked him to. “The Federal Reserve is one of many examples of how we’ve deviated from the Constitution in that regard,” Lee added. “Yet another reason why we should #EndTheFed.”
Asked where Trump stands on the matter, Trump-Vance transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told CNN: “Policy should only be deemed official if it comes from President Trump directly.”
Calls to abolish the Fed are hardly new. Former congressman Ron Paul, who ran for president once as a Libertarian and twice as a Republican, published a book in 2009 titled “End the Fed.”
Then in June, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Lee introduced corresponding bills aimed at uprooting the nation’s central bank and shifting its responsibilities to the Treasury Department.
But thus far, Trump has not publicly voiced his support for dismantling the Fed. On the campaign trail, he has, however, advocated for changing the central bank’s rulebook, to the dismay of many economists.
Challenging the Fed’s independence
“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver,” Leavitt said in an emailed statement to CNN.
Those promises include bringing interest rates “way down,” which Trump vowed to do if elected at the National Association of Black Journalists’ annual conference in August. Presidents, however, don’t have any direct influence over the rates Americans pay to borrow money.
For over 70 years, it’s been the duty of the central bank to set rates at levels aimed at fulfilling its congressional mandate for price stability and maximum employment. And throughout that time, Congress has also guaranteed the Fed’s ability to act as an independent body, devoid of any political interference.
That’s empowered Fed officials to make interest rate decisions that aren’t necessarily popular but could help the nation’s economy in the long run.
For instance, central bankers resisted calls to lower rates, instead opting to keep rates at a two-decade high for a year to rein in stubborn inflation. It wasn’t until two months ago that they finally cut rates as inflation cooled to just shy of the Fed’s 2% target.
But on the campaign trail, Trump floated requiring Fed officials to consult with him on interest rate decisions. That could lead to pressure on Fed officials to keep rates lower to satisfy Trump’s wishes, which in turn could reignite inflation.
During his first term, Trump also threatened to remove or demote Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom he has at times blamed for keeping interest rates too high.
It’s unclear if Trump has the legal authority to overhaul the Fed’s independence on his own, let alone at all, or remove a Fed appointee before their term expires. On the latter, Powell, a lawyer himself, made his view abundantly clear when asked by a reporter at last week’s press conference after the Fed’s two-day monetary policy meeting. “Not permitted under the law,” he briskly responded.
That’s because the head of America’s central bank can only be fired “for cause,” as specified in the Federal Reserve Act. The exact interpretation of what would constitute a for-cause firing has not been precisely defined, but it’s reasonable to assume that it would entail a lot more than just having policy differences with the president.
A spokesperson for the Fed declined to comment.
Testing the waters
If there’s any time for Trump to test the Fed’s ability to maintain its status quo, it would probably be in 2025. While the balance of power in the House hasn’t been determined, Republicans have majority control of the Senate. Additionally, six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents and half of those six were appointed by Trump in his first term.
But anyone challenging the Fed in the nation’s highest court shouldn’t expect to necessarily come out victorious. In a 7-2 court ruling this year, the Supreme Court ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could continue to operate in its current form despite many Republican lawmakers’ arguments that its structure was unconstitutional.
And last month, the court declined to hear a case that threatened to dismantle the independent Consumer Product Safety Commission. Like officials sitting on the Fed’s Board of Governors, members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s board can only be removed by a president for cause.
<<<
---
>>> What are tariffs, and how do they affect you?
Yahoo Personal Finance
Robin Hartill, CFP®
August 23, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/what-is-a-tariff-194059448.html
A tariff is a tax on imported goods usually aimed at protecting local jobs and industries from foreign competition. The idea is that if foreign materials and products are more expensive, you’ll buy more domestic goods.
Suppose, for example, that the U.S. government levied a new 10% tariff on cars imported from Japan. The tariff would push the price of a $50,000 Japanese vehicle to $55,000. So because the Japanese car is now more expensive, a similar American-made vehicle becomes more appealing to buyers.
Former President Donald Trump introduced tariffs on about $380 billion worth of goods in 2018 and 2019, breaking with decades of free trade policy. Trump has proposed new tariffs of 10% to 20%, plus an extra 60% tariff on Chinese goods if he wins a second term. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized the tariffs as “a national sales tax on everyday products.”
Not sure how tariffs work or where you stand on the issue? We’ll walk you through how tariffs work, why governments impose them, and how they affect you.
Why and how tariffs are used
Most countries have tariffs of some sort, and the reasons for imposing them vary widely. Let’s look at some common reasons countries enact tariffs.
Revenue generation
Like any other taxes, tariffs provide income for the government that levies them. In fact, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the U.S. government during its early days until the federal income tax was established in the early 20th century.
Today, tariffs are a minuscule source of income for many developed countries like the U.S. and European Union nations. In the U.S., for instance, tariffs accounted for less than 2% of the federal government’s revenue in 2023.
Poorer countries often have far higher tariff rates than wealthier countries because their governments depend on them for revenue. For instance, Djibouti, The Gambia, and Belize all had average tariff rates above 17% as of 2021, compared to 1.5% for the U.S.
Protecting local jobs and industries
For developed nations, tariffs — also known as customs duties or import duties — tend to be protectionist. That is, they’re intended to give a price advantage to domestic goods, shielding a country’s businesses and workers from cheaper foreign competition. For example, Congress passed a sweeping range of tariff hikes, some as high as 60%, after the stock market crash of 1929 under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to protect the farming industry.
National security
A government may implement tariffs to avoid relying too heavily on different countries for goods deemed critical to security, like military supplies.
For example, Trump cited national security concerns when he hiked tariffs on steel and aluminum because both are used for weaponry and military equipment. Though Congress is typically tasked with levying tariffs and taxes, the president has the authority to enact them unilaterally in the name of defense.
Influence other countries’ practices
The World Trade Organization (WTO) largely supports free trade policies, but it allows countries to enact trade barriers like tariffs in response to human rights concerns. Tariffs can also be used to discourage certain trade practices like “dumping,” which is when companies export products to another country and sell them at artificially low prices to gain a competitive advantage.
President Joe Biden, who has kept most of the Trump tariffs in place, accused China of dumping practices when he introduced new tariffs on about $18 billion worth of Chinese goods — including a 100% increase on electric vehicles (EVs) and a 50% increase on semiconductors.
Biden said in an interview with Yahoo Finance that China “flood[s] the market with EVs that are incredibly cheap.”
“They’re not making any money off them,” Biden said. “They’re doing it to put other people out of business.”
Retaliation
Sometimes, when one country imposes a tariff on another country's goods, the exporting country responds with retaliatory tariffs of its own. The Smoot-Hawley Act sparked a trade war as European nations passed retaliatory tariffs. Historians often blame the Smoot-Hawley tariffs for prolonging the Great Depression.
More recently, the U.S. tariffs Trump levied on Chinese goods were met with retaliatory tariffs. In April 2018, the Chinese government introduced tariffs of 15% and 25% on 94 food and agricultural products from the U.S. Meanwhile, China dropped its average tariff rate on imported goods from other countries between early 2018 and 2022.
