At Sintra getaway, central bankers mull threats to their domain
Recent editions of the European Central Bank's getaway event have been dominated by worries about high inflation - no surprise after central banks whose core task is price stability were mostly late to react to a surge in prices in 2021-22.
But this year's discussions - from choreographed panel debates among central bank chiefs to late-night exchanges at the hotel bar - were centred on more existential threats to the monetary system as we know it.
U.S. President Donald Trump's frequent, often personal, attacks on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell - and hints about his replacement - were the most obvious example.
Any suggestion that the Fed might bow to pressure from the White House to lower borrowing costs would hurt its reputation for independence - for decades a core tenet of central banking seen crucial for keeping policy credible and investors on-side.
Two in three reserve managers at central banks polled by UBS Asset Management said in a survey released this week they feared that Federal Reserve independence was at risk.
Powell batted away such worries during a panel discussion, saying he and colleagues were focused "100%" on low inflation and full employment "in a completely non-political way".
He drew applause from an audience of economists and central bankers, with ECB President Christine Lagarde saying she and her peers would do the same if they were in Powell's shoes.
But confidence has already been shaken.
Central bankers were openly fretting about a topic that was taboo only a few months ago: will the Fed, even under a Trump-picked chair next year, continue to lend dollars to foreign banks when they are in trouble?
Commercial lenders outside the United States have been able to borrow dollars even when they are shut out of financial markets via swap lines between the Fed and some other central banks created during the 2008 global financial crisis.
These facilities underpin the $25-trillion market for dollar credit outside the United States and also serve a domestic purpose: by helping to douse financial fires abroad, they effectively prevent them from spreading to Wall Street.
The Trump administration's retreat from international coordination has raised some concerns about these lifelines, even though there has been no action so far to suggest they will be cut.
Governor Rhee Chang-yong said his Bank of Korea, which unlike the ECB and other major central banks does not have a standing arrangement with the Fed and relies on temporary help when needed, might have to fend for itself in the future.
"If there's no global dollars shortage, our understanding is that the Fed cannot extend the swap-line in that case and we have to self-defense ourselves," Rhee said at the conference.
His Japanese peer Kazuo Ueda emphasised the importance of regional swap lines, such as the Chiang Mai Initiative of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as an additional safety net.
One European central banker speaking on condition of anonymity said pooling dollar and gold reserves across countries could also serve as a stopgap, although it was unlikely to be sufficient to plug major shortfalls.
These fears fed a broader debate about the dollar losing its status as the world's currency of choice for saving and trading, with a lack of viable alternatives in sight.
Seeking to reassure colleagues, Powell said the Fed retained its legal authorities and was "still prepared to use" them.
Stablecoins - crypto tokens pegged to an official currency - were a new entry among Sintra's topics of debate, even keeping some central bankers up late in informal discussions at the conference venue's bar.
While some recognised stablecoins' efficiency as a means of exchange, their proliferation in recent years - and especially since Trump threw his weight behind them as a way to extend the dollar's global reach - was seen as alarming by many central bankers.
They fear stablecoins may be prone to "runs" if investors suspect the issuing company does not have enough currency to back outstanding tokens, as happened to TerraUSD in 2022.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said stablecoins must show they can "hold their nominal value" if they are to be treated as a legitimate means of exchange.
The ECB's Lagarde went as far as saying stablecoins amount to "a privatisation of money", taking the supply of currency away from central bankers and undermining their capacity to conduct monetary policy.
