logo
Reserve Bank on high alert for economic fallout as Donald Trump continues to spook investors

Reserve Bank on high alert for economic fallout as Donald Trump continues to spook investors

US 10-year Treasury bonds have long been considered "risk-free" — until now.
That's put the usually circumspect Reserve Bank of Australia "on alert" for a potentially "cataclysmic" economic event.
Up until now, if you gave the US government money over a 10-year period, you were, essentially, certain to get your money back with interest, on average, 4.25 per cent.
That's known as the yield or interest rate.
The return on this debt security is so stable and secure, many other securities are priced off it, including US mortgage securities.
So, what happens if US bonds, or debt, become riskier, and investors demand a higher return?
The answer is that the global financial system fundamentally changes, and that affects every Australian.
The bond market is now regularly questioning the value and stability of US government debt.
That has not happened in the post-World War II era.
This week's Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill is the latest catalyst to rile bond markets.
In the lead-up to the passage of the bill through the US House of Representatives, the US Treasury Department tried to secure $16 billion of funding through the sale of 20-year bonds.
It found the auction harder than usual to execute due to a lack of demand from investors.
Investors are wary because President Donald Trump's tax bill is projected to add $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the US debt over the next 10 years.
The passing of the bill through the US House of Representatives, by just one vote, saw bond yields soar on Thursday night (Australian time).
"Over the last few years … we've gone through one of the biggest inflation periods and rate hiking cycles in decades," Jamieson Coote Bonds senior portfolio manager James Wilson said.
"Since the 1990s, in all that time, if we think back, there's been a shocking narrative about higher yields.
"In reality, the 10-year US Treasury yield has] traded above 5 per cent only once and that was back in October 2023 and it lasted there for about 5 to 6 hours," he said.
The 10-year US Treasury yield is yet to trade above 5 per cent this year. It's currently above 4.5 per cent.
But when the passage of Trump's bill hit trading terminals across the globe, the 30-year Treasury bond yield touched a level not seen since 2007, of 5.13 per cent.
The catalyst for the latest round of selling was Moody's downgrade of US debt from Aaa to Aa1.
Moody's downgrade said, ever-so-subtly, US debt had become riskier for the lender.
It clearly has.
But how does it affect you?
The problem is that many assets and securities across the globe use US Treasury bonds as a reference rate.
Put simply, the more yields rise for US bonds, the higher the borrowing costs for US businesses and households.
This makes it increasingly difficult for big US corporations to raise funds and grow their profits and may lead to US consumers pulling back on their spending.
"So, if we think about the global cost of capital, the 10-year US Treasury is the benchmark," James Wilson said.
"It gets used for corporate lending, it gets used for sovereign lending — so where the government can borrow money, and it gets used for mortgages."
In short, if US government bond yields continue to rise, it risks pushing the US into recession.
This would affect both Chinese and Australian economic growth, and therefore employment.
This would be compounded if both bond and share markets fell together. Given that shares are valued, in part, against the "risk-free" return that can be obtained from US Treasuries, rising yields tend to put downward pressure on share prices because investors demand a higher return.
"So, especially when both bonds and equities are both falling in price, this is tightening funding conditions," Barrenjoey's interest rate strategist Andrew Lilley said.
"And also [it's going to cost more] if you then go to the debt market while you're paying more.
"That's the way in which this kind of reinforces itself."
He says, "at the margin", higher US bond yields "could push the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate, if long-dated yields keep climbing."
This would be to support Australian businesses borrowing from the US, and the economy more broadly.
"Basically, the higher long-term funding costs are the lower the RBA needs to make [the cash rate].
"That's the simplest way of putting it."
The Reserve Bank is known for its understated commentary.
Not so this week.
It made it clear to everyone that the Monetary Policy Board's decision to cut the cash rate from 4.1 per cent to 3.85 per cent was due in some part to the small but rising risk of a "severe downside scenario".
Governor Michele Bullock was asked if that included a "cataclysmic" financial markets event, and a recession.
"Well, yes," she responded, "we are on the alert for that, and we're paid to worry about that sort of thing."
"And we have been watching that very closely as have other central banks all around the world.
"I'm not putting a strong possibility on a really, really bad outcome, but I think we have to be alert that there might be [one].
"[And] if you look at our scenario analysis, it does suggest that in a really bad outcome there could possibly be an [Australian] recession, yes, but that's in the very extreme," Governor Bullock said.
The Reserve Bank has already shifted its unemployment rate forecast up slightly to peak at 4.3 per cent. It's currently 4.1 per cent.
"Look, without a doubt that the Reserve Bank is quite worried about the global growth story," James Wilson said.
It all comes back to Trump, how his tariff policy will play out, the future credibility of US sovereign debt, and how financial markets ultimately respond to ongoing confusion about the global economic outlook.
"If we are in the middle of a government debt crisis, it's something that's been brewing for 25 years," Barrenjoey's Andrew Lilley said.
"And nothing in the last week has really accelerated that.
"But the attention [on ballooning US government debt] just becomes salient to everybody at the same time and everybody starts saying well these government bond yields need to be higher and it's not because of the news, but it's because of the new attention."
The suggestion is that US government borrowing has been on an unsustainable path now for decades.
Enter Donald Trump, and the true scale of the fiscal crisis is being realised.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Xi hold long-awaited phone call, 'focused almost entirely on trade'
Trump and Xi hold long-awaited phone call, 'focused almost entirely on trade'