How tariffs affect your wallet
Tariffs may seem like a topic that only matters to economic policy wonks. But tariffs affect you more than you think, even if you’re not directly cutting the check.
Who really pays for tariffs?
Trump has said that tariffs “are paid mostly by China,” rather than by Americans. But that’s not how tariffs work.
The company importing the goods — not the exporting company or country — directly pays the tariff. The duty is collected when the goods clear customs at the importing country’s port of entry.
“When you’re (a company) importing a good from another country, you’re effectively buying that good in that country,” said Michael Coon, an associate professor at the University of Tampa who studies international economics. “So you’re paying whatever price they’re charging in that country. Then it’s your responsibility to get the goods into your country. If you want to get the goods into your country, then you have to pay the import tariffs.”
So let’s say the U.S. levied a new tariff on laptops from China, and Amazon imports Chinese laptops. A broker representing Amazon would most likely pay the tax to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service when the goods enter the country.
But businesses almost always pass additional costs on to consumers. That means you, the customer buying the laptop, would typically wind up paying the tariff, even if you didn’t know it. The cost would get passed down to you in the form of a higher price.
Many retailers and trade groups opposed the Trump tariffs on Chinese goods, saying they’d need to raise prices due to the extra cost. The Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America, a trade group that represents the U.S. footwear industry, estimated that an additional 15% tariff on imported shoes from China would increase the price of a $49.99 canvas sneaker to $60.98, while the price of a typical hunting boot would jump from $190 to $231.03.
Tariffs are often levied in hopes that consumers will substitute domestic products for foreign-made goods. But a country imposing the tariffs may lack the infrastructure, natural resources, or cheap labor to produce comparable goods at the same cost, so buying local is often more expensive.
“Either we pay the higher price on the Chinese goods with the tariffs, or we pay the higher price to U.S. companies,” Coon said.
Do tariffs protect jobs?
The effect of tariffs on jobs is also hotly debated. The tariffs Trump introduced on steel and aluminum were politically popular. They prompted a few shuttered steel plants to reopen and were credited with creating several thousand jobs in the metals industry.
But the negative effects of tariffs can also spill over to employment. Sectors like agriculture, for example, were hard-hit by tariffs China imposed in response to U.S. tariffs. For example, soybean exports dropped 63% in the first 10 months of 2018, while exports fell by 20%, according to the Congressional Research Service. The agricultural sector likely experienced some job losses as a result, some economists say. When tariffs are imposed on materials like steel and aluminum, industries that use those materials — like the manufacturing sector — face higher costs, which can negatively impact employment.
The jobs that are saved from tariffs often come at a high cost. The Peterson Institute for International Economics found that every job in the steel industry saved by the 2018-19 tariffs cost American consumers and businesses $900,000.
Do tariffs affect inflation?
Tariffs can lead to higher prices. But the effect on inflation tends to be relatively minor.
“Tariffs affect very specific sectors of the economy, and inflation is looking at the economy as a whole,” Coon said. “The price of a few goods going up is not inflation.”
Trump’s tariffs were in effect well before shockwaves from the COVID-19 pandemic caused inflation to soar. The Economic Policy Institute estimated in January 2022 — a time when inflation was still skyrocketing — that removing the tariffs would have offset no more than 7.2% of the run-up in consumer prices.
Where the candidates stand on tariffs
Expect to hear more about international trade and tariffs as the Nov. 5 presidential election approaches. Here’s what each candidate has said about the issue.
Trump on tariffs
Trump’s platform includes a call to “stop outsourcing, and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower,” along with large tax cuts for American workers. Trump has suggested that tax cuts could be funded by a 60% increase in tariffs on Chinese goods and a 10% hike on other trade partners. The former president has even reportedly suggested eliminating the income tax and replacing it with higher tariffs in a meeting with congressional Republicans.
Researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics wrote that it would be “literally impossible for tariffs to fully replace income taxes,” noting that the federal government raises over $2 trillion annually from individual and corporate income taxes each year.
A recent Peterson Institute policy brief estimated that the 10% and 60% tariffs Trump has proposed would bring in just $2.25 billion per year — a number that’s “certainly an overestimate because it does not account for lower economic growth due to the inevitable economic shocks caused by retaliation against US exporters and the losses suffered by the import-dependent manufacturing sector,” researchers wrote.
Harris on tariffs
Harris hasn’t discussed tariffs at length. However, in her Aug. 22 speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris said Trump’s proposed tariffs would “raise prices on middle-class families by almost $4,000 a year.” However, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates a more modest increase of about $1,800 for an average household.
The vice president has not said whether she would keep the tariffs imposed by the Trump and Biden administrations in place.
FAQ
What is a simple definition of a tariff?
A tariff is a tax levied on goods imported from a foreign country that’s often used to protect domestic industries and jobs.
What are the different types of tariffs?
There are several different types of tariffs, but the most common are ad valorem and specific tariffs. An ad valorem tariff is a tax that’s levied as a percentage of the imported product’s value. The 25% tariff imposed on steel, along with many imported Chinese goods, in 2018 is an example of an ad valorem tariff. A specific tariff is a flat tax charged on each imported good, e.g., $1,000 per vehicle or $50 per mobile device.
What tariffs did Trump impose?
Trump imposed roughly $80 billion worth of tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels, washing machines, and various other Chinese goods. Trump later lifted tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from Canada and Mexico.
<<<
---
The Fed's larger than expected 1/2 point cut makes it easier for Powell to maintain the current level of Q2 (instead of reducing it as was expected), thus allowing the continued reduction of the Fed's balance sheet. Seems like good strategy, with the 1/2 point cut being stimulatory, and the continued QT runoff level being restrictive. The net effect is still stimulatory, while the Fed's blown out balance sheet continues to be normalized.
Reducing the Fed's balance sheet (which had been doubled to 9.5 trillion during the massive pandemic response), is essential to give the Fed more 'ammo' to deal with future crises that may come along. The Fed must avoid becoming dangerously 'tapped out' on the balance sheet side, and 9.5 trillion was getting dangerously close. The Fed's goal is to get their balance sheet down to 6 - 6.5 trillion -- still high, but a lot better than 9.5 trillion.
---
QT pace - >>> Fed announces reduction in balance sheet runoff pace
Reuters
by Michael S. Derby
May 1, 2024
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-announces-reduction-balance-sheet-runoff-pace-2024-05-01/
May 1 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve announced plans on Wednesday to slow the speed of its balance sheet drawdown to ensure this process does not create undue stress in financial markets.
The Fed said that starting on June 1 it will reduce the cap on Treasury securities it allows to mature and not be replaced to $25 billion from its current cap of up to $60 billion per month. The Fed left the cap on how many mortgage-backed securities it will allow to roll off its books at $35 billion per month, and it will reinvest any excess MBS principal payments into Treasuries.
The move was announced at the end of its two-day Federal Open Market Committee meeting, at which the U.S. central bank left interest rates unchanged.
