US yields advance as Fed's Powell says not sure about September cut
"We have made no decisions about September, we don't...do that in advance," Powell said at a press conference after the Fed held interest rates steady at the end of a two-day policy meeting, as widely expected.
He said going forward, "we'll be taking that information" about the economy in the run-up to the next central bank gathering.
In standing pat for a fifth straight policy meeting, the Fed cited low unemployment and solid labor market conditions. But it noted that economic growth "moderated in the first half of the year," boosting the case to lower rates at a future meeting should that trend continue.
The Fed kept its benchmark overnight interest rate tethered in the 4.25%-4.50% range. Wednesday's Fed decision, however saw two dissenting votes by governors, the most in more than three decades.
In afternoon trading, the benchmark U.S. 10-year yields were last up 4.4 basis points (bps) at 4.372% , while the two-year yield, which reflects interest rate expectations, was up 5.7 bps at 3.932% .
"There's enough evidence to suggest that the Fed should be cutting right now...we do think that beneath the surface economic activity has slowed down and that's true whether you're looking at consumption or it's true whether you're looking at labor," said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist, at asset manager PGIM in Newark.
"In many ways the Fed is haunted by the ghost of transitory past. That gives them an element of pause...I think because of the transitory mistake, it slows down their reaction function," he said, referring to the Fed's slow response to inflation during the pandemic years on views it would be short-lived.
Both Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Christopher Waller, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to replace Powell when his term expires next May, were appointed to the board by Trump and "preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter of a percentage point at this meeting," the Fed's policy statement said.
Treasury yields briefly ticked lower after the disclosure of the two dissenting votes.
Federal funds futures, which are tied to the U.S. central bank's monetary policy, are implying lower odds of a rate cut in September with a 50% probability, according to LSEG calculations. That was 65% before the Fed statement.
U.S. rate futures also reduced the expected pace of easing this year to just 39 bps. That was 44 bps before the Fed decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump donor swindled more than $30 million from people thinking they were getting access and visas
A Trump donor orchestrated a $30 million scheme that promised foreign investors permanent residency and access to U.S. politicians in exchange for their money. Sherry Xue Li, 53, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the Federal Election Commission 's administration of campaign finance laws, the New York Times reports. In her decade-long scheme, Li and her co-defendant Lianbo Wang defrauded investors out of more than $30 million through a fictitious development project called the Thompson Education Center based in Sullivan County, New York, federal prosecutors said. The pair marketed the project as a 'Chinese Disneyland' that would include an amusement park, medical center, business center, a college, and homes, the federal complaint states. They told the investors, mainly foreign nationals from China, that if they contributed $500,000, they would be guaranteed lawful permanent residence in the United States through the EB-5 investment visa program. To make the fictitious project seem more real, the pair distributed promotional materials that contained photographs of Li with prominent U.S. politicians to falsely convey government support for the Thompson Education Center. In some cases, they also sold access to prominent politicians by collecting foreign investors' money and 'unlawfully contributing' it to U.S. political campaigns and committees, prosecutors said. For example, in June 2017, Li attended a fundraiser dinner to support the re-election of President Donald Trump. The cost of admission was $35,000 per person, the complaint states. Li planned to bring a dozen foreigners with her to the ritzy event. Li and Wang, however, then told the attendees they must each pay $93,000 — $80,000 to attend plus nearly $14,000 for food and travel expenses. They then sent instructions on how to wire transfer the money to bank accounts tied to Li, according to prosecutors. The pair then used the money they collected from the foreigners to contribute $600,000 in their own names. At the Washington, D.C. event, Li posed with the president and First Lady Melania Trump. They later used this photo to promote their development project. Federal law prohibits foreigners from making contributions in connections to U.S. elections. The president, his campaign and first lady have not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with this case. Throughout the years-long scheme, Li used the funds she collected to bankroll her own personal expenses, like casinos, jewelry, high-end retailers and upscale restaurants. Some of the money was used to 'create and perpetuate the fiction' of the Thompson Education Center's development, making it appear as though the project was actually underway, prosecutors said. In reality, Li and Wang hired contractors, engineers, and other workers to draw up architectural plans to keep up the illusion. Sometimes, when pressed about updates on the development, Li sent photos of a different construction site to investors. Wang pleaded guilty in 2024 to engaging in unlawful monetary transactions and conspiracy to defraud the United States. He was sentenced to five years behind bars. Li now faces up to 20 years in prison. As part of her plea agreement, Li agreed to forfeit $31.5 million, as well as property at three locations, prosecutors said. In total, more than 150 investors invested at least $31.5 million in the development project. Roughly half of that amount came from EB-5 investors who were promised green cards in return for their investments. None of them were granted green cards. 'Li defrauded more than 150 victims in the United States and abroad through years of lies and deception and sought to profit by selling access to the democratic process,' United States Attorney Nocella said in a statement. 'In doing so, she attempted to corrupt a fundamental institution in this country—fair and transparent elections free from unlawful foreign influence. Our Office is committed to investigating and prosecuting predatory fraudsters who steal victims' hard-earned money.'