ABC News

time40 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Trump and Xi hold long-awaited phone call, 'focused almost entirely on trade'

US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have spoken on the phone and agreed to further talks to hash out differences on tariffs that have roiled the global economy. According to US and Chinese summaries of the phone call, on Thursday, the leaders extended invitations to each other to meet in person. Posting on Truth Social, Mr Trump said the call lasted an hour-and-a-half and "focused almost entirely on trade". The highly anticipated call came amid accusations between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over "rare earths" minerals in a dispute that has threatened to tear up a fragile truce in the trade war between the world's two biggest economies. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, trade deal," Mr Trump's post read. "The call lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both countries. "There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of rare earth products. Our respective teams will be meeting shortly at a location to be determined." Meanwhile, the Chinese government said in a statement published by the state-run Xinhua news agency: "The US side should take a realistic view of the progress made and withdraw the negative measures imposed on China,. '"Xi Jinping welcomed Trump's visit to China again, and Trump expressed his sincere gratitude." The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Mr Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. Since returning to the White House in January, Mr Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives, who say the uncertainty has made it difficult to forecast market conditions. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets continues to disrupt supplies needed by automakers, computer chip manufacturers and military contractors around the world. Beijing sees mineral exports as a source of leverage — halting those exports could put domestic political pressure on the Republican US president if economic growth sags because companies cannot produce mineral-powered products. The 90-day deal to roll back tariffs and trade restrictions is tenuous. Mr Trump has accused China of violating the agreement and has ordered curbs on chip design software and other shipments to China, while also doubling steel and aluminium tariffs to 50 per cent. Beijing rejected the claim and threatened counter-measures. In recent years, the United States has identified China as its top geopolitical rival and the only country in the world able to challenge the US economically and militarily. Despite this and repeated trade threats and tariff announcements, Mr Trump has spoken admiringly of Mr Xi, including of the Chinese leader's toughness and ability to stay in power without the term limits imposed on US presidents. Mr Trump has long pushed for a call or a meeting with Mr Xi, but China has rejected that as not in keeping with its traditional approach of working out agreement details before the leaders talk. The US president and his aides see leader-to-leader talks as vital to sort through log-jams that have vexed lower-level officials in difficult negotiations. Thursday's call came at Mr Trump's request, China said. It's not clear when the two men last spoke. Both sides said they spoke on January 17, days before Mr Trump's inauguration and Mr Trump has repeatedly said that he had spoken to Mr Xi since taking office on January 20. He has declined to say when any call took place or to give details of their conversation. China had said that the two leaders had not had any recent phone calls. The talks are being closely watched by investors worried that a chaotic trade war could cut into corporate earnings and disrupt supply chains in the key months before the Christmas holiday shopping season. Mr Trump's tariffs are also the subject of ongoing litigation in US courts. Mr Trump has met Mr Xi on several occasions, including exchange visits in 2017, but they have not met face to face since 2019 talks in Osaka, Japan. Mr Xi last travelled to the US in November 2023, for a summit with then-President Joe Biden, resulting in agreements to resume military-to-military communications and curb fentanyl production. Reuters/ABC

What the US warning on China means for our defence
What the US warning on China means for our defence

