IMF warns Trump tariffs are putting global financial system under strain
The global financial system is coming under increasing strain as Donald Trump's trade war rocks markets, the International Monetary Fund has warned.
'Global financial stability risks have increased significantly,' the IMF said in its regular snapshot of the system, urging regulators to be on the alert for potential crises.
It pointed to the 'sharp repricing of risk assets', that has followed the US president's tariff announcements since February – in particular his 2 April 'liberation day' statement – and warned that there may be more to come.
Published as finance ministers and central bankers gather in Washington for the IMF's spring meetings – and as it downgraded its forecasts for global growth amid tariff concerns – the Global Financial Stability Review identified what it called 'forward-looking vulnerabilities' in markets.
These include what it said were overstretched valuations for stocks and bonds in some areas, even after recent sell-offs; the highly leveraged state of some financial institutions, including hedge funds; and the vulnerability of some governments to volatility in sovereign bond markets.
Governments in emerging economies could be hit especially hard by sudden increases in borrowing costs, the IMF warned, suggesting 'investor concerns about public debt sustainability and other fragilities in the financial sector can worsen in a mutually reinforcing fashion'.
Meanwhile, companies may find it more expensive to borrow, if volatile corporate bond markets drive up the cost of debt, it suggested – while households will be hit via 'wealth effects', if the value of their pensions and other investments continues to slide.
The Washington-based lender expressed particular concern about the growing role of 'nonbank' lenders, which are much less heavily regulated than banks, but can still pose risks to the wider financial system.
The role of these lenders, which include pension and investment funds, has grown rapidly in recent years, after rules on banks were toughened up after the 2008 global financial crisis.
The IMF warned of a 'deepening nexus' between these nonbank lenders and traditional banks. It suggested they could be forced to divulge more information to regulators, which could then identify and rein in 'poorly governed and excessive risk-taking institutions'.
The IMF also urged governments to ensure there is sufficient capital and liquidity in the banking system to cope with a crisis – including by the 'full, timely and consistent implementation' of the so-called Basel 3 rules, devised after the 2008 crisis.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
The Bank of England recently delayed the implementation of the final stage of these rules, known as Basel 3.1, by a year in the UK, as the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, pressed regulators to take a more pro-growth approach.
Separately on Tuesday, a policymaker at the Bank, Megan Greene, said US trade tariffs were more likely to push down UK inflation than to drive it up, but that there were risks on both sides.
Greene told Bloomberg: 'The tariffs represent more of a disinflationary risk than an inflationary risk.' However, she added: 'There's a tonne of uncertainty around this, but there are both inflationary and disinflationary forces.'
On Monday, Trump renewed his attack against the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, and the independence of the US central bank.
Greene said that 'credibility is the currency of central banks and I think independence is quite an important piece of that'. She said the Bank could credibly try to hit its targets because it was free to make its own decisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
43 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
DWP confirm exact date people born by to get 2025 winter fuel payment
The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that all individuals born before a specific date will be eligible for the winter fuel payment this year. The website has been updated with preliminary details following Chancellor Rachel Reeves' announcement earlier this week that nine million people who lost the £200-300 benefit last winter will receive it this year. Those earning over £35,000 will also receive the payment, but it will subsequently be reclaimed through the tax system. Sir Keir Starmer has maintained that the decision to restore most winter fuel payments was not a reaction to political backlash against the policy. Following the announcement, the DWP has updated its information and for the first time revealed who will be eligible for the payment. DWP officials stated that only those born before a certain date would receive the money. They said: "The Winter Fuel Payment for 2025 to 2026 will be made to everyone in England and Wales born before 22 September 1959, unless you choose not to get it. You could get either £200 or £300 to help you pay your heating bills for winter. "You do not need to do anything - payments will be made automatically.", reports Teesside Live. Officials confirmed that everyone will receive the money, but cautioned those earning above a certain threshold that it would be recouped through HMRC, although they did not provide specifics on how this would occur. The statement read: " If your income is over £35,000, your Winter Fuel Payment will be recovered later through HMRC. Details of the 2025 to 2026 payment will be available by the end of June 2025." This week, warnings were issued that the 'fiscal drag' caused by the £35,000 earnings limit will result in hundreds of thousands of individuals losing their winter fuel payment during this parliament. This is due to Ms Reeves confirming that the £35,000 limit will not increase with inflation, leading to an estimated additional 500,000 people being affected before the end of this parliament. BBC Moneybox expert Paul Lewis stated: "The £35,000 income limit for keeping the winter fuel payment will be frozen Ministers confirm, leading to more pensioners repaying the money year by year it will join frozen bereavement payments, capital limits, child benefit limits, and tax thresholds." The Prime Minister highlighted recent growth figures and decreasing interest rates as evidence that "the economy has stabilised". Ms Reeves admitted that working individuals were not experiencing signs of progress as she attempted to move past the winter fuel controversy by asserting her spending review tomorrow would stimulate growth. "This government is going for growth because that is the best way to create jobs, boost wages, lift people out of poverty and sustainably fund our schools and our hospitals and all the public services we rely on," she addressed the GMB Union Congress conference. While expressing confidence in the government's direction, Ms Reeves commented: "I know that not enough working people are yet feeling that progress, and that's what tomorrow's spending review is all about - making working people better off, investing in our security, investing in our health, investing in our economy." Today, Rachel Reeves did not dismiss the possibility of further tax increases come autumn, following reports that the economy contracted more than anticipated in April. The Chancellor has consistently maintained that the forthcoming spending review's costs are offset by last year's tax hikes, emphasising that departments must now "live within their means". However, with a faltering economy and new obligations such as partially reversing cuts to winter fuel payments, experts caution that taxes might rise again in the autumn. When questioned on LBC about ruling out additional tax hikes, Ms Reeves said: "I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours." Yet, she reiterated her commitment to avoiding tax increases on the scale seen last year, when they rose by £40 billion.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
