Good vibrations turn sour
By Jamie McGeever
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - TRADING DAY
Making sense of the forces driving global markets
By Jamie McGeever, Markets Columnist
I'm excited to announce that I'm now part of Reuters Open Interest (ROI), an essential new source for data-driven, expert commentary on market and economic trends. You can find ROI on the Reuters website, and you can follow us on LinkedIn and X.
The US and China have reached a trade deal, or at least agreed on the framework of a deal, which together with surprisingly soft U.S. inflation data, gave markets a lift on Wednesday. But Wall Street's gains were mild, and they were later wiped out by rising tensions in the Middle East.
In my column today I look at the 'equity risk premium' and other metrics that suggest relative U.S. equity and bond valuations are getting very stretched. More on that below, but first, a roundup of the main market moves.
If you have more time to read, here are a few articles I recommend to help you make sense of what happened in markets today.
1. China's latest trade truce with US leaves investors nonethe wiser 2. Dollar keeps losing market share but euro slow tobenefit: ECB study 3. US importers turn to brokers to navigate Trump-eratariffs, at a cost 4. When it comes to a US debt default, never say never 5. No longer the big outlier, Italy sees bond renaissance:Mike Dolan
Today's Key Market Moves
* Wall Street ends in the red, having earlier hit highslast seen in February-March. The S&P 500 falls 0.3%, the Nasdaqloses 0.5%. Consumer cyclicals sector falls 1%, and energy isthe best-performing sector up 1.5%. * U.S. stock market volatility, as measured by the VIXindex, falls to its lowest in almost four months earlier in theday. * Treasuries rally, also boosted by soft inflation and astrong 10-year auction. Yields end down as much as 7 bps, curvebull steepens slightly. * Oil hits a two-month high, rising more than 4% aftersources say the US is preparing to evacuate its Iraqi embassydue to heightened security concerns in the region. Brent crudereaches $69.77/bbl, WTI rises above $68/bbl. * Precious metals rise, led by a surge in platinum to a4-year high above $1,280/oz. Platinum rose as much as 5% and isup over 20% in June, which would be its best month since 2008.
Good vibrations turn sour
It's a "done" deal, according to U.S. President Donald Trump, although the he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping still have to finalize the wording of the trade agreement between the two superpowers and sign off on it.
The main points of the deal appear to be: China will remove export restrictions on rare earth minerals and other key industrial components; U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will total 55%; Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods will total 10%.
Trump could not have been more enthusiastic in his praise for the agreement on Wednesday, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said 'deal after deal' with other countries will follow in the weeks ahead.
Yet, judging by the relatively muted market reaction, investors are less enthused. And given the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the Trump administration's tariff announcements thus far, the irony of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calling on China to be a "reliable partner" in trade negotiations will not be lost on some observers. Especially, one suspects, in Beijing.
Based on these proposed China levies, and with the US expected to conclude more trade deals in the coming weeks, the overall U.S. effective tariff rate will be lower than feared a couple of months ago. That's a relief.
But the effective tariff rate of around 15% that many economists expect will still be significantly higher than the 2.5% rate at the end of last year, and would be the highest since the 1930s. Also, as the May inflation figures showed, tariffs have yet to be felt on prices.
Investors - and Fed policymakers, who meet next week - are in a state of limbo. How will corporate profits and consumer spending be affected? What proportion of the tariffs will companies "swallow", and how much will they pass on to their customers?
Zooming out, inflation appears to be cooling around the world, although this trend is expected to reverse once tariffs start to fuel higher goods price inflation.
Figures on Wednesday showed that U.S. consumer inflation and Japanese wholesale inflation were lower than expected in May. These reports follow similar numbers from Europe recently, and China remains stuck in its battle against deflation.
Next up is India, which releases consumer inflation figures on Thursday, which are expected to show annual inflation slowed to 3.0% in May, the lowest in more than six years. Another focus for investors on Thursday will be the auction of 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds.
US stocks-bonds warnings flash amber again
Calm has descended on U.S. markets following the 'Liberation Day' tariff turmoil of early April. But Wall Street's rally has revived questions about U.S. equity valuations, as stocks once again look super pricey compared to bonds.
Since the chaotic days of early April, U.S. equities have rebounded fiercely, with the S&P 500 up 25%, putting the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-earnings (CAPE) ratio for the index in the 94th percentile going back to the 1950s, according to bond giant PIMCO.
Stocks are looking expensive in absolute terms, and in relation to bonds. The equity risk premium (ERP), the difference between equity yields and bond yields, is near historically low levels.
According to analysts at PIMCO, the ERP is now zero. The previous two times it fell to zero or below were in 1987 and 1996–2001. In both instances, the ultra-low ERP precipitated a steep equity drawdown and sharp fall in long-dated bond yields.
"The U.S. equity risk premium ... is exceptionally low by historical standards," they wrote in their five-year outlook on Tuesday. "A mean reversion to a higher equity risk premium typically involves a bond rally, an equity sell-off, or both."
But reversion to the mean doesn't just happen by magic. A catalyst is needed. Equities have recovered largely because they were oversold in April, trade tensions have been dialed down, and investors remain confident that Big Tech will drive solid AI-led earnings growth.
So even though huge economic, trade, and policy risks continue to hang over markets, there is no sign of an imminent catalyst that would cause an equity market selloff.
CHEAP FOR A REASON
The flip side of equities looking expensive is that bonds look like a bargain.
Indeed, the relative divergence between stocks and bonds is such that, by one measure, U.S. fixed income assets are the cheapest relative to equities in over half a century.
Using national flow of funds data from the Federal Reserve, retired strategist Jim Paulsen calculates that the total market value of U.S. bonds as a percentage share of the total market value of U.S. equities is the lowest since the early 1970s.
"Since the aggregate U.S. portfolio is currently aggressively positioned, investors may have far more capacity and desire to boost bond holdings in the coming years than most appreciate," Paulsen wrote last week.
But bonds are 'cheap' for a reason. Washington's profligacy – the reason ratings agency Moody's recently stripped the U.S. of its triple-A credit rating – and inflation worries have kept yields stubbornly high. The term premium - the risk premium investors demand for holding long-term debt rather than rolling over short-dated loans - is the highest in over a decade, reflecting concerns about Uncle Sam's long-term fiscal health.
And the diagnosis here shows no signs of improving. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is expected to add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, likely putting more upward pressure on yields.
Of course, equity investors do seem to be pricing in a very rosy scenario, and the past few months have shown how quickly the market landscape can change. The U.S. economy could weaken more than expected, the trade war could escalate, or there could be a geopolitical surprise that causes bond yields and equity prices to fall.
Investors should therefore be mindful of the warnings being sent by ERPs and other absolute and relative valuation metrics. However, they should also remember that stretched valuations can get even more stretched. As the famous saying goes, markets can stay irrational longer than investors can remain solvent.
What could move markets tomorrow?
* India CPI inflation (May) * UK trade (April) * UK industrial production (April) * ECB's Jose Luis Escriva and Frank Elderson speak atseparate events * Brazil retail sales (May) * $22 billion U.S. 30-year Treasury note auction * U.S. weekly jobless claims * U.S. PPI inflation (May)
Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.
(By Jamie McGeever; Editing by Deepa Babington)
Error al recuperar los datos
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jobless claims data, broadening stock gains: Market Takeaways
US stocks (^DJI, ^IXIC, ^GSPC) closed Thursday's session in positive territory after the latest inflation data and President Trump announcing plans for unilateral tariffs against trade partners. Yahoo Finance senior markets reporter Josh Schafer examines several of the prominent market themes in the trading day, including this week's initial jobless claims and the broadening of the market's outperformance across sectors. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here.
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority 'to provide for contingencies' or 'to achieve savings' through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. 'It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made,' the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book 'The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.' 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education 'accounts for a deferral package,' NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. 'I imagine you will all have questions, as do we,' she said. 'However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations.' An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their 'programs gutted.' The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump tax bill would help the richest, hurt the poorest, CBO says
Advertisement Households in the middle of the income distribution would see an increase in resources of $500 to $1,000, or between 0.5 percent and 0.8 percent of their income. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The projections are based on the version of the tax legislation that House Republicans passed last month, which includes much of Trump's economic agenda. The bill would extend tax cuts passed under Trump in 2017 otherwise due to expire at the end of the year and create several new tax breaks. It also imposes new changes to the Medicaid and SNAP programs in an effort to cut spending. Overall, the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to US deficits over the next 10 years, not accounting for dynamic effects, the CBO previously forecast. The Senate is considering changes to the legislation including efforts by some Republican senators to scale back cuts to Medicaid. Advertisement The projected loss of safety-net resources for low-income families come against the backdrop of higher tariffs, which economists have warned would also disproportionately impact lower-income families. While recent inflation data has shown limited impact from the import duties so far, low-income families tend to spend a larger portion of there income on necessities, such as food, so price increases hit them harder. The House-passed bill requires that able-bodied individuals without dependents document at least 80 hours of 'community engagement' a month, including working a job or participating in an educational program to qualify for Medicaid. It also includes increased costs for health care for enrollees, among other provisions. More older adults also would have to prove they are working to continue to receive SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps. The legislation helps pay for tax cuts by raising the age for which able bodied adults must work to receive benefits to 64, up from 54. Under the current law, some parents with dependent children under age 18 are exempt from work requirements, but the bill lowers the age for the exemption for dependent children to 7 years old. The legislation also shifts a portion of the cost for federal food aid onto state governments. CBO previously estimated that the expanded work requirements on SNAP would reduce participation in the program by roughly 3.2 million people, and more could lose or face a reduction in benefits due to other changes to the program. A separate analysis from the organization found that 7.8 million people would lose health insurance because of the changes to Medicaid. With assistance from Alex Newman. Advertisement
