Dollar heads for weekly drop ahead of key interest rate decisions
Both the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan are expected to hold rates steady at next week's policy meetings, but traders are focusing on the subsequent comments to gauge the timing of the next move.
Politics is a factor for both central banks as well, most dramatically in the U.S., where President Donald Trump once again pressed the case for lower interest rates on Thursday, locking horns with Fed Chair Jerome Powell during a visit to the central bank.
The dollar managed to rebound a touch against the euro late on Thursday, however, after Trump said he did not intend to fire Powell, as he has frequently suggested he could.
"The market relief was based on the fact that Trump refrained from calling for Powell to go, although that was based on Trump's view that Powell would 'do the right thing'," said Derek Halpenny, head of EMEA research at MUFG.
He added, however, that "the theme of Fed independence being undermined by the White House will unlikely go away and remains a downside risk for the dollar".
Falls against euro and yen leave the dollar index, which measures the dollar against six other currencies, at 97.45, on track for a drop of 1% this week, its weakest performance in a month. It was up 0.15% on the day on Friday.
Meanwhile, in Japan, though the trade deal signed with the U.S. this week could make it easier for the BOJ to continue rate hikes, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's coalition's bruising loss in upper house elections on Sunday complicates life for the BOJ.
Prospects of big spending could keep Japanese inflation elevated, suggesting swifter tightening, while potentially prolonged political paralysis and a global trade war provide compelling reasons to go slow on rate hikes.
The yen stood at 147.20 to the dollar, on course for a weekly gain of around 1%, although it was weaker on the day as investors weighed the monetary policy outlook and Ishiba's fate.
The euro was up a whisker at $1.1756 and also set for a weekly gain of around 1%.
The common currency took some support Thursday from the European Central Bank meeting.
Policymakers left the policy rate at 2%, as expected, but the bank's relatively upbeat assessment of the economic outlook and signs that an EU-U.S. trade deal is near caused investors to reassess previous assumptions of one more rate cut this year.
"While a renewed deterioration on the trade front, or a more marked near-term fall in inflation, could still prompt the ECB to cut again, there appears to be a strong bias to keep policy on hold," said Paul Hollingsworth, head of developed markets economics, BNP Paribas Markets 360. "We think the (easing) cycle is over."
In contrast, soft British data is supporting expectations of more Bank of England rate cuts, and causing euro zone bond yields to rise faster than British ones, supporting the euro against the pound.
The euro was up 0.23% on sterling at 87.26 pence on Friday, its highest since April, building on a 0.44% gain the previous day.
Data on Friday showed British retail sales data for June slightly below analysts' expectations, albeit rebounding from a sharp drop in May, after figures on Thursday showed business activitygrew only weakly in July and employers cut jobs at the fastest pace in five months.
The pound was down 0.3% on the dollar at $1.3471.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's New EU Trade Deal Labeled 'Bad News' By Economists As Dow Futures Spike Over 150 Points
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with the European Union is drawing sharp criticism from several leading economists, who argue that it will disproportionately harm American consumers and businesses. What Happened: Following Trump's announcement on Sunday, economist Peter Schiff posted on X, with a blunt assessment of the deal, saying that 'Americans lose again.' Schiff says that under the new terms, 'we will pay 15% tariffs to buy most European goods, but 50% tariffs to buy European steel, aluminum, or copper, driving up material costs for many U.S industries.' Meanwhile, he notes, 'Europeans won't pay any tariffs on most U.S. imports.' Trending: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it—University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers echoed similar concerns, while highlighting the folly of imposing trade barriers. 'These trade deals are all underwhelming for one simple reason,' he says, and that's because trade barriers and tariffs have been tiny for decades. 