Rhee was even more specific, saying stablecoins denominated in South Korean won - one of President Lee Jae Myung's election pledges - could undermine the domestic currency by making it easier to switch to dollars.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Grad student loans could soon be capped. Here's what that could mean for you
The House of Representatives moving the GOP 's 'Big Beautiful Bill' closer to President Donald Trump's signing brings graduate students nearer to facing unprecedented limits on funding higher education. While critics argue that the spending bill would disproportionately block marginalized communities from pursuing advanced degrees, Republicans say the limits will help control college costs by reducing incentives for schools to raise tuition. Starting next summer, the bill will affect borrowers taking out loans and those stuck on the Biden -era SAVE plan, potentially causing monthly payments to increase by hundreds of dollars, according to the Student Borrower Protection Center. What are the proposals? The 'big beautiful bill' proposes significant changes to how graduate and professional students finance their education. One of the biggest changes would be the elimination of the federal Grad PLUS loan program beginning in July 2026, which currently allows students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance for graduate programs. In its place, the bill raises annual and lifetime limits on federal Stafford loans, but these new caps may not be enough to cover further education for students. Graduate students would be limited to borrowing up to $20,500 annually, with a lifetime cap of $100,000, while professional students, such as those in medical or law school, could borrow up to $50,000 per year, with a $200,000 lifetime maximum. What impacts could the proposals have? The proposal could force students to rely on private loans with less favorable terms, delay or abandon plans for graduate education, or choose less expensive programs that may not align with their career goals. Experts warn this could worsen shortages in high-demand fields, particularly in rural healthcare, where access to graduate-trained professionals is already limited. What's happened to student loans so far? Recent student loan policy changes include the restart of loan payments following a pandemic pause, modifications to income-driven repayment plans, and ongoing legal battles over loan forgiveness programs. In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration's plan to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans, and a court order continues to block its new income-driven repayment program. Meanwhile, the US Department of Education has resumed collecting on defaulted federal student loans. What's next? White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Thursday that President Trump is scheduled to sign the "big, beautiful bill" on Friday at 5 p.m. EST.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Explainer: Key healthcare provisions in Trump's tax bill
July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump's tax-cut and spending bill on Thursday, which contains sweeping changes to the government's Medicaid healthcare program covering about 71 million low-income Americans. Nearly 12 million of those enrollees could lose their insurance under the program if the bill is implemented and those changes become law, according to a June estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Below is a breakdown of some of the key healthcare provisions in the current draft of the bill and how they could affect enrollees and businesses: Frequent eligibility checks U.S. states would be required to conduct eligibility checks at least twice a year for the roughly 20 million Medicaid enrollees covered through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion, rather than yearly. These "expansion enrollees" are people with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which roughly translates to $21,597 a year in 2025. The new bill also includes provisions to prevent Medicaid beneficiaries from simultaneously enrolling in more than one state Medicaid program. Mandatory work requirements Medicaid enrollees are not currently subject to work requirements under the law, but the new bill proposes that adults aged 19-64, with a few exceptions, complete a minimum of 80 hours of work or community engagement activities a month or be enrolled in an education program at least half time to qualify for the program. The requirements will apply from January 1, 2027. Scale back on provider taxes Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal and state governments. States help cover their share by collecting taxes from hospitals and other healthcare providers, known as provider taxes. The bill would tighten federal oversight of those taxes by replacing the current 6% cap on provider tax revenue with a new limit that is indexed to inflation. It would also restrict how states structure the taxes, including stricter rules on what kinds of services can be taxed and how payments are distributed across providers. While the bill does not reduce provider tax rates directly, the changes could make it harder for states to use these taxes to draw additional federal Medicaid funds. The final version of the bill also sets up a $50 billion rural hospital fund to help rural providers who have argued that the provider tax changes would force them to scale back service. Tightening verification Medicaid is currently open to some immigrants who are lawfully present in the country, though many - including green card holders - must wait five years before they can sign up. The new bill removes Medicaid eligibility for some non-citizens, including refugees, certain abused spouses and children, and people granted asylum. Increased cost-sharing requirements The current law gives states an option to impose nominal co-payments on individuals with incomes exceeding 150% of the federal poverty level. The new bill requires states to impose mandatory cost-sharing on expansion enrollees earning more than 100% of the federal poverty level. Co-pays can reach up to $35 per service, with some exemptions, including emergency care and preventive services. The bill could put a strain on the finances of insurers and hospitals, analysts said. Spencer Perlman, director of healthcare research at Veda Partners, estimated Medicaid enrollment could drop by 5 million compared to current projections. Since Medicaid insurers are paid a fixed amount per member, the decline could directly hit revenues of insurers like Elevance Health (ELV.N), opens new tab, Centene (ELV.N), opens new tab, and Molina Healthcare (MOH.N), opens new tab, which have significant exposure. In 2024, over 88% of Molina's total membership came from Medicaid plans, Centene derived about 46%, and Elevance about 19.5%. Analysts also warned of risks to insurers' exchange businesses, forecasting ACA marketplace enrollment to fall to 18 million by 2027 from 24 million in 2025, due to eligibility restrictions and likely subsidy expirations. "For companies like Centene, this is a double whammy," Perlman said. Hospitals face similar challenges, though a proposed $50 billion rural hospital fund could offset some reimbursement cuts, Jefferies analyst Brian Tanquilut said. Drugmakers are expected to see little impact, as Medicaid typically represents under 15% of their U.S. sales, UBS analyst Trung Huynh said.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote in a brief opinion. Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its "lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan," and disrupted diplomatic relations. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a "gross abuse" of its power that now exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death." After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture." The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
