logo
Will the US dollar continue to weaken amid economic uncertainties and rising treasury yields? Claudio Irigoyen answers

Will the US dollar continue to weaken amid economic uncertainties and rising treasury yields? Claudio Irigoyen answers

Time of India3 days ago

The US dollar is expected to remain somewhat soft, but not necessarily experience a sharp disorderly decline, said
Claudio Irigoyen
, head of global economics research at
BofA Global Research
. In a conversation with Himadri Buch, New York-based Irigoyen shared his views on the
US dollar outlook
,
treasury yields
, the fiscal bill and why India continues to stand out in the
emerging markets
pack. Edited excerpts:
The US treasury yields have been rising while the US dollar is struggling to stay steady. Is there a crisis of confidence?
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Villa For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You
Villas in Dubai | Search ads
Learn More
Undo
What we are witnessing is probably a recalibration of expectations in response to a confluence of fiscal and policy uncertainties. The uncertainty is certainly weighing on consumer and business sentiment, prompting a natural wait-and-watch approach among companies, particularly about investment decisions. However, this hesitation, when paired with the broader fiscal gap, is prompting markets to demand a higher risk premium on US assets. That is leading to a sharp rise in treasury yields. At the same time, global investors, who had been heavily overweight on US assets and underweight on European assets, have begun rebalancing their portfolios.
This is contributing to the US dollar's relative weakness against the euro and other currencies. I expect the US dollar to remain somewhat soft, but not necessarily experience a sharp disorderly decline. However, this should not be misconstrued as a threat to the US dollar's reserve currency status.
Do you see money moving out of the US on account of the dollar weakening? Which are the regions that could benefit?
The global investor base had become significantly overweight on US assets, so some moderation was to be expected. Consumption in the US is slowing but not to a degree that signals recession. While the US outlook has softened, it remains more compelling than much of Europe, where structural challenges persist and growth remains tepid. Among emerging markets, there are bright spots. India stands out as a resilient story, benefiting from structural reforms, demographic momentum and robust domestic demand. A few others may attract flows on a relative basis, but we should be realistic — when global growth slows, as we now expect it to, very few markets are immune. In a world, where US and China, the twin engines of global demand, are slowing, capital may rotate selectively, but broad decoupling is unlikely.
Live Events
How are investors looking at India?
Global investors continue to view India as one of the more compelling narratives in an otherwise challenging global environment. While growth expectations have moderated slightly, we still expect India's GDP to expand 6.3% in 2025. Inflation is also trending lower, creating space RBI to cut rates further. Compared to other emerging markets, India's story remains structurally solid.
Your evaluation of the US tax bill?
The fiscal bill is one of the key concerns for the US economy. While the bill may provide some immediate stimulus, it risks entrenching a structural fiscal imbalance at a particularly fragile juncture. Moreover, the risks are that higher rates on the back of a larger deficit abort any stimulative effect on the economy. Preliminary assessments suggest that the approved bill could validate a primary deficit of around 3.5% of GDP and a headline deficit of 6.9%, which will not be sustainable in the absence of robust revenue growth. The dynamics of fiscal policy are now more critical than ever

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself

The Wire

time37 minutes ago

  • The Wire

After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself

Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

MPC's June meeting: In pursuit of growth
MPC's June meeting: In pursuit of growth

Indian Express

time37 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

MPC's June meeting: In pursuit of growth

The June meeting of the RBI's Monetary Policy Committee contained many surprises. As against expectations of a 25 basis point cut in interest rates, the committee lowered the benchmark repo rate by 50 basis points. This brings the cumulative cuts since February to 100 basis points. The repo rate now stands at 5.5 per cent. The rationale for doing so seems straightforward. As RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra said, 'It is imperative to continue to stimulate domestic private consumption and investment through policy levers to step up the growth momentum.' And muted inflation provides the central bank the space to lower interest rates to do so. Inflation had edged lower to 3.16 per cent in April and is likely to stay subdued. A favourable monsoon bodes well for farm output and there are expectations of major commodities such as crude oil witnessing moderation. Forecasts by the RBI and most analysts do indicate softness in prices. As per the central bank's latest forecast, retail inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, is expected to average 3.7 per cent in 2025-26 (3.15 per cent in the first half of the year and 4.15 per cent in the second half). This is lower than its earlier estimate of 4 per cent. Alongside the rate cut, the RBI has also unexpectedly cut the cash reserve ratio by 100 basis points to boost liquidity. As per the central bank, this measure could release primary liquidity of Rs 2.5 lakh crore by December 2025. This will aid in policy transmission. However, at the same meeting, the RBI also unexpectedly announced a change in its policy stance from 'accommodative' to 'neutral', after having shifted it only in the last meeting. In the April policy meeting, the RBI Governor had said that the 'stance of monetary policy signals the intended direction of policy rates going forward'. This sudden decision is being viewed by some as signalling a pause in the rate cut cycle. In his comments, Malhotra did say that 'monetary policy is left with very limited space to support growth'. And though the central bank has retained its estimate of GDP growth for 2025-26 at 6.5 per cent, there does remain considerable uncertainty over the growth momentum. In fact, it has noted that 'spillovers emanating from protracted geopolitical tensions, and global trade and weather-related uncertainties, pose downside risks to growth'. Thus, taken together, the various announcements in the June meeting do suggest that the central bank will probably adopt a wait-and-watch approach over the coming months as it assesses the impact of the measures it has announced so far. Policy action in this period will depend on how the trajectory of growth and inflation evolves.

Musk calls for impeachment of Trump
Musk calls for impeachment of Trump

Hans India

timean hour ago

  • Hans India

Musk calls for impeachment of Trump

Washington: Amid the brewing tensions between US President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the tech billionaire called for the impeachment of the Republican firebrand. He went ahead, saying US Vice President JD Vance should replace Trump in the Oval Office, leaving many shocked. Musk's remarks came in response to an X post demanding the impeachment of the 47th President of the United States. 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon." 'Trump should be impeached, and JD Vance should replace him,' Ian Miles Cheong, a Malaysia-based right-wing writer, said in a post on Thursday afternoon. 'Yes,' Musk said in response to Cheong's post about 20 minutes later. The brief friendship between Musk and Trump nose-dived into an abyss due to a disagreement over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', which pushes for tax cuts and other spending measures. Things escalated quickly after Musk claimed that Trump is part of the Epstein Files, calling it the reason why it is not being fully released. While speaking to reporters at the Oval Office, Trump narrated the downfall of his and Musk's friendship, with many calling it a therapy session rather than a meeting with a foreign leader. He recalled Musk's farewell press conference and mentioned how the billionaire stood next to the President with a black eye. 'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, You want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup,' Trump said. 'But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is.' Interestingly, at that time, Musk was facing reports of drug use during his time as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump also mentioned that he could understand why Musk was upset with some steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the NASA space agency who was supported by the tech tycoon. The POTUS was narrating this saga while sitting in front of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who had no other option but to sit silently through it all. At the heart of the Trump-Musk feud is the 'big, beautiful bill' on tax and spending. The centrepiece of his domestic agenda, it aims to continue tax cuts from his first term and is being touted as the make-or-break bill for Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk slammed the bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday, because it will increase the US deficit. A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to 'kill the bill,' and for an alternative plan that 'doesn't massively grow the deficit.'

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