ABC News

timean hour ago

  • ABC News

What the US warning on China means for our defence

Sam Hawley: Donald Trump is demanding America's allies massively boost defence spending. His Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be imminent. And one of our closest allies, the UK, is rushing to invest billions of dollars in its defence force to make sure it's war-ready. Today Peter Dean from the United States Studies Centre at Sydney Uni, on what that all means for us, and whether our defence force is fit for purpose. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Peter, we better start with these comments from the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, at the Shangri-La meeting in Singapore. He has warned that China poses an imminent threat to Taiwan. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: To be clear, any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. We hope not, but it certainly could be. Peter Dean: Yes, so Secretary Hegseth I believe is referring to here is comments made by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and by other members of the Chinese leadership, where Xi Jinping in particular has said that the Chinese military are prepared to use force and to achieve specific capability goals by the dates of 2027 and the dates of 2029. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: We know, it's public, that Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. The PLA is building the military needed to do it, training for it every day and rehearsing for the real deal. Peter Dean: This is about requirements that Xi Jinping has set for the development of the People's Liberation Army and its subsequent Navy and Air Forces as well. So this is about its development of specific capabilities, but also its command and control systems, its ability to conduct exercises and its ability to conduct the types of high-end warfare to undertake, for instance, a strike across the Taiwan Strait. Sam Hawley: So what has China then, Peter, had to say about all of this, that it will imminently attack Taiwan? Peter Dean: Well, I mean, what Xi Jinping has said is that he reserves the right to use force to solve what the Chinese argue is a domestic political issue. They, of course, refer to Taiwan as a rogue state. They don't recognise the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have. And of course, they don't recognise the will of the Taiwanese people, who overwhelmingly identify now as Taiwanese and do not wish to be reunited with the mainland. Sam Hawley: Well, China's foreign ministry does say that the US is overstepping its bounds and stoking flames in the South China Sea in response to those comments from Pete Hegseth. Sam Hawley: Let's consider, Peter, now then China's military build-up and defence spending by Western nations. Now, our Defence Minister, Richard Marles, he also addressed that conference in Singapore, noting that Australia can't rely on the US alone to counter China's military strength in the Indo-Pacific. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: There is no effective balance of power in this region absent the United States, but we cannot leave it to the United States alone. Other countries must contribute to this balance as well, and that includes Australia. Sam Hawley: And he also pointed to that huge military build-up by China. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build-up in a conventional sense by any country since the end of the Second World War. Peter Dean: So I think what Richard Marles is putting out there is basically reaffirming Australia's strategic approach and that this is not just something that we can rely upon the US to do on its own. It doesn't have the requisite levels of capability to respond to China in this way. It must be by a community of nations within the Indo-Pacific. And as a status quo power, Australia and the United States and others are attempting to maintain the free and open Indo-Pacific that we currently have and stop any state from being able to dominate that region and impose a sort of hegemonic control over the Indo-Pacific. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Donald Trump, of course, and Pete Hegseth have urged US allies in the region to increase their defence spending. They want Australia to raise our contribution to 3.5% of GDP, but let's face it, we are nowhere near that at the moment, and that would cost a lot of money, wouldn't it? Peter Dean: Oh, yes. You're looking in the realm of somewhere around $41 billion additional to go into defence spending to raise that level of money. I think what's really key here is GDP as a measure of defence spending has become a bit shorthand in recent decades for sort of commitment towards defending your own country or contributing to collective defence. There is no magical number that the Australian government can get to that would make our country safe. And if you remember way back when Tony Abbott was vying to become Prime Minister, when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were running the country, then there was a whole debate about achieving 2% of GDP, which we currently have. Now the debate has moved on to is it 3 or 3.5% of GDP. But of course, as I said, most importantly, this number is being used internationally as a proxy by both the Trump administration, but by other states around the world, relative to an individual state's commitment to both its own sovereignty and security, but also the collective defence of the region it lives in. Sam Hawley: Yeah, well, Anthony Albanese says we will determine our own defence policy. And he notes that Australia is on track to lift defence spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2033-34. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: We're provided an additional $10 billion of investment into defence over the forward estimates. We're continuing to lift up. That adds up to 2.3% of GDP. Sam Hawley: A long way, as we said, to 3.5% that the Americans actually want. But nations like the UK are now moving more quickly, aren't they, Peter? The British leader, Keir Starmer, he has promised to increase annual spending to 3% up from 2.3%. They seem pretty worried in the United Kingdom. Peter Dean: Yeah, look, the UK government has made a firm commitment to move to 2.5% of GDP in the next couple of years and 3% of GDP in the near future. This is off the back of their strategic defence review. News report: Under the AUKUS security pact with Australia and America, 12 new nuclear-powered submarines will be built to protect Britain's waters. Six new munitions factories will be constructed across the UK and thousands of long-range weapons will be manufactured on British soil. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready. Peter Dean: Particularly in response not only to the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia, but of course, most recently from the changing posture of the United States under President Donald Trump. And what we can see there is Keir Starmer, along with Emmanuel Macron from France and other key leaders in Europe, are working assiduously hard to provide for greater defence of Europe based on European needs. Sam Hawley: Well, the British leader Keir Starmer says the UK must be ready to fight a war. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come. Sam Hawley: What weaponry does he want? Peter Dean: Well, what Keir Starmer has announced is that he wishes the UK military to field a force of at least 7,000 long-range missiles. Now, if you look at what's happening in the war in Ukraine in particular, but also the war in Gaza and the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, what you've seen is the explosion of the use of long-range precision fires in each of those conflicts. Sam Hawley: Well, the UK plans to pay for all of this by, in part, cutting international aid, just to note that. What's it really worried about then? Is it just Russia or does China come into this as well for the UK? Peter Dean: Look, I think it's both. I mean, what we're seeing is a fundamental changing of the strategic order of the world that we live in. The world is becoming much more dangerous. As our own government has said, we live in the most perilous times. We're seeing the rise of revisionist powers, in particular China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. And of course, the Russian illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine has been really at the centre of this. This is the first time since the end of the Second World War that Europe has seen a large major power conduct a full-on invasion of another state in Europe. That is an ongoing war, as we see today. And it looks like President Trump's efforts at brokering a peace deal are faltering at the moment. So that war is going to continue on. Sam Hawley: And the concern is, of course, that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he has other plans after that, right? Peter Dean: Well, exactly. And Putin, again, I think we need to actually believe what the rhetoric is coming out of some of these leaders from some of these states. I mean, Putin made it very clear in the lead up to the war in Ukraine that he believes that Ukraine shouldn't exist as a sovereign state, that it belongs as a part of a revitalised Russian empire that he sees. And he committed similar acts in states such as Georgia and other parts. And of course, in Ukraine itself, where he conducted limited incursions. And of course, what we see in the South China Sea and the East China Sea is ambient claims from China that are not recognised by international courts or international law. And the Chinese consistently using coercion military force against the Philippines, against Vietnam, against Indonesia, against Taiwan and against Japan in various parts of those seas to push their own sovereign claims, even though they are not recognised in the international community and not recognised by those other states. And of course, we add in the layer here of the cyber domain and cyber dimension, that while we're largely in strategic competition with these states across the globe in areas such as cyber, we're in day to day limited conflict as we receive an onslaught of assaults in the cyber domain from states such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Peter, as you say, we're living in a less stable world. But what do you think is our approach when it comes to defence, the right one? Are we war ready like the UK wants to be? And if we're not, do we actually need to be? Peter Dean: I think we're definitely not war ready at the moment. If you look at the Defence Strategic Review in 2023, it made it really clear that the ADF was not fit for purpose. The government is in the process of lifting defence spending to try and achieve some of the outcomes that were set. We don't have 10 years anymore to wait to prepare our forces. Now, what's been happening in Australia has been a long discussion in recent years over the requisite levels of defence spending. This was happening well before Donald Trump was elected for his second term of office. And if you look back to last year, you'll see some very eminent commentators and experienced people in this debate, people such as Sir Angus Houston, the former chief of Defence Force and one of the two independent leads of the Defence Strategic Review, former Secretary Dennis Richardson, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo, have all called for increasing of defence spending to around about three percentage of GDP on defence. So this is a national debate that's been happening for quite a while. And now it's become much more direct, given that our US alliance partner has directly made the request to Australia to increase defence spending. Sam Hawley: All right, and what about this imminent threat that Pete Hegseth talks about that China will invade Taiwan soon? If that was the case, and we're not saying that it is, of course, but what would that mean for us? Peter Dean: This would mean you have the two largest economies in the world going toe to toe militarily with each other across the Taiwan Strait and in East Asia. It would always inevitably suck in states like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. And in all the estimates we have, not only would it be the extreme loss of life that would occur by the states involved in the conflict, you would spiral the global economy into a major recession, if not depression. You're talking about the most dynamic economic region in the world being consumed by conflict. And we will be putting ourselves in the risk not just of a global economic recession and a major war, but of course, we're talking about a war here between major nuclear armed states. The government's not wrong when it says we live in this really dangerous strategic age. And of course, Donald Trump is not helping that, right? He's not helping stability and security. He's, you know, in many senses, creating a source of additional instability in the global strategic order. Sam Hawley: Peter Dean is the director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store