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The LA Times's owner wants to take the struggling paper public. Will it work?
When the legendary journalist David Halberstam wrote his landmark 1979 book about American journalism, The Powers That Be, he focused on four media organizations: the Washington Post, Time magazine, CBS and the Los Angeles Times. His choice of the LA newspaper made perfect sense. Influential and successful, it was owned by a prominent California family, the Chandlers. The paper had high standards, a raft of Pulitzer Prizes, and a hard-charging Washington DC bureau that competed successfully with its east coast rivals. For reporters and editors, the LA Times was a prestigious career destination; if you got there, you probably stayed. Nearly 50 years later, the Los Angeles Times is much smaller in staff size and circulation size and is losing tens of millions of dollars a year. The beleaguered staff was rocked – again – in recent weeks with the news that the owner, the billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, wants to take the newspaper public in the next year. This would, he said, 'democratize' it. He offered few details, though, as he made the announcement on a late-night talk show during an interview with host Jon Stewart, who was roundly criticized for his softball approach. Certainly, the paper has been through hell over the decades. It endured many years of owners far more focused on profits than on the best interests of the reading public. Roughly a decade ago – long after the Chandlers had sold the paper – the Times was part of the laughably named and poorly run 'Tronc' chain that was busy diminishing the Chicago Tribune and other journalistic institutions. The staff was shrinking, the hope for profits disappearing and the newsroom's morale low. Then, salvation seemed to arrive. Soon-Shiong, a former surgeon who made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, bought the paper in 2018, coming in hot with promises of restoring the paper's greatness and public mission. Champagne corks popped as the new owner's view of newspapers as a public trust seemed to offer relief from all the drama of recent years. But – ever so sadly – those promises have turned out to be mostly hollow, though the paper remains the largest news organization in the American west and has a respected editor in Terry Tang, formerly of the New York Times. Though it has many talented journalists who still churn out important investigations, break news and win major awards, it is drowning in red ink and laid off 20% of its staff last year. Paid subscriptions are fewer than 300,000, compared to 11m at the New York Times and (as of 2023) more than 2m at the Washington Post. The billionaire doctor has become closer to Donald Trump and may have allowed that relationship to affect the paper's editorial integrity. Last year, he blocked a planned presidential endorsement of then vice-president Kamala Harris, causing a cascade of subscribers to cancel and the top opinion editor to resign. (Some reports suggested the decision was related to Gaza.) Many a journalist, especially on the opinion side, has walked out the door, and a celebrated top editor, Kevin Merida, departed last year after disagreements with the Soon-Shiong family. Can Soon-Shiong's latest notion of taking the paper public improve this sorry situation? The plan seems far from ideal. After all, the large regional newspapers that have thrived in the US are those with local ownership committed to the best journalistic practices – including editorial independence. The best owners have protected that while working toward financial success in this challenging new digital environment. Consider: the Philadelphia Inquirer is owned by a local non-profit. The Boston Globe is owned by Boston-based John W Henry, whose portfolio includes the Boston Red Sox. And the Minnesota Star Tribune is owned by Glen Taylor, a Minnesota-based businessperson and former state senator. The worst owners, by contrast, are predatory chains such as Alden Global Capital, a Manhattan-based hedge fund intent on wringing the last profits from waning newspapers. They don't seem to care about the public mission or about building a sustainable future for their papers. Granted, we're a long way since 'the powers that be' and from the rich heyday of newspapers when 30 percent profit margins were nothing to marvel at, and when regional papers like the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Tribune boasted foreign bureaus and newsrooms of 400 or more. The industry is in sharp decline. No local newspaper has had an easy time since the business model changed so radically 20 years ago with the precipitous loss of print advertising. But those with reasonably enlightened local ownership have fared the best. The LA Times, under Patrick Soon-Shiong, could have been in that enviable category – but it didn't go that way. The chances of restoring the gleam to this journalistic jewel can only be described as uncertain. And, for many reasons, that's a shame. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The LA Times's owner wants to take the struggling paper public. Will it work?
When the legendary journalist David Halberstam wrote his landmark 1979 book about American journalism, The Powers That Be, he focused on four media organizations: the Washington Post, Time magazine, CBS and the Los Angeles Times. His choice of the LA newspaper made perfect sense. Influential and successful, it was owned by a prominent California family, the Chandlers. The paper had high standards, a raft of Pulitzer Prizes, and a hard-charging Washington DC bureau that competed successfully with its east coast rivals. For reporters and editors, the LA Times was a prestigious career destination; if you got there, you probably stayed. Nearly 50 years later, the Los Angeles Times is much smaller in staff size and circulation size and is losing tens of millions of dollars a year. The beleaguered staff was rocked – again – in recent weeks with the news that the owner, the billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, wants to take the newspaper public in the next year. This would, he said, 'democratize' it. He offered few details, though, as he made the announcement on a late-night talk show during an interview with host Jon Stewart, who was roundly criticized for his softball approach. Certainly, the paper has been through hell over the decades. It endured many years of owners far more focused on profits than on the best interests of the reading public. Roughly a decade ago – long after the Chandlers had sold the paper – the Times was part of the laughably named and poorly run 'Tronc' chain that was busy diminishing the Chicago Tribune and other journalistic institutions. The staff was shrinking, the hope for profits disappearing and the newsroom's morale low. Then, salvation seemed to arrive. Soon-Shiong, a former surgeon who made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, bought the paper in 2018, coming in hot with promises of restoring the paper's greatness and public mission. Champagne corks popped as the new owner's view of newspapers as a public trust seemed to offer relief from all the drama of recent years. But – ever so sadly – those promises have turned out to be mostly hollow, though the paper remains the largest news organization in the American west and has a respected editor in Terry Tang, formerly of the New York Times. Though it has many talented journalists who still churn out important investigations, break news and win major awards, it is drowning in red ink and laid off 20% of its staff last year. Paid subscriptions are fewer than 300,000, compared to 11m at the New York Times and (as of 2023) more than 2m at the Washington Post. The billionaire doctor has become closer to Donald Trump and may have allowed that relationship to affect the paper's editorial integrity. Last year, he blocked a planned presidential endorsement of then vice-president Kamala Harris, causing a cascade of subscribers to cancel and the top opinion editor to resign. (Some reports suggested the decision was related to Gaza.) Many a journalist, especially on the opinion side, has walked out the door, and a celebrated top editor, Kevin Merida, departed last year after disagreements with the Soon-Shiong family. Can Soon-Shiong's latest notion of taking the paper public improve this sorry situation? The plan seems far from ideal. After all, the large regional newspapers that have thrived in the US are those with local ownership committed to the best journalistic practices – including editorial independence. The best owners have protected that while working toward financial success in this challenging new digital environment. Consider: the Philadelphia Inquirer is owned by a local non-profit. The Boston Globe is owned by Boston-based John W Henry, whose portfolio includes the Boston Red Sox. And the Minnesota Star Tribune is owned by Glen Taylor, a Minnesota-based businessperson and former state senator. The worst owners, by contrast, are predatory chains such as Alden Global Capital, a Manhattan-based hedge fund intent on wringing the last profits from waning newspapers. They don't seem to care about the public mission or about building a sustainable future for their papers. Granted, we're a long way since 'the powers that be' and from the rich heyday of newspapers when 30 percent profit margins were nothing to marvel at, and when regional papers like the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Tribune boasted foreign bureaus and newsrooms of 400 or more. The industry is in sharp decline. No local newspaper has had an easy time since the business model changed so radically 20 years ago with the precipitous loss of print advertising. But those with reasonably enlightened local ownership have fared the best. The LA Times, under Patrick Soon-Shiong, could have been in that enviable category – but it didn't go that way. The chances of restoring the gleam to this journalistic jewel can only be described as uncertain. And, for many reasons, that's a shame. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