How Labour's winter fuel fiasco paves the way for means-testing the state pension
As Rachel Reeves announced an about-turn on her winter fuel policy this week, she opened a whole new can of worms for pensioners. The Chancellor's decision to return the payments to those with an income of under £35,000 has created a complicated means-test and reignited calls from some commentators to claw back other benefits, such as the state pension, from those deemed 'wealthy'. Means-testing the state pension system would be a radical move that no British chancellor has dared attempt before. But Labour is desperate for cash and has shown it is not afraid to anger older voters. Could Ms Reeves possibly get away with it? Introduced in 1909 and originally worth five shillings a week, the state pension is a cornerstone of the welfare state. Today, workers pay National Insurance contributions for 35 years to receive its full benefit. The full new state pension is £230.25 a week, while the old 'basic' pension – for those who reached state pension age before April 2016 – is £176.45 a week. However, the benefit has become increasingly unaffordable to administer. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts the country's spending on pensioners will reach £180bn by 2029. The idea of reserving the payment for those who need it most has therefore become increasingly attractive. Both Labour and the Tories pledged to keep the 'triple lock' that means pensions are increased each April by the highest of wage growth, inflation or 2.5pc. Means-testing could be one way to dramatically cut costs, without breaking that pledge. In January, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, caused uproar when she said her party would 'look at means-testing' the state pension. Key Labour advisers, think tanks and academics have also voiced support for the plan. Means-testing would completely upend the system. But this week's winter fuel policy reversal could make it slightly easier. Under the latest changes, all pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300 a year. However, those who earn more than £35,000 will be expected to return it to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). To administer the new system, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will tell HMRC who they've paid the winter fuel payment to. HMRC will then apply the income test to determine who will need to repay the money. Government departments have long shared data about taxpayers, including doing so specifically to pay or not pay a pensioner benefit, such as free TV licences. But is this Whitehall bureaucracy really a slow slide towards a means-tested state pension? Telegraph Money reader Jim Humphrey fears so. The 69-year-old, a part-time financial adviser from St Albans, is one of the estimated two million pensioners who will still not receive the winter fuel payment. This is because his income exceeds the £35,000 threshold. He is worried Labour is on a 'slippery slope' to means-testing the state pension. He said: 'I don't need the money, but it is a question of principle... I have paid tax for many, many years.' Other state benefits have been means-tested in recent years. Free TV licences for all over-75s were scrapped in August 2020 and restricted to those who qualify for pension credit. Last year's restriction of the winter fuel payment to those on pension credit was also a form of means-testing – as is the payment of pension credit to those on the lowest incomes. Campaigners and economists have also pushed for free prescriptions for the over-60s to be similarly restricted. Last October, Dr Kristian Niemietz, of the Institute for Economic Affairs think tank, said: 'Means-testing old-age benefits is a way to make fiscal savings while insulating the poorest from cuts.' Labour is also gearing up to ban over-60s from taking student loans from 2027, as it introduces a 'Lifetime Learning Entitlement'. Ben Ramanauskas, of think tank Policy Exchange, said: 'The Government's approach to cutting spending through means-testing is the right one. 'However, this alone will not significantly lower the cost of the UK's unsustainable welfare bill, improve public finances, or give younger taxpayers a fair deal.' Other countries already operate means-testing on their state pension payouts. In Canada, which operates a flat-rate benefit system, a maximum of $1,433 (£773.30) is paid each month, and is topped up for those on low incomes. In Chile, a pension is paid to those over 65, unless your family's wealth is deemed to be in the top 10pc of the population. Those with an income of less than $1,210,828 (£955.30) a month are eligible, whether they are still working or not. In Australia, the state pension – or 'age pension' – has no reference to how long a person has worked. Instead, it is granted as an age-based means-tested benefit. About a third of pensioners have their pension cut because they have other sources of income. Moving to an Australian-style system would be highly controversial, angering those who say if you have 'paid in' you should get the full amount irrespective of your income. Mike Ambery, of pension provider Standard Life, said: 'There would need to be a change in applying for state pension as well as the detail to replicate means-testing in other countries. The practicality and change to a universal system now would be operationally significant.' There would be other barriers to overcome. The Government could only make significant savings if people are able to generate big enough private pension savings. But despite the 'automatic enrolment' reforms that made workplace pensions compulsory, millions of people are on course for meagre retirement incomes. Research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) found that the cost of all but the most basic retirement has increased over the past year. Two retirees running one small car, eating out weekly and taking a four-star foreign holiday each year would now need an income of almost £35,000 each before tax to retire comfortably, rising to £52,000 if they live alone. Meanwhile, anyone living alone on the state pension would even fall short of a basic retirement, which now requires an income of £13,400 a year, the PLSA said.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Paul Johnson: The spending review was ‘incomprehensible'
Rachel Reeves's spending review was the 'most incomprehensible speech I've ever heard from a chancellor', according to Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He spoke to me on today's edition of Coffee House Shots. In this special episode, I was also joined by Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, to take a wider look at Britain's fiscal and economic problems. Why, despite record tax levels, do our public services feel as if they're in managed decline? Why do voters' expectations of the state seem so out of whack with what we actually deliver? We discussed whether Ruth's predecessor, Torston Bell, was right to claim Labour has ended austerity, and how much the lingering effects of Covid still shape where we are today. Paul and Ruth examined whether our economic doom loop – the endless chatter about tax rises and spending squeezes – are explained by structural problems in the British economy. Are tax rises inevitable? Or do the public need to get on board with a smaller state. Finally, I asked what they would do as Treasury dictators with a free hand to reform any policy they like. Listen below.