The downshift in the pace of the runoff had been widely expected, although market participants weren’t sure whether the tapering of the runoff process would be announced at this week’s FOMC gathering or the one scheduled for June. To the extent there was a surprise, many analysts had been eyeing a drop in the Treasury runoff cap to $30 billion per month.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, speaking in a press conference following the Fed meeting, said the new caps would likely result in around $40 billion per month in total balance sheet runoff, alluding to how actual reductions in bonds have frequently fallen short of the caps, notably on the mortgage bond side.
Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, said the new Treasury runoff cap "is a little more aggressive than we were expecting," while noting the Fed, in the current interest rate environment, will still face challenges getting mortgage bonds to run off at the desired pace.
Fed officials have been making the case that by moderating the drawdown pace they reduce the risk of unwanted market disruptions of the sort that occurred when they last shrunk their balance sheet. They’ve also noted that by slowing the pace of balance sheet contraction, it may allow them to reduce the overall size of their holdings by a greater degree.
Powell reiterated those views in his press conference, saying "the decision to slow the pace of runoff does not mean that our balance sheet will ultimately shrink by less than it would otherwise, but rather allows us to approach its ultimate level more gradually," which reduced the risk of market tumult.
Fed officials have been mindful about the market turmoil that took place in September 2019 during the last QT runoff and wish to avoid that happening again.
REVERSE GEAR
After doubling the size of the balance sheet to about $9 trillion from its pre-pandemic size, the Fed has been allowing some of its holdings of Treasuries and mortgage-backed bonds to expire. That process, started in the latter half of 2022, has seen the Fed’s balance sheet fall to $7.5 trillion.
The balance sheet drawdown, referred to as quantitative tightening, or QT, runs separately from the changes in central bank interest rate policy.
That said, rate rises and QT were both part of the process of rolling back the stimulus provided by the Fed due to the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic. QT is aimed at reducing excessive liquidity in the financial system to a level that will still allow normal money market volatility and afford the Fed control over the federal funds rate.
While the drawdown thus far has not had much of a market impact, the latest shift might at the margins. The downshift in QT "has the serendipitous effect of putting some downward pressure on yields, mitigating the risk of a push upwards towards 5%," said analysts at Evercore ISI.
The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note sank 9.5 basis points to 4.589% after the Fed announcement.
The Fed has yet to give any target for where it would like its balance sheet to stand when it is done with QT. A report last month from the New York Fed said that market demand for liquidity will be the key driver of the QT endgame, with the runoff likely finishing up some time in 2025, with Fed holdings potentially somewhere between $6 trillion and $6.5 trillion.
<<<
---
>>> Discount window reform bill introduced as Fed works on its own overhaul
Reuters
by Michael S. Derby
Jul 29, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/discount-window-reform-bill-introduced-143924570.html
(Reuters) - Federal Reserve efforts to overhaul a key emergency lending facility historically viewed with anxiety by banks are now being joined by potential congressional action.
On Friday, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia introduced legislation to overhaul the Fed's discount window, a long-running tool that provides fast, collateralized loans to deposit-taking banks.
The Fed is already working to make sure banks are ready and willing to use the discount window, either in times of stress or if they simply face an unexpected liquidity shortfall. Banks have long shunned it, fearing that using it will send a signal of distress to their peers.
That long-standing stigma stood out in March 2023 when several banks ran into trouble and spurred fears about the overall state of the banking system. While discount window usage briefly surged, the Fed was concerned enough to launch a temporary lending facility with very generous terms that proved popular.
Since then Fed officials have been seeking to make sure banks are prepared to use the discount window and have signaled some confidence their efforts are working. Warner's bill could bolster that.
"The failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank last year highlighted the urgent need to reform the Federal Reserve's discount window for the 21st century economy, where bank runs can occur over hours, rather than days," Warner said in a statement. He said the bill will help surmount stigma issues and ensure the discount window can "meet the challenges of the digital age."
The bill would mandate all but the smallest banks test their discount window access and would require regulators to reflect banks' ability to use the facility when evaluating their liquidity.
The bill would compel the Fed to report on the stigma issue to Congress, addressing what further steps need to be taken to reduce banks' worries.
The discount window "has deficiencies that have led to severe stigma, increasing the risk of banking panics and deposit runs," former New York Fed President William Dudley said in Warner's statement announcing the bill. "This bill will provide a good basis for regulators to implement operational improvements and reduce frictions that hinder the effectiveness of [the] discount window."
Steven Kelly, associate director of research at the Yale Program on Financial Stability, said the bill "gives the Fed clearer direction from its congressional overseers on how to pursue these liquidity reforms."
"This bill does not read as something designed to pick a fight with the Fed," Kelly said, as "it seems mostly simpatico with what they've already signaled."
A recent New York Fed paper said eliminating stigma may prove impossible and the central bank may have to rely on ad-hoc responses to liquidity problems.
Earlier this month Fed Chair Jerome Powell called discount window reform "a big, big project."
"We know that the infrastructure is a little tired," Powell said, but while work moves forward the Fed has "not made a lot of progress."
Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan was more upbeat. Earlier this month she said more than 5,000 deposit-taking banks had done the paperwork needed to access the discount window, with banks having pledged $3 trillion in collateral for potential loans, up from $1 trillion last year.
Meanwhile, in a May interview, New York Fed President John Williams said the facility does the job when trouble strikes, its long-standing issues notwithstanding. When there's a "general market issue" it's clear banks will use it, and that's a positive for broader market stability, he said.
<<<
---
Private Equity - >>> Wall Street is divided over the rise of private credit
Yahoo Finance
by David Hollerith
Jun 16, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-is-divided-over-the-rise-of-private-credit-140058228.html
The debate on Wall Street about the rise of private credit is getting louder.
On one side is the boss of the largest US bank, Jamie Dimon, who argues that increased lending by private equity firms, money managers, and hedge funds creates more opportunities to let risks outside the regulated banking system go unmonitored.
"I do expect there to be problems," the JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO said at a Bernstein industry conference at the end of May, adding that "there could be hell to pay" if retail investors in such funds experience deep losses.
On the other side are top executives from some of the world’s biggest money managers who aren’t hesitating to push back on that argument.
"Every dollar that moves out of the banking industry and into the investment marketplace makes the system safer and more resilient and less leveraged," Marc Rowan, Apollo (APO) CEO, said at the same Bernstein conference attended by Dimon. (Note: Apollo is the parent company of Yahoo Finance.)
Private credit funds, their proponents argue, don’t face deposit runs and they don’t rely on short-term funding — a model that proved troublesome for some regional banks that ran into problems last year and had to be seized by regulators.
Instead, they lend money raised from large institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies that know they won’t get their money back for several years.
Another top executive with giant private lender Blackstone (BX) used the same Bernstein conference to cite the asset-liability mismatch that ultimately sank First Republic, the San Francisco regional bank that failed last May and was auctioned to JPMorgan.
"It had 20-year assets and 20-second deposits," Blackstone COO and general partner Jonathan Gray said.
"And if we can place these loans directly on the balance sheets of a life insurance company, that's better matching."
The rise of private credit
There is little doubt that private credit is on the rise as traditional banks pull back on lending during a time of elevated interest rates from the Federal Reserve and worries about a possible economic downturn.
