ECB leaves interest rates unchanged as it assesses impact of Trump tariffs
'The economy has so far proven resilient overall in a challenging global environment,' said bank president Christine Lagarde at her post-decision news conference.
'At the same time, the environment remains exceptionally uncertain, especially because of trade disputes.'
The ECB has already cut rates eight times since June of last year and Ms Lagarde said after the last policy meeting on June 5 that the central bank is 'getting to the end of a monetary policy cycle'.
The monetary authority for the 20 countries that use the euro currency has been lowering rates to support growth after raising them in 2022-2023 to snuff out inflation caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the rebound after the pandemic.
With the benchmark rate now at 2%, down from a record high of 4%, analysts think there could be one more rate cut coming, but only in September.
The reason, say analysts: The ECB's policymakers simply do not know the outcome of talks between the EU's executive commission and the Trump administration.
Mr Trump first set a 20% tariff for EU goods, then threatened 50% after expressing displeasure at the pace of talks, then sent the EU a letter informing officials of a potential 30% tariff.
EU officials earlier held out hope of winning at least the 10% baseline that applies to almost all trade partners, and analysts think the actual rate may be lower than Mr Trump's tariff threats. The talks are up against an August 1 deadline, but earlier deadlines have slipped as the sides kept talking.
With signs of economic activity holding up reasonably well, the ECB can afford to wait and see what the outcome of trade negotiations will be.
Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods would mean sellers would have to either increase prices for US consumers – risking loss of market share – or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits.
In either case, higher tariffs would hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy, which would strengthen the case for another rate cut in September.
The ECB's rate cuts have helped support economic activity by lowering the cost of credit for consumers and businesses to purchase goods. Higher rates have the opposite effect and are used to cool off inflation by reducing demand for goods.
Growth in the eurozone was relatively strong at 0.6% in the first quarter – though that was partly thanks to rushed shipments of goods trying to beat the tariffs.
Inflation has fallen from double digits in late 2022 to 2% in June, in line with the ECB's target. A stronger euro, which lowers the price of imports, and softer global prices for oil have helped keep inflation moderate.
The stronger euro, up 13% this year at 1.17 dollars, has attracted attention as a potential damper on growth and ECB vice president Luis de Guindos said any rapid moves over 1.20 dollars could be 'much more complicated'.
But the ECB typically does not target the exchange rate, and the euro's rise is considered to be less the result of Europe's strength and more the result of a weaker dollar weighed down by investor uncertainty about the future path of inflation, growth and government debt in the US.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
Risk boost from US-EU trade deal of little help to rupee as outflows persist
MUMBAI, July 28 (Reuters) - The Indian rupee is expected to open little changed on Monday, with any support from improved risk sentiment after a trade deal between the European Union (EU) and the U.S. likely to be capped by persistent foreign portfolio outflows. The 1-month non-deliverable forward indicated the rupee will open in the 86.48-86.51 range versus the U.S. dollar, compared with Friday's close of 86.5150. Global stocks rose and the euro firmed after the weekend deal between the EU and the U.S., which set the import tariff on most EU goods at 15% - half the rate initially threatened. Asian currencies traded mixed, while the dollar index was at 97.6. The U.S.-EU trade pact is expected to reduce trade-related uncertainty in a week dominated by central bank policy decisions and the U.S.'s August 1 deadline for trading partners to strike deals. Washington has already signed similar framework accords with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam. Meanwhile, India's trade minister told Reuters last week that the country is also hopeful of reaching a deal with the U.S. that includes "special and preferred treatment". Alongside these, monetary policy meetings in the U.S., Japan and other economies will be in focus this week. While the Federal Reserve is widely expected to keep rates unchanged, ANZ said it will watch for "tweaks to the language" in the Fed's statement and Chair Jerome Powell's comments for clues on possible rate cuts in September. Over the week, traders expect the rupee to hover between 86.20 and 86.80-86.90, with a slight depreciation bias given the persistent outflows from local stocks. Foreign investors have net sold Indian equities worth about $750 million so far in July, reversing three months of inflows. KEY INDICATORS: ** One-month non-deliverable rupee forward at 86.63; onshore one-month forward premium at 13.25 paise ** Dollar index at 97.67 ** Brent crude futures up 0.4% at $68.7 per barrel ** Ten-year U.S. note yield at 4.39% ** As per NSDL data, foreign investors sold a net $231.1mln worth of Indian shares on July 24 ** NSDL data shows foreign investors sold a net $55.2mln worth of Indian bonds on July 24
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Eroding protections for public lands
'Public lands have tremendous bipartisan support in the state,' Lawson said in reference to her home state of Montana, about 30% of which is federal public land. 'Everybody from the wilderness advocates who want public land preserved in perpetuity to the hunters and anglers to the OHV (off-highway vehicle) Jeepers. Everybody loves public lands. Access to those public lands is so integral to daily life.' Deep budget and staffing cuts to the U.S. National Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management could affect their ability to effectively care for these lands at a time when they are experiencing record numbers of visitors. Last year, national parks welcomed more than 332 million visitors, a new high, up 6 million from 2023. The National Park System has lost 24% of its permanent staff since Trump returned to office in January, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, a watchdog advocacy group. The association attributes much of the drop to job cuts and staff taking buyouts offered by Trump's administration. And, the National Forest Service cut about 10% of its workforce as part of the administration's campaign to reduce spending. This legislation that Trump signed also rescinded funding for conservation and climate resilience projects in national parks and Bureau of Land Management land that was provided in a law signed by his predecessor Joe Biden called the Inflation Reduction Act. 'Unleashing America's economic potential goes hand-in-hand with preserving our public lands, as years of mismanagement, regulatory overreach and neglect of routine management have hindered outdoor recreation opportunities,' the White House said in a statement to Reuters. Leshy said budget and staffing cuts could be a strategic move by U.S. officials who have long wanted to dispose of public land, pointing to Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and a force behind the Project 2025 initiative that laid out a conservative blueprint for reshaping the U.S. government. 'I think they've decided, looking at the opinion polls, that it's not popular and it's not wise to press for outright selling off or disposing, transferring federal lands. So what they're doing instead is hollowing out their management, is slashing their budgets and slashing the personnel,' Leshy said. 'The aim is, 'Let's make federal management so bad and so dismal that it will change public opinion,'' Leshy added.
