Citadel CEO worried by rising cost of US default insurance
NEW YORK, June 5 (Reuters) - Citadel's founder and CEO Ken Griffin said on Thursday it is "unfathomable" that a financial instrument to protect against an eventual U.S. default is being priced at levels close to some European countries.
"I never thought in my life I would see the U.S. priced higher in risk cost than a number of countries like Spain, Germany or France," he said at the Forbes Iconoclast Summit. "You gotta be kidding me."
Griffin said the credit default swap (CDS) market has some issues with liquidity which impact prices, but still he considered that conversations around how close the swaps are trading are "unfathomable."
Spreads on U.S. five-year CDS - market-based gauges of the risk of a sovereign default – stood at 48 basis points on Thursday, compared to 50 bps for Italy, 32 bps for Spain and 35 bps for France, S&P Global Market Intelligence data showed.
U.S. sovereign CDS spreads widened to their highest since the debt ceiling crisis of 2023 in recent weeks.
The move in the spreads of U.S. credit default swaps comes amid concerns around the country's fiscal deficit and negotiations over a tax bill that is estimated to add more than $2 trillion to the U.S. debt.
Griffin did not specifically comment on the bill, but criticized the U.S. fiscal deficit.
"The United States' fiscal house is not in order. You cannot run deficits of six or 7% at full employment after years of growth. That's just fiscally irresponsible," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Elon Musk's crash-out killed conservatives' momentum — and likely guaranteed passage of Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Earlier this week, it looked like Elon Musk had delivered arch conservatives a gift when he trashed President Donald Trump's ' One Big, Beautiful Bill.' On Tuesday, Musk called the legislation an ' outrageous, pork-filled, disgusting abomination.' It seemed like a boon for some of the fiscal conservatives in the Senate like Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin who criticized the fact the bill still blows up the deficit. Had Musk stopped there, he probably would have given fiscal conservatives additional leverage. House Speaker Mike Johnson had spent much of the first part of the year getting every faction of the House GOP on board with the bill despite fiscal conservative grumbling. But Johnson admitted during his weekly press conference that he had tried to call Musk with no response. Immediately, House Republicans and members of the Freedom Caucus — including its former chairman Scott Perry and Andy Ogles, who has tried to allow Trump to run for a third term — voiced their criticisms of the bill that they had when it was being deliberated. They could have voiced them at any moment but did not. It clearly showed that they had abandoned their fiscal conservative principles in fear of the pressure campaign from Trump. Had Musk kept his critiques strictly to the bill, the tech tycoon could have offered an effective counterweight to give conservatives leverage against leadership given his immense wealth and his wide reach as owner of X. But the world's richest man chose to blow that to smithereens when he turned the attacks personal. First, he said that Trump would not have won the presidency, Republicans would have lost the House and would have a smaller minority in the Senate had it not been for Musk's money, before huffing 'such ingratitude.' Then Musk lobbed the ultimate grenade when he said that Trump had not fully released the 'Epstein files' —information related to the late — because Trump was mentioned in them. The Tesla founder took it a step further by calling for Trump's impeachment. Not only did Musk's words permanently spike any chance for reconciliation, it killed any chances for budget reconciliation, the arcane process through which Republicans hope to pass the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who has spent much of the legislative process in the House trying to make the bill more conservative but ultimately voted for it, tried to split the difference. 'He's got concerns with the bill, he's a free American, and he can speak freely and and God bless him for what he's been doing to try to make improvements,' Roy told The Independent. 'Again, is it what Chip Roy would draft? Not even close. But did it move in the right direction to get to a place that I felt comfortable sending it to the Senate to see if they could make it better? Sure.' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who has spent much of the new Congress trying to declassify information related to Epstein, said it was too early to tell about the Senate bill since text did not exist. 'I've always been a big fan of going back to pre-Covid spending levels,' Luna told The Independent, but understood it would require negotiation. Rep. Andy Harris, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, who ultimately voted 'present' on the bill last month, said he agreed. 'I still think his concerns about the deficit are real,' he said. But the damage might already be done. If Republican elected have learned anything in the past decade, they've learned that their voters are not so much devoted to conservative ideals; they're devoted to Trump. Deviation from Trump, even in the name of conservative principles like restraining spending and balanced budgets, amounts to heresy. Musk's decision to start talking about forming another political party further alienates him from the GOP. He is now no longer part of the Trump coalition or even the Republican coalition. That means that fiscal conservatives cannot depend on him to drop millions of dollars for people opposed to the reconciliation bill or if he does, that it will immediately be tainted as money coming from a heretic. This makes Senate and House leadership's job easier. It gives them a foil to oppose and allows critics of the bill to tied to Musk. And they've already seen that most Republicans' bluster about spending levels are just that given that they will ultimately fold. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee spent much of the early parts of the reconciliation process intimating to reporters that he would not vote for the bill only to fold. As votes wrapped on Thursday, he did not seem worried about it all. 'It's just two biggest dogs in the pound, they're both gonna fight a little,' he said. Except now, Musk just defanged fiscal conservatives.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. Tesla robotaxis The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' Carbon credits business One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Reviving sales Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Moonshot mess Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. Starlink impact? A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Ad revival interrupted? Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.' ___
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Transportation chief seeks to weaken fuel economy standards, calls Biden-era rule 'illegal'
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a rule Friday that Biden-era fuel economy standards for gas-powered cars and trucks were illegal and moved to reverse them, paving the way for a likely reset of rules. Combined with Senate language in the pending budget bill to eliminate penalties for exceeding standards regulating how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel, automakers moving forward could come under less pressure from regulators to reduce their pollution. Ultimately, the nation's use of electric vehicles could be slowed. The moves align with the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to slash federal support for EVs. President Donald Trump has pledged to end what he has called an EV 'mandate,' referring incorrectly to former President Joe Biden 's target for half of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. EVs do not use gasoline or emit planet-warming greenhouse gases. No federal policy has required auto companies to sell — or car buyers to purchase — EVs, although California and other states have imposed rules requiring that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035. When he was in office, Biden imposed increasingly stringent emissions standards for cars and trucks. He included use of EVs in calculating the rules — an inclusion the Trump administration and the auto industry have argued was illegal and raised the bar too high for automakers to meet. The Transportation Department's memorandum Friday said the previous administration 'ignored statutory requirements' that barred consideration of EVs when setting standards. 'We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States," Duffy said. The revised rule does not itself change existing standards, but it empowers the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to make adjustments in coming months. Duffy put pressure on the federal agency earlier this year to reverse the fuel economy rules as soon as possible. Under the Biden administration, automakers were required to average about 50 miles (81 kilometers) per gallon of gas by 2031 — up from about 39 miles (63 kilometers) per gallon for light-duty vehicles today — in an effort to save almost 70 billion gallons (265 billion liters) of gasoline through 2050. The rules, finalized in 2024, increased fuel economy 2% per year for passenger cars in every model year from 2027 to 2031, and 2% each year for SUVs and other light trucks from 2029 to 2031. Mileage rules — in place since the 1970s energy crisis — work alongside the EPA limits on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for the largest source of the nation's planet-warming emissions, and cars and trucks make up more than half of those. In recent years, automakers have been manufacturing gasoline-fueled cars that are more efficient and get higher mileage. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents automakers, called Duffy's announcement 'a positive development" that adds 'important clarity' to federal mileage rules. The Biden-era standards 'were 'improperly predicated' on alternative fuel vehicles,' said John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO. But Katherine Garcia, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All program, said the Transportation Department's action will increase costs for Americans and increase pollution. 'Making our vehicles less fuel-efficient hurts families by forcing them to pay more at the pump,' she said. 'It will lead to fewer clean-vehicle options for consumers, squeeze our wallets, endanger our health and increase climate pollution.' Meanwhile, Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee added proposed language to the proposed budget bill Thursday that would remove fines penalizing automakers that don't meet fuel economy standards with their gas-powered vehicles. Automakers can buy credits under a trading program if they don't meet the standards. Manufacturers whose vehicles exceed the standards earn credits that they can sell to other carmakers. The memo and bill text landed this week as Tesla owner Elon Musk and Trump engage in a public spat online, with Trump suggesting that Musk 'only developed a problem' with his budget bill because it rolls back tax credits for EVs. Musk disputes that. ___ Daly reported from Washington. ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