The global private credit market, which accounts for all debt that is not issued or traded publicly, has grown from $41 billion in 2000 to $1.67 trillion through September, according to data provider Preqin. More than $1 trillion of that amount is held in North America.
The sum is still small compared to total loans held by US banks — over $12 billion — but the concern by some in the banking world is that any panic among borrowers could spread if things were to get ugly.
"I'm not sure that a one-and-a-half-trillion-dollar private credit market is particularly systemic, but the point is that these things can have a snowball effect," UBS chairman Colm Kelleher said in a Bloomberg interview earlier this year.
For now, private credit performance is solid despite the concerns.
For five of the past six quarters, private credit has brought higher investor returns than it has on average over the past decade, according to an aggregate private credit index created by Preqin.
It has also outperformed a similar index measuring aggregate returns in private equity for the same period.
"Everybody can look quite good when it's all going up to the right, but it gets tougher when you go through cycles," John Waldron, Goldman Sachs' COO, said at the same Bernstein conference.
'Dancing in the streets'
Private credit assets are varied. They can range from corporate loans to consumer car loans and some commercial mortgages. The loans are especially useful to midsize or below investment-grade borrowers in special situations like distress.
The terms are usually more flexible than what banks require, with adjustable interest rates, a potential advantage or dilemma for borrowers expecting interest rates to eventually drop.
Some bankers argue that money managers have an unfair advantage because they don’t have to operate under the same capital requirements as banks do. And bank regulators are preparing new rules that could make those capital requirements even stricter.
When those heightened standards were first proposed last year, Dimon quipped that private equity lenders were surely "dancing in the streets."
But there are some signs that Washington could be preparing to intensify its scrutiny of these funds. The Financial Stability Oversight Council has voted to approve a new framework for labeling firms as "systemically important," a tag that triggers new oversight from the Fed.
The new framework creates an opening for firms other than banks to get that label. Funds argue they don’t present the same systematic risks as banks, and therefore the label is not appropriate for them.
The relationship between traditional banks and private asset lenders is complicated. They compete with each other, but many banks also lend money to those same asset managers.
Dimon acknowledged that, saying there are many "brilliant" private lenders. "I mean, I know them all. We bank a lot of them. They're clients of ours."
"We're just uniquely positioned to be in the middle of all of it and I think it's going to continue to grow," Troy Rohrbaugh, co-CEO of JPM's commercial and investment bank, said this past Wednesday at another conference.
<<<
---
Rickards - >>> Trump’s Secret Plan to End Currency Wars
BY JAMES RICKARDS
MAY 14, 2024
https://dailyreckoning.com/trumps-secret-plan-to-end-currency-wars/
Trump’s Secret Plan to End Currency Wars
There has been a lot reported in recent days about the return of currency wars. This story arises in the context of a likely Trump election victory in the November presidential elections.
Trump badly bungled his transition after first being elected president in 2016. He wasn’t ready with a long list of loyal appointees.
Many of his senior appointments such as Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, James Mattis as secretary of defense and John Kelly as chief of staff secretly disliked Trump but accepted their roles as so-called “adult supervision” around the supposedly reckless Trump.
They thwarted his agenda. That backstabbing came on top of the large number of Obama holdovers in the deep state who saw themselves as a “resistance” movement.
Trump is doing a better job of preparing for a second term as president, but the resistance isn’t sitting still either. They’re moving to disable a new Trump administration even before the election.
The currency wars stories are part of that effort.
Trump Wants to Devalue the Dollar
As reported by The Washington Post, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo Finance and other outlets, Trump’s working on a secret plan to devalue the U.S. dollar. The goal would be to cheapen U.S. exports and thereby help the U.S. balance of trade and create exported-related jobs.
But the critics say this will only increase U.S. inflation as Americans have to pay more for their imported goods using cheaper dollars. The critics also say that other countries will retaliate against the U.S. by cheapening their own currencies (that’s the essence of a currency war) and no country will be any further ahead.
In fact, the entire world will be worse off.
Before looking more closely at what’s actually going on, some basics about a currency war should be explained. The first rule is that the world is not always in a currency war.
The periods from 1944–1971 (the original Bretton Woods era) and 1987–2010 (the period of the Washington Consensus) were times of currency peace. This contrasts with 1921–1936 (Currency War I), 1967–1987 (Currency War II) and the current period since 2010 (Currency War III).
The second rule is that currency wars can last for 15 years or longer. It comes as no surprise that the currency war that commenced in 2010 is still going strong 14 years later in 2024. And that points to another key aspect of this debate.
The currency war being written about today by the media is not a new currency war. It’s the same one that has been going on since 2010. We’re simply in a new phase or a new battle.
Retaliation Is Inevitable
It is true that cheapening your currency can import inflation. Sometimes that’s a legitimate policy goal if your country has been suffering from excessive deflation (gradual, moderate consumer price deflation caused by greater market efficiency and competition is economically beneficial).
That’s obviously not the case in the U.S. today.
It’s also true that cheapening your currency can export deflation as trading partners pay less for your goods. That’s what China was doing to the entire world from 1994–2010 and that’s why the U.S. launched a currency war in 2010 — to fight back against disinflation and borderline deflation caused by cheap Chinese goods.
Currency wars can also shift jobs overseas and destroy domestic manufacturing as the terms of trade shift based on changing currency values. Retaliation is always waiting right around the corner in any currency war. The U.S. dollar hit an all-time low in August 2011, which was consistent with the U.S. goal of trying to import inflation.
But Europe struck back, and the EUR/USD cross-rate crashed from $1.60 to $1.04 as a result. So it is correct that no one wins a currency war, and everyone is damaged in the process due to volatility, uncertainty and the costs of conducting the war.
Trump’s Plan: Currency Peace
So are the critics right that Trump has a secret plan to devalue the dollar? And are they right that this new stage in the currency war will bring inflation and hurt the U.S. economy?
The critics are wrong and don’t understand what Trump’s actually trying to do. Trump isn’t trying to start a currency war; he’s trying to end it once and for all.
In the first place, no president has the power to unilaterally devalue the dollar. That might have been possible under the gold standard or some standard of fixed exchange rates, but that hasn’t been the state of the world since 1973.
Exchange rates fluctuate based on a number of factors including interest rates, industrial growth, exchange controls, central bank interventions, capital flows, tax rates and many other macroeconomic variables. But the idea that the president can just wave his hand and devalue the dollar is false.
Far from the reckless, inflationary process the media claim, Trump’s actual plan is based on the highly successful model developed by James Baker for Ronald Reagan and implemented in the Plaza Accord of 1985 and the Louvre Accord of 1987.
Currency Peace Leads to Prosperity
After the severe economic recession of 1982 and Paul Volcker’s policy of moving interest rates to 20%, inflation in the U.S. was finally reigned in. Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 6.1% in 1982 and then 3.2% in 1983.
Investment in the U.S. went on a tear. U.S. real growth was 16% from 1983–1986. Everyone wanted dollars to invest in the U.S. and the dollar boomed reaching an all-time high in 1985.
