Fed policymakers gather amid rising geopolitical risks, unclear tariff impact
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve policymakers will begin a two-day meeting on Tuesday with escalating tensions in the Middle East risking a new commodity price shock and fresh U.S. data expected to show a drop in retail sales and sluggish factory output in May.
The U.S. central bank is widely anticipated to leave its benchmark overnight interest rate in the 4.25%-4.50% range, where it has been since December, and repeat that it can't give much guidance until it is clearer whether President Donald Trump's import tariffs and fiscal policies push inflation higher, undercut growth, or - as his administration contends will happen - keep growth on track while prices ease. Trump has demanded immediate rate cuts.
Several days of intense missile exchanges between Israel and Iran, however, presented the Fed with even more reason for caution after oil prices jumped and presented a possible new source of inflation, though crude oil indices were declining along with U.S. bond yields on Monday after reports that the Iranian government was seeking talks with the U.S. and Israel to end the conflict. Major U.S. equity indices rose.
Still, the fighting highlighted the uncertainty Fed officials say has gripped their policy debate since Trump returned to power in January and unveiled a far more aggressive effort than expected to raise import taxes and rewrite global trade rules.
Fed officials have largely expected that Trump's trade policies will have a stagflationary effect on the U.S. economy, simultaneously slowing growth and raising prices, with the monetary policy path - whether rate cuts or an extended hold of borrowing costs at the current level - dependent on which problem seems to be more serious.
Retail sales and industrial production data due to be released on Tuesday morning could add weight to the evidence the economy is slowing.
Economists polled by Reuters expect retail sales fell 0.7% in May after recent months where households appeared to rush some purchases to avoid coming import levies, while industrial output is forecast to rise just 0.1%.
"Consumers likely took a break from spending in May following a strong increase in March and a lackluster April," said Scott Anderson, chief U.S. economist at BMO. He added that he expects industrial production fell slightly over the month due to "trade war uncertainty, rising input prices, and slowing U.S. and global demand."
The Fed will issue a new policy statement as well as updated projections for the economy and the benchmark interest rate at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT) on Wednesday, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell scheduled to hold a press conference half an hour later.
The central bank's Summary of Economic Projections may draw more attention than the policy decision itself, as analysts and investors look for evidence of how Fed officials' views of the outlook have changed since their last set of projections in March, before the scope of Trump's tariff plans became clear but also before he delayed some of the stiffest levies in the face of largely negative market reaction.
Fed officials in March marked down their expectations for economic growth this year and raised their level of expected inflation, but left unchanged the median outlook for two quarter-percentage-point rate cuts this year. Though that rate outlook matched the one in December, the spread of views in the Fed's "dot plot" chart narrowed, and some analysts anticipate a further hawkish shift in light of the central bank's emphasis on keeping inflation controlled and expectations that Trump's new tariffs still will lead to price increases.
"Trade policy developments have likely led to a significant change in Fed forecasts," towards even slower growth and higher inflation this year than expected as of March, Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JP Morgan, wrote on Friday.
"These stagflationary revisions don't point to a clear direction of the revision to the dots. Even so, we think the dots will revise in a modestly hawkish direction" with only a single rate cut this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The next big economic shock is just around the corner
For every unit of output, the world economy uses far less oil than it used to. But that doesn't mean oil has lost its power to shock. Most post-war recessions have been preceded by a big jump in the oil price, and it is this gauge of economic stress that policymakers will as a consequence be most keenly focused on as tensions in the Middle East once again reach boiling point. Nor is it these days just about oil. As oil has waned in importance, liquefied natural gas (LNG) has somewhat taken its place as a component in the global energy mix. And war in the Persian Gulf threatens supplies of LNG just as potently as it does oil supply. That said, neither the oil nor the market price of LNG has yet risen to a level that would give real cause for concern. Despite the sharp uptick in recent days, both prices have been higher earlier in the year. And in the case of oil, they remain below where they were throughout much of last year – and significantly below the sort of levels that ruled as the world economy emerged from the traumas of pandemic-induced lockdown. Traders are still betting on de-escalation in the current conflagration as the most likely outcome, or at least that it will remain relatively contained. This has been the pattern in recent geopolitical flare ups when, broadly speaking, it hasn't paid off to sell and run for the hills. The US, European and world economies have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient to the various external shocks that have been thrown at them. But eventually that pattern will be broken. At this stage, it's anyone's guess whether current events will turn out to be the big one. Assuming Donald Trump holds true to his electoral promise not to get involved in further international conflicts, then it shouldn't. But then again, there is no legislating for how an increasingly desperate regime in Iran might respond. Let's instead assume the worst, with substantial knock-on consequences for energy prices. How should economic policymakers respond? For the Bank of England, with an interest rate decision to make this week, the question is particularly awkward. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is already split three ways: at the last meeting in May, four members voted to cut interest rates by 0.25pc, two wanted to leave them unchanged, and a further two wanted an even bigger cut. Higher oil prices further increase the policy dilemma. Elevated energy prices are both inflationary and deflationary at the same time – in that they add to costs and therefore to prices – but also leave less money in people's pockets for spending on other things. Cost-push inflation combined with demand-pull contraction. As it is, the economy may already be slowing fast. Recent data in the UK has all been distinctly downbeat, with the economy contracting sharply in April as hefty increases in tax came into force, and a significant deterioration in the once buoyant jobs market. It wouldn't take much in the way of higher energy prices to tip the economy into recession. What is generally considered to be the textbook answer on how to respond to higher oil prices was co-written by Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman – Systematic Monetary Policy and the Effects of Oil Price Shocks – while still an academic. Virtually all recession in the preceding 30 years, he pointed out, were preceded by both increased oil prices and tighter monetary policy – as the Fed sought to respond to the inflationary pressures brought about by the rising price of energy. The trick, therefore, is to ignore the pressures for interest rate increases when energy prices are spiking, and to the contrary start cutting interest rates well before recession kicks in. Otherwise, you risk a toxic mix of two deflationary forces at the same time. That's precisely the trap that Jean-Claude Trichet, then-president of the European Central Bank, fell into in the summer of 2008. Rampant Chinese demand had caused commodity prices, including the oil price, to sky-rocket, pulling domestic European inflation with them. With eurozone inflation at more than double the official target, and fearing second-round effects, Trichet raised interest rates, even though it was already obvious that the banking system could be in some trouble. The European conceit was that any weakness in the banking sector was largely an Anglo-Saxon affair, and that the innate protections of the euro would shield Europe from the worst of the fallout. In the event, the restrictions of monetary union greatly magnified the effects of the subsequent banking and sovereign debt crisis. Both the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England avoided this mistake, choosing instead to 'look through' the inflationary surge and take the reverse approach. Whether in the end it made much difference is arguable. All three economies were soon overwhelmed by the global financial crisis, with interest rates collapsing down to near zero. All the same, the now tried and tested way to respond to any oil price spike that might be caused by Israel's attacks on Iran would be to ignore the inflationary consequences and accelerate the current cycle of monetary easing. Just to add to the confusion, however, recent experience with this approach has not been good. Central banks chose to regard the spike in prices that followed the pandemic as 'transitory', leaving interest rates at close to zero. Second-round effects soon set in, with wages chasing prices, and even now the resulting inflation has not been fully expunged from the system. The experience is going to make policymakers double wary this time around. As for the Bank of England, it is unlikely there will be a cut in rates this week even if events turn uglier. The Bank has made a habit of only changing interest rates every three months to coincide with publication of the quarterly MPC report. And it would require an extreme emergency to break with this modus operandi. But a cut in August now looks odds on. Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank, once said that it was his ambition to make monetary policy boring, in the sense that it would become predictable and people would know exactly what to expect. Sadly, this was never likely to be achievable in an age defined by what he and fellow economist John Kay have called 'radical uncertainty'. Globalisation has further clouded the picture, such that events in far off places now have significant consequences in what were once highly localised domestic economies elsewhere. Barely has one economic shock passed than another is upon us. The global economy acts like a lightning rod, and it has turbo-charged the frequency with which these shocks are felt. A global recession might have been coming anyway, but if events in Iran further escalate – possibly cutting off supplies of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz – it will seal the deal. We can expect significantly lower interest rates, regardless of the inflationary effects of a soaring oil price, should this be the case.
Auto Blog
33 minutes ago
- Auto Blog
Lincoln Needs An EV To Take On Cadillac. Could It Look Like This?
Lincoln needs an electric vehicle to truly compete with Cadillac. Discover our vision for what this crucial new EV could look like and how it might challenge its luxury rival. As EVs become increasingly mainstream in North America, it seems that all but one of the 'big three' legacy domestic automakers have fallen behind in their fully-electric offerings. While Ford offers just three electric models in its lineup–the Mustang Mach-E, the F-150 Lightning, and the E-Transit van–and Dodge and Jeep together offer just two electric models currently–the Charger EV and the Jeep Wagoneer S–General Motors massively outshines them all with a whopping thirteen unique electric models spanning across the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac lineups. Cadillac CELESTIQ 2026 Cadillac ESCALADE IQL Cadillac alone offers six different electric models, with different variants available for almost every model. This strategy seems to be doing quite well for the brand, which anticipates its EVs will make up 30-35% of its total U.S. sales, according to CNBC. So, if Cadillac's integration of EVs into its lineup has proven to be a safe bet for the brand, why doesn't Lincoln, Cadillac's most direct rival, give it a try themselves? It's not as if they don't have a platform ready to go. Ford Mustang Mach-E The Ford Mustang Mach-E could provide an excellent platform for a fully-electric Lincoln crossover Ford's Mustang Mach-E, despite its controversial nomenclature, has proven popular with American EV buyers, outselling both the Chevrolet Blazer EV and Chevrolet Equinox EV combined in 2024, and even outselling the traditional, gas-powered Ford Mustang pony car. With its favourable critical reception and proven sales track record, the Mustang Mach E seems to offer the perfect base for a more luxurious, Lincoln-branded variant. Using the Mach-E with eAWD's 365-horsepower dual-motor setup, an electric compact Lincoln crossover could aim its sights directly at the Cadillac Optiq, which starts at $52,895. Using generative text-to-image artificial intelligence software and Adobe Photoshop, we take an imagined look at what a Ford Mustang Mach-E-based compact electric crossover would look like, branded as a Lincoln. These images are solely for speculative purposes and in no way, shape, or form represent any actual Ford or Lincoln products. Lincoln EV Concept — Source: AI Generated Image Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. To try and tempt buyers away from the 519-horsepower, performance-focused Optiq-V, Lincoln could offer a Mach-E-based compact electric crossover equipped with the GT Performance Edition's powertrain, which sends an instantaneous 480-horsepower and 634 lb-ft to all four wheels, allowing for a rapid 0-60 sprint time of 3.5 seconds–the same as Cadillac's Optiq-V. Unlike the Mach-E GT Performance Edition, however, the Lincoln variant could offer more luxurious features such as an electronically-operable panoramic moonroof, massaging seats, a high-fidelity Revel sound system, and much more. Even with commendable performance figures, a silent-but-deadly performance EV crossover from Lincoln could still fit the brand's focus on 'Serenity', due to its ability to offer a quiet and comfortable driving experience alongside its palpable performance figures. Lincoln EV Concept — Source: AI Generated Image A compact electric Lincoln crossover could compete with much more than Cadillac's Optiq The compact electric crossover is one of the fastest-growing automotive segments in North America, and highly optioned luxurious variants are no exception. Almost every premium brand offers something in this class at this point, whether it be of European, Japanese, Korean, or domestic origin. From Europe, examples include the $49,800 Audi Q4 e-tron, the $53,050 Mercedes-Benz EQB SUV, the $63,548 Volvo EX40, and the $119,900 Maserati Grecale Folgore. From Japan, examples include the $44,095 Lexus RZ and the $64,500 Acura ZDX. From Korea, we have the $52,350 Genesis GV60, and domestic segment offerings include the $52,895 Cadillac Optiq, the $65,200 Jeep Wagoneer S, the upcoming $45,000 Rivian R2, and, of course, the $37,490 Tesla Model Y if you consider Tesla to be a luxury brand. Lincoln EV Concept Final thoughts Considering how hot the compact premium electric crossover segment is these days, it's almost astounding that Lincoln hasn't yet taken the opportunity to develop a competitor, especially considering the availability of the Ford Mustang Mach-E's commendable platform. Hopefully, Lincoln has something exciting being cooked up behind the scenes because as rival brands cement their crossover EVs' reputations and gradually earn the respect of buyers, Lincoln risks falling behind and introducing a product that's too little, too late. About the Author Cole Attisha View Profile
Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
US business inventories unchanged in April
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - U.S. business inventories were unchanged in April amid a decline in stocks at manufacturers, suggesting inventories could be a drag on gross domestic product in the second quarter. The unchanged inventories reading followed a 0.1% gain in March, the Commerce Department's Census Bureau said on Tuesday. That was in line with economists' expectations. Inventories are a key component of GDP. They increased 2.2% year-on-year. Inventories are the most volatile component of GDP. They surged at a $163.0 billion annualized rate in the first quarter as businesses stocked up ahead of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on imported goods, adding 2.25 percentage points to GDP, the most since the fourth quarter of 2021. But the contribution was eclipsed by a record 4.83 percentage points drag from a sharp widening in the trade deficit because of the flood of imports, resulting in GDP declining at a 0.2% rate last quarter - the first contraction in three years. With the front-running of imports ebbing, the trade gap has narrowed considerably so far in the second quarter, likely positioning GDP for a sharp rebound. Inventories will, however, decide the magnitude of the anticipated surge in GDP. The Atlanta Federal Reserve is currently estimating the economy growing at a 3.8% pace in the second quarter. Retail inventories were unchanged instead of dipping 0.1% as estimated in an advance report published last month. They fell 0.3% in March. Motor vehicle inventories decreased 0.8% rather than 0.9% as previously reported. They dropped 1.5% in March. Retail inventories excluding autos, which go into the calculation of GDP, rose 0.3% as initially reported. Wholesale inventories gained 0.2% in April, while stocks at manufacturers fell 0.1%. Business sales dipped 0.1% after increasing 0.6% in March. At April's sales pace, it would take 1.38 months for businesses to clear shelves, unchanged from March.
