Bank of Canada: some firms see less chance of a worst-case tariffs scenario
By Promit Mukherjee and David Ljunggren
OTTAWA, June 5 (Reuters) - Canadian firms and industry associations affected by trade tensions are less worried about a worst-case scenario involving U.S. tariffs but are set to raise prices, the Bank of Canada said on Thursday.
The central bank left rates unchanged for the second time in a row on Wednesday, saying it needed more certainty about the effect of the tariffs.
Deputy Governor Sharon Kozicki said that in a bid to get as much data as possible about how the economy was doing, the bank had also reached out to a group of firms and associations she said were particularly affected by trade tensions.
"Overall, firms believed that their worst-case tariff scenarios were much less likely to materialize than they reported earlier this year," she said in a speech in Toronto.
"While uncertainty remains high, there was less talk of catastrophic outcomes," she continued.
The consultations, which took place from mid-April to mid-May, followed an earlier round in January.
Kozicki though said the tariffs had already started impacting firms' performances and they were finding it hard to formulate their outlooks.
"Most businesses expect activity to weaken in the near-term, which puts jobs at risk. In addition, firms spoke about their costs increasing, which likely means they will need to raise prices at some point," she said.
The feedback from the consultations was part of the data and analysis the bank considered before holding rates. It said it would consider a rate cut in future if growth weakened and inflation stayed under control.
Money markets are betting close to 60% chance of a hold once again on July 30 when the bank announces its decision and releases its quarterly monetary policy report.
In April, the bank had provided two scenarios for economic growth where the second assumed a global trade war and recession. Governor Tiff Macklem on Wednesday said since the scenarios had been issued, the bank felt the chances of the second scenario taking place had diminished to some extent.
Economists anticipate between two and three 25 basis point cuts this year, which could take the interest rates down to 2% by year end.
Kozicki said that besides hard data sets, the bank would rely on surveys of businesses and consumers as well as consultations with industry groups in deciding the future trajectory of rates.
The bank will be holding around 11 community visits this year and a little fewer than the 100 round tables, bilateral meetings and consultations it arranged last year.
((Reuters Ottawa bureau))
Keywords: CANADA CENBANK/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Donald Trump receives support from huge sporting ally over blistering Elon Musk feud
Donald Trump has received a welcome message of support from one his longstanding friends in the world of sport after his friendship with Elon Musk spectacularly exploded this week. Musk torched his relationship with the president in full view of the world on Thursday afternoon, claiming on X that Trump is named 'in the Epstein files' before saying he should be impeached and that his tariff policy will send the United States into recession.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Beware moving to the 'wrong' country in retirement... you could miss out on £70k in state pension
Choosing to retire to one of the 150-odd countries around the world where the state pension is 'frozen' could prove a £70,000 mistake, new research reveals. That is the vast sum you stand to lose if your state pension stays stuck at the current £230.25 a week, and misses out on the increases everyone else receives for the next 20 years. Many elderly expats live in a country where their state pensions remain at whatever amount they were set at when they moved - including popular destinations like Canada and Australia. Those people have lost out on an estimated £26,000 over the past 15 years, as attempts to persuade successive governments to unfreeze their state pensions have failed to date. Around 450,000 pensioners are presently affected, according to Interactive Investor, which looked back to work out what this has cost them, and ahead at the potential impact on people retiring abroad now. 'Many pensioners dream of spending their golden years overseas - whether it's for a warmer climate, an improved quality of life or to be closer to family and friends,' says Myron Jobson, senior personal finance analyst at II. 'But while the lifestyle may be appealing, it's vital to consider how such a move could affect your state pension entitlement.' > Beware moving to a 'frozen' country: Scroll down to find a map and a full list Your browser does not support iframes. The Government has struck deals to uprate state pensions with some countries, including the US and all those in the EU, but left many others out in the cold. If you move to a frozen destination, II estimates you face a near £70,000 deficit over 20 years. That is based on a 3.7 per cent state pension rise from April 2026, and a fairly conservative assumption of only 2.5 per cent-a-year increases after that. The full new state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year, and the triple lock means it is increased every year by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent, according to the prevailing economic data each autumn. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of the current parliament, and it will be politically difficult for Labour or any other party to drop it at future elections. II factored in a 3.7 per cent state pension rise for next year because that is the Office for Budget Responsibility's current inflation forecast for September 2025, which is the decisive month. Its figures above show the impact of a frozen state pension over shorter timeframes too, with the loss of £433 over just one year. What is your dream retirement destination? Check your state pension rights before deciding if it's affordable Your browser does not support iframes. II also calculated the effect of a frozen state pension on someone who moved to an affected country in 2010. That was the year before the triple lock was introduced by the Coalition government in 2011/12, meaning they wouldn't have benefited from any uprating under the pledge. Those expats have received nearly £26,000 less than someone with a National Insurance record that also earned them a full basic rate state pension, but who stayed in the UK or moved to an unfrozen country like Spain in retirement. II calculated the 15-year figure based on the old full rate basic state pension, which was reformed in April 2016. This is currently around £9,200 a year - though people on the basic rate also get hefty top-ups, called S2P or Serps, if these were earned earlier in life. II also worked out the impact if you moved to a frozen country 10, 5 years or one year ago, but based those figures on the full rate new state pension for this period. Myron Jobson of II says: 'If you move to a country where the UK has no uprating agreement, like Australia or Canada, your state pension will be frozen at the level you first receive it. 'That means you won't benefit from the valuable triple lock increases that pensioners in the UK enjoy each year, and over time, that can seriously erode your spending power.' Therefore, Jobson says planning ahead is key, and you should check whether your chosen destination is affected (see below) and make financial decisions and arrangements with this in mind. 'Consider topping up any gaps in your national insurance record to maximise what you're entitled to,' he says. 'Deferring your state pension can boost the amount you get, though it won't help with uprating in frozen countries. 'Most importantly, building a strong private pension pot can help provide the financial cushion you'll need to maintain your standard of living abroad, regardless of state pension freezes. 'It is worth considering seeking advice from a financial adviser to fully understand the implications of retiring abroad and plan accordingly.' Last year, a This is Money reader asked whether the then very new Labour government would end the freeze on state pensions if you move to some countries. Well-connected pension industry expert Henry Tapper, chair of AgeWage, replied: 'I'm sorry but I can give you no expectation that the Labour Government will be any more generous on this matter than its predecessors. 'While no civil servant I spoke to ruled out the possibility of rules changing, no one would give you any hope and the Labour party manifesto is silent on this matter.' Tapper noted: 'If you return to the UK or go to live in a country where the UK does pay state pension increases to UK expats, you can have increases for the time you are resident at your new location.' Regarding the 70-year history of state pension uprating overseas, he said: 'Whether you get state pension increases (lately with the triple-lock) or not, depends on a tax-treaty lottery. Some countries, including the US and Switzerland have treaties, some don't.' Tapper quoted a Government response to a petition which put the cost of paying expat pension increases between 2023 and 2028 at over £4.5billion, and a research briefing to MPs which stated: 'The Government has no plans to change the policy on up-rating UK state pensions overseas; the policy is longstanding and has been supported by successive Governments for over 70 years.' Will you get state pension rises if you retire abroad? Where are state pensions frozen? Whether an expat's pension is frozen or not depends entirely on where they move (Source: International Consortium of British Pensioners)
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
The Trump and Musk spat is turning them both into billion-dollar losers in every way
The boys are going at it. Like two heavies in the playground, the once richest man on Earth and one who thinks he is the most powerful are locked in a scrap. It's a bloke thing. Not long ago, the former bros used to spark off each other, rib each other while jointly belittling everyone else. Now the jocks, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, are grappling and so closely entwined were they and the organisations they lead, there can be no winner. It's possible that peace may prevail, but for how long? They've repeatedly raised the ante, which in male lore means backing down and letting bygones be bygones will be difficult. The fallout will hit them both. Trump says that Musk and his companies receive 'billions and billions of dollars' in government subsidies and contracts. He could cut them. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. One estimate puts the total that Musk's two main businesses, SpaceX and Tesla, receive in public benefits at $38bn (£28bn). SpaceX president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell, has said its tally alone is $22bn. The exact combined figure may never be known because many of the deals between Musk's firms and Washington are classified. For his part, Musk is the heaviest donor to the Republicans, giving $200m to the GOP. There was more. Musk said he would support Maga candidates in local primaries, to the tune of $10m a pop, against sitting Republicans, should they dare to oppose Trump. Meanwhile, Musk's space rockets fly Nasa astronauts to the orbiting shuttle – without that service, the Americans would have to do the diplomatically unthinkable and seek the wholesale assistance of Russia and its Soyuz vehicles. It's likely the love-in was always destined to fail. Trump demands complete adulation, any dissenters are quickly shown the door. Musk, for all his admiration of the president, disagreed with him profoundly on a number of key issues. In order for his companies to stay ahead and to keep reinventing and innovating, Musk must attract the best brains. Whatever Trump alleges, they do not all exist in America, Musk needs to draw talent from overseas. That ran up against Trump's anti-immigration policy. Musk is a renewable energy evangelist, he made his name with the high-performance Tesla electric car. Trump is anything but, clinging to the belief that fossil fuels still rule and have a future. Likewise, Musk's products rely on imported parts and materials. Trump has kiboshed global supply lines and delivered large-scale uncertainty with his adherence to new tariffs. Musk's position on these was well known. He said so, and Trump tolerated him. After all, he was doing the White House 's bidding on Doge, slashing perceived governmental waste. Trump was happy for him to take the rap, to be the fall guy or poster boy, depending on how it was viewed. Musk's Maga popularity may have soared, but among his investors and consumers, it plummeted. Both men are characterised by a stubborn refusal to climb down and a belief in their own might. Musk pressed on, regardless. They also speak their minds, as they find, again, convinced of their own brilliance. There was so much that Trump was prepared to forgive, but it was when Musk openly criticised Trump's central tax bill that the gloves finally came off. It is a priority of Trump's second term, and the measure requires congressional Republican backing to get through. By hailing it a 'disgusting abomination', Musk was sowing doubt among possible GOP waverers, and that simply would not do. The new distance between them was noticed, and the rot set in. Musk was exiting the building. The president exhibited his usual pettiness, so what sent Musk ballistic was when an ally had his nomination to run Nasa withdrawn. That pal, Jared Isaacman, came out and said he was a victim of revenge – his nomination was revoked on the very day that the 'first buddy' was saying his White House goodbyes. Far from damping down the speculation as to why his appointment was suddenly off, Isaacman raised it. 'I mean, people can draw their own conclusions, but I think the directions people are going in seems to check out to me,' he said. Isaacman was not any other candidate – the billionaire had been a close collaborator with Musk ever since he led the first chartered passenger flight on SpaceX in 2021. Musk, understandably, was riled. Now it was personal. Since then, we've been treated to the spectacle of gladiatorial combat, albeit resorting to childish insults as weapons. But each man has plenty to lose. Trump is a brooder; he does not forget easily, and Musk may have overstepped a mark by alerting the world's media and social media to something that might or might not be contained in confidential files regarding Epstein and Trump. That may just prove unforgivable. Certainly, in the absence of an explanation, the accusation could return to haunt Trump. There may be one. It could be trivial and of little consequence. Musk may merely have been having fun, being provocative, and he hasn't presented anything to substantiate the allegation. But until we know, we cannot be sure, and the gossip will continue. Meanwhile, Trump's longtime ally Steve Bannon suggested that the president 'should sign an executive order calling for the Defense Production Act and seize SpaceX'. And the President himself was said to be planning on dispensing with all traces of Elon Musk, including the Tesla he bought at full price in March. It's perverse that they should be reduced to this. But two large, bristling personalities, possessors of machismo in abundance, were probably always going to find sharing the same small classroom an enormous challenge. Despite deploying all the cynical disregarding and showboating they could muster, it was insurmountable and could come at an enormous cost.