Finally, the Reagan administration decided the U.S. dollar was too strong and was hurting U.S. exports and jobs. Treasury Secretary James Baker convened a meeting of the finance ministers of France, Germany, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. at the Plaza Hotel in New York City.
The purpose was not to fight a currency war. The purpose was to create order in currency markets out of the chaos that had prevailed since 1973.
The parties reached a joint agreement that would devalue the U.S. dollar in an orderly fashion versus the French franc, Japanese yen, U.K. pounds sterling and the German Deutsche Mark.
Once the targeted level for the dollar was achieved, the parties would use their best efforts including market intervention as needed to maintain those levels within narrow bands.
A separate meeting in Paris at the Louvre in 1987 agreed that the devaluation phase was over and the dollar would be maintained at the new parities. This was not currency war; it was currency peace achieved by agreement and implemented in a cooperative fashion.
Plaza Accord II
The Louvre Accord (this time including the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Japan and Canada) ushered in a period of global prosperity that lasted 20 years until the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.
Trump’s goal is to repeat the success of the Plaza and Louvre accords. Trump’s adviser on this is Robert Lighthizer, who is one of the most brilliant financial minds around and was Trump’s U.S. trade representative (2017–2021).
Lighthizer was also USTR for Ronald Reagan from 1983–1985 so he’s a veteran of prior currency wars and was in the administration around the time the Plaza Accord was being developed. Lighthizer is the perfect individual to help Trump achieve the kind of success that Reagan and Baker had in the 1980s.
The media are trying to portray Trump as reckless when he’s proposing something highly beneficial for U.S. jobs and U.S. industry. Don’t be fooled by false claims of new currency wars.
Trump’s plan could actually achieve a new era of currency stability and lasting prosperity.
<<<
---
QT taper - >>> The Fed announced a big change today. And no, we’re not talking about interest rates
CNN
by Nicole Goodkind
May 1, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-could-big-change-today-113528226.html
Wednesday’s Federal Reserve policy decision was fairly boring for investors — officials kept interest rates the same, just as they have since July 2023.
But some savvy traders are excited about another key decision. The Fed announced that it will significantly curtail its quantitative tightening (QT) program — that’s the selling off of its assets to decrease money supply and increase interest rates — beginning in June.
US Treasury yields fell on the news. Yields on the 10-year and 2-year both dropped by .05 percentage points.
What’s happening: The Fed bought a ton of government-backed bonds between 2020 and 2022 to help support economic recovery after the pandemic-induced recession. Those purchases ended up pushing down interest rates in certain parts of the economy, like housing and auto sales.
In mid-2022, as inflation soared higher, the Fed reversed that and began unloading those bonds.
The Fed currently lets up to $60 billion in Treasuries mature each month without replacing them, reducing the amount of money circulating in the economy. The idea is that QT can help exert some downward pressure on prices.
But there’s also some downside to the practice — changing the amount of liquidity in the economy and redirecting that money could have some major consequences.
As JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon pointed out in his annual letter to shareholders last month, “we have never truly experienced the full effect of quantitative tightening on this scale.” The current pace of QT is draining more than $900 billion in liquidity from the system annually, he said, adding, “I am more worried [about it] than most.”
QT reduces the amount of money in the banking system, leading to higher interest rates and tighter monetary conditions, but last time the Fed implemented such a program in 2019, some banks fell very short of reserves.
That led to a “repo crisis”, where the interest rates for overnight loans between banks spiked unusually high. The Fed had to intervene and provide liquidity to bring down those repo rates.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell doesn’t want a repeat of 2019 and said at his last press conference that QT would be scaled back soon.
On Wednesday, officials announced that they will lower the rate of QT to $25 billion, more than half of where it currently sits.
What it means: “May 1 is set to be a big day in the bond market,” Evercore ISI’s Krishna Guha and Marco Casiraghi wrote in a recent note.
If the Fed does ease up its tightening policy, “financial markets will likely see the taper of the QT program as bullish for riskier investments like stocks and bonds at the margin,” wrote Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, in a note on Tuesday.
That’s because a taper should send bond prices higher, and interest rates lower.
The risk, wrote Bank of America analysts on Tuesday, “is skewed to the upside for stocks, in our view, especially given a potential QT taper announcement".
<<<
---
WSJ - Timiraos - >>> Fed to Signal It Has Stomach to Keep Rates High for Longer
The Wall Street Journal
by Nick Timiraos
4-30-24
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/fed-to-signal-it-has-stomach-to-keep-rates-high-for-longer/ar-AA1nUQof?cvid=482d5eba932247e68c1fe028770906b5&ei=51
An ancient Chinese proverb that counsels “do nothing, and everything will be done” could sum up the Federal Reserve’s latest approach to interest-rate policy.
Fed officials will hold their benchmark federal-funds rate steady at its highest level in more than two decades, around 5.3%, at their two-day policy meeting that begins Tuesday.
Firmer-than-anticipated inflation in the first three months of the year has likely postponed rate cuts for the foreseeable future. As a result, officials are likely to emphasize that they are prepared to hold rates steady, at a level most of them expect will provide meaningful restraint to economic activity, for longer than they previously anticipated.
With no new economic projections at this meeting and minimal changes expected to the Fed’s policy statement, Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s press conference will be the main event on Wednesday. Here’s what to watch:
The inflation setback
Since officials’ meeting in March, the economy has continued to demonstrate strong momentum. But inflation has disappointed after a string of cool readings in the second half of 2023 stirred optimism the central bank might be able to lower rates.
In March, Powell held out the prospect that strong price pressures in January had been a bump on the road to lower inflation. Firm readings for February and March (even if not quite as hot as January) punctured that optimism. They raise the prospect that inflation might settle out closer to 3%. The Fed targets 2% inflation over time.
Powell is likely to repeat a message he delivered two weeks ago, when he said recent data had “clearly not given us greater confidence” that inflation would continue declining to 2% “and instead indicate that it’s likely to take longer than expected to achieve that.”
The focus at this meeting will be how Powell characterizes the interest-rate outlook. While most Wall Street strategists think one or two rate cuts are still possible later this year, the prospect of such a recalibration without clear evidence of economic weakness remains a bigger wild card than it did just a few weeks ago. Some think the Fed might not cut at all.
The Fed’s rate outlook hinges on its inflation forecast, and the most recent data raises two possibilities. One is that the Fed’s expectation that inflation continues to move lower but in an uneven and “bumpy” fashion is still intact—but with bigger bumps. In such a scenario, a delayed and slower pace of rate cuts is still possible this year.
A second possibility is that inflation, rather than on a “bumpy” path to 2%, is getting stuck at a level closer to 3%. Without evidence that the economy is slowing more notably, that could scrap the case for cuts altogether.
Rate policy remains “well-positioned”
Powell is likely to acknowledge that officials have less conviction about when and how much to reduce interest rates. In March, most officials projected two or more rate cuts would be appropriate this year, and a narrow majority penciled in at least three cuts.
Even though officials won’t submit new projections this week, at other meetings without them, Powell has taken the opportunity to reaffirm those one-meeting-old projections or, alternatively, declare them out of date. Wednesday’s meeting is more likely to yield the latter outcome.