'When tariffs are 1-2%, there's not much to gain from a trade war,' he says, while warning that a 15% tax on imports can, however, 'do a lot of harm to Americans.' Danish economist Lars Christensen pushed back against the narrative that this was a bad deal for the EU and a win for Trump. He says, 'the deal lower[s] EU tariffs,' which he believes is 'good news for European consumers,' while adding that it is bad for the U.S. economy. Christensen agrees with both Schiff and Wolfers, saying that 'the biggest losers are US consumers,' while comparing the deal to 'shooting yourself in the foot' for the U.S., which he says 'is never a victory.'Why It Matters: The announcement of the trade deal with the EU on Sunday brought an end to months of trade and tariff-related uncertainties with the U.S.'s biggest trading partner. Besides the 15% tariff on imports from the region, the EU will also be buying $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, while investing $600 billion in the United States. Additionally, nations in the bloc will be purchasing weapons from the U.S., although no amount was mentioned. Meanwhile, top officials from the U.S. and China are set to meet in Stockholm to address pressing trade issues, with Trump saying last week that 'We have the confines of a deal with China.' U.S. stock futures are up pre-market, following news of the trade deal over the weekend. The S&P 500 Futures are up 0.37%, trading at 6,449.00, and Nasdaq Futures at 23,538.25, up 0.50%, followed by Dow Futures, which rose over 150 points, up 0.33%, trading at 45,234.00, at the time of writing. Photo Courtesy: Savvapanf Photo on Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? This article Trump's New EU Trade Deal Labeled 'Bad News' By Economists As Dow Futures Spike Over 150 Points originally appeared on
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Extension of US-China tariff pause ‘likely' – South Korea eager to get trade pact signed, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick signaled Monday that the Trump administration appears 'likely' to extend a pause on tariffs with China as trade negotiations continue, while the South Koreans 'really, really want to get a deal done.' 'They're talking right now, but the decision-maker, of course, is President Trump,' Lutnick said of the state of negotiations with China, during an interview with Fox News 'Special Report' host Bret Baier. 3 Lutnick suggested Monday that another 90-day pause on China tariffs seems likely. Ron Sachs/CNP / Washington and Beijing struck a deal in May to pause their raging trade war for 90 days, with the US agreeing to drop its 145% tariff rate on most Chinese goods to 30%, while China lowered its rate to 10% from 125%. The truce is set to expire on Aug. 12. Asked about reports that both sides were seeking to extend the pause, Lutnick indicated that while it appears 'likely,' the decision ultimately rests on Trump. 'I'm sure the people who are speaking with China are going to go discuss with President Trump how he wants to play it,' the commerce secretary said. 'He's got an excellent relationship with [Chinese President Xi Jinping], and I think we'll leave that to Donald Trump to decide.' 'Is that a likely outcome? Sure, it seems that way, but let's leave it to President Trump to decide,' Lutnick said of the potential for another 90-day pause. Lutnick noted that negotiations over the social media app TikTok are 'separate but adjacent' to a potential China deal. TikTok's China-based parent company, ByteDance, has a Sept. 17 deadline to divest the platform's American assets or face a US ban. 3 Lutnick touted Trump's 'excellent relationship' with Xi. REUTERS 3 Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs go into effect on Aug. 1. REUTERS Meanwhile, South Korea is eager to reach an agreement on a trade deal before Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs go into effect on Aug. 1. 'The South Koreans flew to Scotland to meet with me and [US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer] after dinner,' Lutnick said of his late-night, weekend discussions with South Korea. 'I mean, think about how much they really, really want to get a deal done,' Lutnick added. The Trump Cabinet official argued that the president 'is in the driver's seat now' when it comes to trade deals, and that he expects the commander in chief to 'consider a few deals' before Aug. 1, but that he's focused on deciding what the tariff rates will be for countries that haven't reached agreements with the US. So far, Trump has cut preliminary tariff deals with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and the European Union. The president told reporters on Sunday that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline.
