Fed more hamstrung by murky data than Trump interference: McGeever
ORLANDO, Florida - It's widely believed that U.S. President Donald Trump's insistence on lower interest rates is what's making life most difficult for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues. But what's causing the biggest headache for Fed officials is, in fact, probably more prosaic: economic data. The key challenges facing Powell were encapsulated perfectly on Tuesday by the release of an inconclusive U.S. inflation readout followed by Trump's latest verbal attack – and threats of a "major lawsuit."
Politics aside, most Fed officials agree that rates will fall this year, with the median "dot plot" in the Fed's June Summary of Economic Projections pointing to 50 basis points of easing through December. Traders are betting heavily that the first move will be in September.
But it's tough to justify that confidence based purely on economic data. While some indicators suggest policy should be eased sooner rather than later, others indicate that would be a high-risk move. Looking at the "totality of the data," to borrow a phrase from Powell, there is no clear signal either way.
PLENTY NOISE, FEW SIGNALS
Consider the latest U.S. inflation and employment reports, the two most important data sets. On their own, they don't appear soft enough to warrant the Fed trimming rates right now, but they also aren't firm enough to dispel the notion that policy easing is only a question of "when" not "if."
Annual headline CPI inflation held steady in July at 2.7%, contrary to an expected rise, with month-on-month increases in line with forecasts. But annual core inflation rose more than expected to 3.1%, the highest level since February and still meaningfully above the Fed's 2% target. Economists calculate that durable goods prices rose 1.7% in the first six months of the year – the biggest six-month rise since 1987, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic. They warn there is likely more of that to come as Trump's tariffs kick in.
"July's CPI data are probably more worrying under the surface than in the headlines, and we expect the upward pressure to goods inflation to build in the coming months," James Pomeroy, a global economist at HSBC, wrote on Tuesday. Meanwhile, last week's employment report showed job growth in July was much weaker than anticipated, and, more importantly, downward revisions to the previous two months were among the biggest on record.
But these ominous signals were offset by accelerating wage growth, an increase in hours worked, and a meager rise in the unemployment rate. Hardly signs of a shaky labor market.
Nevertheless, markets focused more on the softer elements in the jobs data, suggesting investors think the Fed's bar to easing is much lower than the bar to standing pat. Indeed, the rates market is now pricing in a near-100% chance of a cut at the U.S. central bank's September 16-17 meeting.
RISK MANAGEMENT
But markets may be getting ahead of themselves.
Powell has indicated that a rise in the unemployment rate is needed for the Fed to act. But that rate is potentially being distorted by post-pandemic labor supply issues - employers' reluctance to fire workers and Trump's immigration policies are limiting the number of people looking for work.
Regardless, cutting before seeing a meaningful rise in the unemployment rate would be tough to justify, creating a significant communications problem for Powell.
And on a more fundamental level, as economist Phil Suttle noted on Tuesday, is preparing to cut rates at full employment just as inflation is accelerating good risk management?
This is a particularly apt question when looking at financial markets: the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite indexes, gold, and bitcoin are all near record highs, and corporate bond spreads are the tightest in years. This hardly looks like a restrictive policy environment.
In that light, patience and caution would appear justified, especially given the added risk of appearing to buckle under Trump's political pressure. If the Fed wants to cut, Powell could use some cover. Unfortunately for him, he's unlikely to find that in this noisy data.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)
(By Jamie McGeever Editing by Paul Simao)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UAE Moments
2 hours ago
- UAE Moments
Your Daily Career Tarot Card Reading for August 16th, 2025
16.8.25 The Hanged Man: The Hanged Man card may show a tendency to drift rather than take action. It's possible that you're waiting for a job or promotion - or perhaps business success to fall into your lap, when you really need to get out there and make it happen. Begin today to work out what you want and to plan a strategy that will enable you to reach your goal.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Pictures of the week: From Limp Bizkit in Abu Dhabi to a robotic knockout
Investing in disruptive technology can be a bumpy ride, as investors in Tesla were reminded on Friday, when its stock dropped 7.5 per cent in early trading to $575. It recovered slightly but still ended the week 15 per cent lower and is down a third from its all-time high of $883 on January 26. The electric car maker's market cap fell from $834 billion to about $567bn in that time, a drop of an astonishing $267bn, and a blow for those who bought Tesla stock late. The collapse also hit fund managers that have gone big on Tesla, notably the UK-based Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust and Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation ETF. Tesla is the top holding in both funds, making up a hefty 10 per cent of total assets under management. Both funds have fallen by a quarter in the past month. Matt Weller, global head of market research at GAIN Capital, recently warned that Tesla founder Elon Musk had 'flown a bit too close to the sun', after getting carried away by investing $1.5bn of the company's money in Bitcoin. He also predicted Tesla's sales could struggle as traditional auto manufacturers ramp up electric car production, destroying its first mover advantage. AJ Bell's Russ Mould warns that many investors buy tech stocks when earnings forecasts are rising, almost regardless of valuation. 'When it works, it really works. But when it goes wrong, elevated valuations leave little or no downside protection.' A Tesla correction was probably baked in after last year's astonishing share price surge, and many investors will see this as an opportunity to load up at a reduced price. Dramatic swings are to be expected when investing in disruptive technology, as Ms Wood at ARK makes clear. Every week, she sends subscribers a commentary listing 'stocks in our strategies that have appreciated or dropped more than 15 per cent in a day' during the week. Her latest commentary, issued on Friday, showed seven stocks displaying extreme volatility, led by ExOne, a leader in binder jetting 3D printing technology. It jumped 24 per cent, boosted by news that fellow 3D printing specialist Stratasys had beaten fourth-quarter revenues and earnings expectations, seen as good news for the sector. By contrast, computational drug and material discovery company Schrödinger fell 27 per cent after quarterly and full-year results showed its core software sales and drug development pipeline slowing. Despite that setback, Ms Wood remains positive, arguing that its 'medicinal chemistry platform offers a powerful and unique view into chemical space'. In her weekly video view, she remains bullish, stating that: 'We are on the right side of change, and disruptive innovation is going to deliver exponential growth trajectories for many of our companies, in fact, most of them.' Ms Wood remains committed to Tesla as she expects global electric car sales to compound at an average annual rate of 82 per cent for the next five years. She said these are so 'enormous that some people find them unbelievable', and argues that this scepticism, especially among institutional investors, 'festers' and creates a great opportunity for ARK. Only you can decide whether you are a believer or a festering sceptic. If it's the former, then buckle up.
Zawya
5 hours ago
- Zawya
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments -- in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" -- have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of BLS, claiming -- without evidence -- that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump 'certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official told Reuters. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. REPUTATIONAL RISKS There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. 'Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. 'If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York Attorney General, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.