At the same time, Fed officials have indicated that they are broadly comfortable with their current stance. This makes a hawkish pivot toward entertaining rate increases unlikely.
“Policy is well-positioned to handle the risks that we face,” Powell said on April 16. If inflation continues to run somewhat stronger, the Fed will simply keep rates at their current level for longer, he said.
As financial-market participants anticipate fewer cuts, longer-dated bond yields will rise. In effect, this achieves the same kind of tightening in financial conditions that Fed officials sought when they raised interest rates last year. Higher yields across the Treasury yield curve should ultimately hit asset values, including stocks, and slow the economy’s momentum.
If inflation stays firm “that is what they will want to see, ultimately,” said Subadra Rajappa, head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale.
Low risks of a hawkish pivot
The difficulty for Fed officials in communicating their outlook right now boils down to the conditional nature of the “if/then” statements volunteered by Fed officials, which are premised on one set of outcomes. When the economy performs in ways that officials don’t anticipate, their past statements may no longer be valid.
To that end, Powell might be hard-pressed to rule out any additional increases, even though it is likely premature for officials to meaningfully move in that direction.
But a hawkish pivot, suggesting an increase in rates is more likely than a cut, appears unlikely, for now. Any such shift is likely to unfold over a longer period. It would require some combination of a new, nasty supply shock such as a significant increase in commodity prices; signs that wage growth was reaccelerating; and evidence the public was anticipating higher inflation to continue well into the future.
A key measure of wage growth released Tuesday showed that a sustained cooling in wage growth last year may have stalled in the first quarter. Compensation for private-sector workers rose 4.1% in the first quarter from a year earlier, essentially unchanged from the fourth quarter, the Labor Department said.
Signs that wage pressures had been easing were an important factor allaying some Fed officials’ concerns about stickier service-sector inflation. Additional evidence in the coming months that wage growth is accelerating could trouble officials.
The balance sheet
Fed officials have said they could announce “fairly soon” their plan to slow the runoff of their $4.5 trillion in holdings of Treasury securities, which are part of their $7.4 trillion asset portfolio. That has led analysts to expect a formal plan announcing the slowdown at their meeting this week, though some see a chance this happens at their subsequent meeting in June.
At issue is a program the central bank initiated two years ago to passively reduce those holdings by allowing bonds to “run off” its balance sheet without buying new ones. It acquired trillions in Treasurys and mortgage bonds to stabilize financial markets in 2020 and to provide additional stimulus in 2021.
Every month, officials have allowed as much as $60 billion in Treasury securities and as much as $35 billion in mortgage-backed securities to mature without being replaced. The process is designed to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet, which topped out at nearly $9 trillion two years ago.
At the March meeting, officials appeared to coalesce around a plan to reduce the pace of runoff “by roughly half.” Because high interest rates have kept mortgage-bond runoff at a subdued level, officials wouldn’t change that part of their program and instead lower the cap on monthly Treasury redemptions.
The latest changes aren’t related to the setting of interest rates and are instead designed to avoid a messy upheaval in overnight lending markets that occurred five years ago.
The reduction in assets is also draining the financial system of bank deposits held at the Fed, which are called reserves. Officials don’t know at what point reserves will grow scarce enough to push up yields in interbank lending markets. Slowing the process now is seen as preferable by many officials because it could allow the portfolio runoff to continue for somewhat longer without risking the same kind of market ruckus that occurred in 2019.
<<<
---
>>> Imports hold back US economy in first quarter, inflation flares up
Reuters
by Lucia Mutikani
Apr 25, 2024
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew at its slowest pace in nearly two years in the first quarter amid a surge in imports and small build-up of unsold goods at businesses, signs of solid demand that together with an acceleration in inflation reinforced expectations the Federal Reserve would not cut interest rates before September.
The cooler-than-expected growth reported by the Commerce Department in its snapshot of first-quarter gross domestic product on Thursday, which also reflected a downshift in government spending, exaggerated the moderation in economic activity. Domestic demand, a better growth measure, was strong as consumer spending moderated slightly while business investment picked up and the housing recovery gained steam.
Trade and inventories are the most volatile GDP components, and are often subject to revision when the government updates its growth estimates. Fed officials are expected to leave rates unchanged at the U.S. central bank's policy meeting next week.
"The Fed will likely see the GDP report as solid, while the upward surprise to inflation will support the central bank's case for waiting longer before cutting rates," said Daniel Vernazza, chief international economist at UniCredit.
GDP increased at a 1.6% annualized rate last quarter, the slowest pace since the second quarter of 2022, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast GDP would rise at a 2.4% rate, with estimates ranging from a 1.0% pace to a 3.1% rate.
The economy grew at a 3.4% rate in the fourth quarter. The first-quarter growth pace was below what U.S. central bank officials regard as the non-inflationary growth rate of 1.8%.
Excluding inventories, government spending and trade, the economy grew at a 3.1% rate after expanding at a 3.3% rate in the fourth quarter. That also dispels the notion that government spending was fueling the economy.
The U.S. economy, which has outperformed the economies of other advanced nations, is being supported by a resilient labor market.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Reuters in an interview that she was focused on consumer and business spending.
"Those two elements of final demand came in line with last year's growth rate ... so this is the underlying strength of the U.S. economy that showed continuing robust strength and an economy firing on all cylinders."
Price pressures heated up by the most in a year, with a measure of inflation in the economy increasing at a 3.1% rate after rising at a 1.9% pace in the October-December quarter.
The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index excluding food and energy surged at a 3.7% rate after increasing at a 2.0% pace in the fourth quarter.
The so-called core PCE price index is one of the inflation measures tracked by the Fed for its 2% target. Inflation was boosted by increases in the costs of services like, transportation, insurance and housing, which offset a decline in goods prices such as motor vehicles and parts.
The strong readings pose an upside risk to March PCE inflation data due to be released on Friday, though much would depend on revisions to the January and February data.
The Fed has kept its benchmark overnight interest rate in the 5.25%-5.50% range since July. It has raised the policy rate by 525 basis points since March of 2022.
Stocks on Wall Street were trading lower. The dollar slipped against a basket of currencies. U.S. Treasury yields rose.
TIGHT LABOR MARKET
A significant slowdown in the labor market is not yet evident. The Labor Department's weekly jobless claims report showed initial claims for unemployment benefits fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 207,000 in the week ending April 20.
The number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid, a proxy for hiring, declined 15,000 to 1.781 million during the week ending April 13. The so-called continuing claims data covered the period during which the government surveyed households for April's unemployment rate.
Continuing claims fell between the March and April survey periods, implying the unemployment rate was likely unchanged after dipping to 3.8% last month from 3.9% in February.
Low layoffs are keeping wages high, sustaining consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity. Consumer spending grew at a still-solid 2.5% rate, slowing from the 3.3% growth pace rate notched in the October-December quarter. Spending was driven by healthcare, financial services and insurance, which more than offset a decline in goods, including motor vehicles and gasoline.