Miami Herald
28 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senators demand answers from Trump administration on ‘contradictory' Haiti policies
A group of Democratic senators are calling out the Trump administration on what they call its 'increasingly inconsistent' policies toward Haiti, demanding answers on both its stance on immigration and the presence of U.S. private military contractors in the country helping the government go after armed gangs with weaponized drones. A letter signed by nine senators, including Massachusetts' Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is addressed to both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The two have until Aug. 15 to answer lawmakers' questions on how the administration can include Haiti on a list of banned countries under a travel ban, yet deem the Caribbean nation safe enough to end Temporary Protected Status for its nationals living in the United States. 'How does the Administration reconcile the security justification for Haiti's inclusion in the travel ban with its simultaneous assessment that Haiti's TPS status should be terminated because it is safe for Haitians to return home?' the senators ask. The letter comes on the heels of a visit by Haitian Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé earlier this month to Washington and ahead of a scheduled leadership change on Haiti's Transitional Presidential Council next week. It also comes amid a lack of clarity on the part of the Trump administration on what its policy regarding Haiti will be. Under the previous administration, the United States supported a Kenya-led Multinational Security Support mission to help the Haiti National Police take on the gangs. The Trump administration, while thanking the Kenyans for stepping forward, has said it cannot continue to shell out the lion's share of the cost for the mission, which officials now say has cost the United States nearly $1 billion. This has left the mission and Kenya uncertain about what will happen when the United Nations' one-year mandate comes up for renewal in September. Senators mention the Kenya-led mission in their letter, but their main concern is about a private military contractor the Haitian government has hired to help fight gangs. Last month, Fritz Alphonse Jean, the head of Haiti's Transitional Presidential panel acknowledged that the government had signed a contract with foreign contractors. But Jean declined to provide details about the deal with Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide, which senators are now demanding from Rubio. 'These reports raise urgent questions about compliance with U.S. arms export laws, the risk of U.S. complicity in gross violations of human rights, and fundamental contradictions in current U.S. foreign and immigration policy toward Haiti,' the letter, spearheaded by Sens. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Raphael Warnock of Georgia says. They describe Prince's armed operations as the 'unchecked deployment of a U.S. private military contractor with a troubling history.' Prince was brought on earlier this year to assist Haiti with a gang task force operating out of the prime minister's office. The force has been using weaponized drones and is expected to soon beef up operations, raising concerns about non-gang casualties in heavily urban Port-au-Prince. The lack of transparency around the operation doesn't sit well with them, senators say. Public sources, they say, confirm that arms have already been shipped to Haiti for use by the private military contractors, and 'such operations risk undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of the U.N.-sanctioned and U.S.-supported Multinational Security Support mission, which is intended to stabilize Haiti through a transparent, accountable multilateral framework.' Blackwater was implicated in a 2007 massacre of civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad, Iraq, where 17 Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed while scores of others were wounded. The incident became a symbol of the dangers posed by mercenaries. Though Blackwater is no longer in existence, neither Prince nor Haitian authorities have publicly provided the name of the company his reported 150 security contractors are operating under in the country. The subject has become thorny for many reasons. To begin, Haiti is under a U.S. arms embargo, which means that U.S. nationals are prohibited from exporting defense items or providing military services to foreign entities without prior authorization from the State Department of State, which until recently had been reluctant about greenlighting military contractors in Haiti. 'In this case, weaponized drone operations, arms shipments, and deployments of U.S. mercenaries unquestionably constitute activities requiring export licenses,' the letter states. There have been questions not just about the private military private contractors' presence in respect to U.S. laws, but also in respect to a global arms embargo the U.N. Security Council has also imposed on Haiti in hopes of controlling weapons flows into the country. U.N. experts have said that the existence of the contractors are a gray area and the global entity has been cautious about publicly criticizing them due to the building frustrations among Haitians with gangs that have already killed more than 4,000 people this year and now control up to 90% of the capital. 'What accounts for the contradiction between State's support for armed stabilization operations in Haiti and DHS's determination that TPS protections should end?' the letter asks. Senators also want to know whether expert licenses have been given to any private military contractors in Haiti, and whether the police units involved in the drone operations been vetted. 'The Haitian national police, which reportedly receives U.S. assistance, has a well-documented record of human rights violations and abuses, including credible allegations of extrajudicial killings,' the letter said. If police units units are operating in coordination with private military contractor, 'that may expose U.S. security assistance' to violations put in place by Congress, the lawmakers note. The senators also raise concerns about what they are calling the contradictory and inconsistent U.S. policy in regards to immigration. According to recent U.N. briefings, more than 1.3 million people have been displaced from their homes in Haiti; more than half are children. Nearly half the population faces crisis-level hunger, and 42% of health facilities in Port-au-Prince are not functional, the letter emphasizes. Given this reality, the lawmakers say they need clarification on the decision to terminate immigration protections for Haitians who are temporarily in the U.S. and Haiti's inclusion in a sweeping travel ban targeting countries deemed security threats. 'These two actions are contradictory: The Administration claims Haiti is safe enough to deport Haitians back to, but, at the same time, is so dangerous to block Haitians from seeking refuge in the U.S. It cannot be both,' the lawmakers wrote.