Spending is likely to gradually cool this year. Lower-income households have depleted their COVID-19 pandemic savings and are largely relying on debt to fund purchases. Recent data and comments from bank executives indicated that lower-income borrowers were increasingly struggling to keep up with their loan payments.
Though income increased at a $407.1 billion rate compared with the fourth quarter's $230.2 billion pace, the gains were eroded by inflation and higher taxes. Income at the disposal of households after accounting for inflation and taxes rose at a 1.1% rate versus a 2.0% pace in the October-December quarter.
The saving rate decreased to 3.6% from 4.0% in the prior quarter.
"The recent stickiness in inflation lends downside risk to the near-term forecast for consumption as it could weigh on real disposable income," said Ryan Sweet, chief economist at Oxford Economics.
Inventories were whittled down, rising at a $35.4 billion rate after increasing at a $54.9 billion pace in the fourth quarter. Inventories subtracted 0.35 percentage point from GDP growth. Part of the spending was satiated with imports, which resulted in the trade deficit widening to $973.2 billion from $918.5 billion in the October-December quarter. Trade chopped off 0.86 percentage point from GDP growth.
Government spending decelerated to a 1.2% rate from the 4.6% pace notched in the October-December quarter amid a decline in federal government outlays, mostly defense. Business spending picked up as companies invested in artificial intelligence.
Investment in nonresidential structures like factories contracted for the first time in more than year as the boost from policies by the Biden administration to bring the production of semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. faded.
Residential investment recorded its fastest pace of growth since the fourth quarter of 2020, thanks to rising home sales and housing construction, despite higher mortgage rates.
"Don't underestimate this economy," said Shannon Grein, an economist at Well Fargo.
<<<
---
>>> January economic data challenges soft landing narrative
Yahoo Finance
by Josh Schafer
February 19, 2024
The growing economic consensus has hit a bump in the road.
Over the past several months a string of stronger-than-expected data had many investors embracing a possible soft landing, in which inflation would fall to the Federal Reserve's 2% goal without a severe economic downturn.
Recent data over the past week has challenged that narrative. January inflation reports from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI) showed prices increased more than economists projected in the last month. And the January retail sales report showed sales dropped by more than economists had expected. In other words, neither inflation nor consumer strength improved.
To some, one month's prints could be points of concern, but not necessarily game changers.
"Let's not get amped up when you get one month of CPI that was higher than what you expected," Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee said during a question-and-answer session hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday. "It is totally clear that inflation is coming down."
While Goolsbee may have a point that one print might not change a trend, the recent string of January data is notable because it's largely the first chunk of data to challenge the soft landing narrative since Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell hinted the US economy may be headed to the ideal outcome during the December Fed meeting.
"The data is stacking up against investors in a way that's making people more nervous," SoFi head of investment strategy Liz Young told Yahoo Finance Live.
Prior to the readings in the past week, the data hadn't worked against investors. Fourth quarter economic growth had come in higher than expected. The January jobs report shocked economists. And the December retail sales print came in better than anticipated, all while wage increases continued to provide a positive outlook for consumer spending and inflation continued to moderate.
After this week though, economists are cutting their projections for first quarter gross domestic product (GDP), a popular economic growth measure. Goldman Sachs has shifted its forecast from 2.9% annualized growth in the first quarter entering the week down to 2.3%. The Atlanta Fed's GDP tracker moved down to 2.9% from a 3.4% projection on Feb. 8. Not auspicious for the economic growth component of a soft landing.
The data is also moving projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, ahead of its release later this month. Goldman now projects core PCE, which excludes the volatile food and energy categories, increased 0.43% in January, an increase from its prior forecast of 0.35%. Bank of America's economics team also sees a reading near 0.4%.
Notably, this would bring the six- and three-month annualized rates, which had been celebrated recently as tracking below the Fed's 2% target, back above the 2% level. Not auspicious for the second component of a soft landing.
"While January data are often noisy, the inflation data do suggest that disinflation took two steps back in January," Bank of America US economists Stephen Juneau and Michael Gapen wrote in a note to clients on Friday.
Juneau and Gapen wrote that the January inflation data vindicates the Fed's "wait-and-see approach" to cutting interest rates, and that they agree with the new market consensus that the first interest rate cut will come in June rather than March or May.
This marks a stark shift in investor sentiment on Fed cuts. Investors are now pricing in a roughly 35% chance the first cut comes in May, per the CME FedWatch Tool. A month ago, investors had placed a 97% chance that the first cut would come by the end of the May meeting.
With the Fed rate cut question mostly answered for now, the looming question remains whether the twin inauspicious data points of inflation and consumer strength have upended hopes for a soft landing.
Gapen noted in a weekly economic roundup that it's still too early to tell.
"Our (perhaps unsatisfying) take is that investors should remain in wait-and-see mode," he wrote.
"The surprises in jobs, inflation, retail sales, and [industrial production] were all probably a combination of signal and noise. ... we need to see a few more weeks' worth of data before drawing strong conclusions on the trajectory of the economy."
Consumers, for their part, are still saying they're doing great.
<<<
---
>>> The Federal Reserve Broke The Budget. Buckle Up For What Comes Next.
Investor's Business Daily
by JED GRAHAM
11/24/2023
https://www.investors.com/news/economy/federal-reserve-broke-the-budget-what-budget-deficits-mean-for-the-economy-and-sp-500/?src=A00220
<<<
Full article - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173293135
---
>>> De-Dollarization Is Happening at a ‘Stunning’ Pace, Jen Says
Bloomberg
by Matthew Burgess
April 18, 2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dollarization-happening-stunning-pace-jen-082144378.html
(Bloomberg) -- The dollar is losing its reserve status at a faster pace than generally accepted as many analysts have failed to account for last year’s wild exchange rate moves, according to Stephen Jen.
The greenback’s share in global reserves slid last year at 10 times the average speed of the past two decades as a number of countries looked for alternatives after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered sanctions, Jen and his Eurizon SLJ Capital Ltd. colleague Joana Freire wrote in a note. Adjusting for exchange rate movements, the dollar has lost about 11% of its market share since 2016 and double that amount since 2008, they said.
“The dollar suffered a stunning collapse in 2022 in its market share as a reserve currency, presumably due to its muscular use of sanctions,” Jen and Freire wrote. “Exceptional actions taken by the US and its allies against Russia have startled large reserve-holding countries,” most of which are emerging economies from the so-called Global South, they said.
Jen is the former Morgan Stanley currency guru who coined the dollar smile theory.
Last year, Bloomberg’s gauge of the greenback surged as much as 16% as the conflict helped fuel a rise in global inflation that triggered widespread interest rate hikes which sank bond and currency markets alike. It finished the year up 6%.
Biden’s Dollar Weaponization Supercharges Hunt for Alternatives
Smaller nations are experimenting with de-dollarization while China and India are pushing to internationalize their currencies for trade settlement after the US and Europe cut Russian banks from the global financial messaging system known as SWIFT. There’s also concern the dollar may become a permanent political tool, or be used as a form of economic statecraft to put extra pressure on countries to enforce sanctions that they may disagree with.
The US currency now represents about 58% of total global official reserves, down from 73% in 2001 when it was the “indisputable hegemonic reserve,” the Eurizon pair said.
That said, the dollar’s role as an international currency won’t be challenged anytime soon as developing countries don’t yet have the ability to divest from the greenback for transactions due to its large, liquid and well-functioning financial markets, Jen and Freire wrote.
Still, the persistence of those conditions “is not preordained” and there may come a time when the rest of the world actively avoids using the dollar, they wrote.
“The prevailing view of ‘nothing-to-see-here’ on the US dollar as a reserve currency seems too innocuous and complacent,” the two wrote. “What needs to be appreciated by investors is that, while the Global South is unable to totally avoid using the dollar, much of it has already become unwilling to do so.”
<<<
---
>>> The great central bank policy reversal kicks off
Reuters
by Balazs Koranyi and Howard Schneider
March 22, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis-great-central-bank-policy-061353930.html
FRANKFURT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The world's biggest central banks are on the starting line of reversing a record string of interest rate hikes but the way down for borrowing costs will look very different from the way up.
There will be no floodgates or fireworks. Instead, banks on opposite sides of the Atlantic are likely to move in the smallest increments with periodic pauses, fearing that ultra-low unemployment could rekindle inflation rates still above their targets.
The eventual bottom for interest rates is also set to be far higher than the historic lows of the last decade and mega-shifts in the structure of the global economy could put borrowing costs on a higher path for years to come.
Central banks started to jack up rates from late 2021 as post-pandemic supply constraints and surging energy prices on Russia's war in Ukraine sent inflation into double-digit territory across much of the world.
This seemingly synchronized response tamed prices and inflation will be just above or already at target - 2% for most big economies - this year.
"The bottom line is that across the OECD, central banks... are softening up again, or are about to do so," investment bank Macquarie said in a note to clients.
Indeed, the Swiss National Bank became the first major central bank (to) ease policy on Thursday with a surprise 25 basis point cut to its key rate as inflation is already in the 0% to 2% target range.
The move also ends rampant investor speculation that policymakers will be hesitant to move before the U.S. Federal Reserve since any rate cut is certain to weaken a currency and push up imported inflation.
The European Central Bank is bound to be next in June after incessantly repeated references to that meeting painted the bank into a corner.
The Fed and the Bank of England both hinted they could be next but have kept their language sufficiently vague to make moves in either June or July possible, provided data do not upset plans.
Still, investors expect the Fed, the ECB and the BoE to each deliver only 75 basis points of cuts by the end of this year, in three 25 basis point moves, tiny changes compared to rate hikes in 2022 when they sometimes increased rates by that much in a single day.
The pricing also suggests cuts at just three out of the five meetings each will hold between June and the end of the year, so pauses are also on the cards.
To be sure, these banks are not the first to cut rates. Some emerging market economies, like Brazil, Mexico, Hungary and the Czech Republic have all cut rates already, but financial markets take their cue from the major central banks, so their influence on financial instruments is oversized.
OUTLIER
The Federal Reserve could in fact end up being the outlier this time.
The U.S. economy is chugging along and the Fed even upgraded its growth projections this week, meaning it may end up cutting rates when growth remains strong, or delaying cuts if inflation proves stubborn. In Europe, data continues to paint a bleak picture, with activity stabilizing at a low level.
The U.S. election in November adds to the Fed's dilemma.
Policymakers do not want to be seen interfering with the vote, so if they cut, they need to do it well clear of November.
"Traditionally, the Fed would not pivot rates policy to cushion inequality," Societe Generale strategist Albert Edwards said. "But growing inequality has been a key issue ever since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis triggered a backlash against ‘The Establishment’ - most evident in the rise in popularism."
"Might the unfolding inequality crisis force the Fed to bow to intense political pressure to cut rates faster and deeper? I think that is entirely plausible," Edwards said.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell in congressional testimony earlier this month said policymakers would "keep our heads down and do our jobs" ahead of the elections.
All the while Europe continues to struggle. Germany is in recession, Britain is barely growing after a recession, and the rest of the continent is staying in positive territory mostly from unexpectedly strong data out of Southern Europe, traditionally the euro zone's weak spot.
Where rate cuts could end in either 2024 or 2025 remains far too uncertain but policymakers appear confident that the ultra low rates - negative in some cases - will not be revisited.
In fact, some argue that the world is undergoing such profound changes that the historic downtrend in the so-called neutral rate, which neither stimulates nor slows growth, could reverse.
"We may now be facing such a turning point," ECB Executive Board member Isabel Schnabel said this week.
"The exceptional investment needs arising from structural challenges related to the climate transition, the digital transformation and geopolitical shifts may have a persistent positive impact on the natural rate of interest."
<<<
---
>>> The Fed’s massive economic upgrade: Chart of the Week
Yahoo Finance
by Ethan Wolff-Mann
Mar 23, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-feds-massive-economic-upgrade-chart-of-the-week-123035274.html
Ahead of the Fed’s meeting this week, everyone was focused on dots.
But the most important number offered by Fed officials was the FOMC’s surprisingly bullish expectations for economic growth, revised upward, as our Chart of the Week shows.
In December, the market cheered after hopes for rate cuts were restored following pleasing inflation numbers. But economic growth projections for 2024 had fallen to 1.4% from September’s 1.5% projection for 2024 GDP growth.
Now, though disinflation may have stalled in comparison to December, the FOMC projects 2024 growth at 2.4%, almost double forecasts from just three months ago. And with an optimistic Fed holding its expectations for three cuts this year — the most important old number — this confirmation that the economy is expected to stay strong has helped push stocks to new highs.
There’s an old market saw that says lower rates are good for stocks. But so too are a strong job market and a healthy consumer, which are good for profits and, in turn, good for stock prices. Throw in a long-awaited boost in worker productivity and things look even better.
The Fed’s bullish growth projections, even with an expectation that 2025 growth moderates, are a certification from the central bank that the market is right.
While breathless AI energy has boosted the S&P 500, very real earnings buttress these high prices across the index. The job market remains healthy. The consumer is spending. And as a bonus, the Fed doesn’t see these trends as inflationary.
“If what we're getting is a lot of supply and a lot of demand … that supply is actually feeding the demand, because workers are getting paid and they're spending,” Fed Chair Jay Powell said during his press conference this week, likening the economic situation to last year when inflation fell as the economy grew. A strong economy — and strong stock market — are by no means incompatible with Powell’s mandate and mission.
The only fly in the ointment, then, is that money is expensive as long as rates are high, pushing companies towards efficiency (earnings!) rather than chasing growth and continuing the housing market’s frustrations.
So as reporters tried to coax out hints to the Fed’s plans during the press conference, Powell consistently channeled Patrick Swayze in “Roadhouse” in his responses. How will we know when the Fed will cut? “You won't. I'll let you know.”
By now, we all know what we’re waiting for: convincing inflation data, full stop.
And the fact that neither we nor Powell have seen it yet underscores the fact that obsessing over when the next cut will be may not be the best use of our time.
<<<
---
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |