What damage could potential Iran retaliation do to your pocketbook
Was Iran's missile attack on the U.S. base in Qatar the only retaliatory measure it will take against the United States following the bombing of its three nuclear sites? And will the ceasefire hold between Israel and Iran?
Answers to those questions could determine how much we pay in every U.S. store—not just at the pump, according to a set of new reports. One model even suggests the inflation rate could more than double by the end of the year with a big enough increase in oil prices.
Crude oil traders appear cautiously optimistic, though. Futures prices at 12 p.m. ET Thursday for a barrel of oil were above $65.88—lower than they were when Israel first attacked Iran on June 12. They're about $8 lower than when tensions were at their highest.
President Donald Trump and others in his administration say they've ended the Israel-Iran war by dropping the huge bunker-busting bombs, but two papers this week from Oxford Economics still call the situation in the Middle East "fluid" and warn about what could happen if Iran decides to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added to the uncertainty Thursday when he warned any future attacks against Iran would come at a great cost.
Oil prices tumble from June 20 highs
Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them.
Oxford Economics says its unlikely Iran would completely shutdown the Strait of Hormuz because they might not have the capabilities, or U.S. military would likely intervene. Iran also wouldn't likely have an interest in disrupting all oil shipping, considering more than 80% of the crude in the strait is generally bound for Asia.
Where is the Strait of Hormuz
How Iran could slow shipping through the Strait of Hormuz
Iran might decide to make shipping in the Strait of Hormuz riskier and more expensive—largely because of higher insurance costs—by using various methods to harass and slow ships moving through the strait, according to Oxford Economics:
◾ Deploy mines
◾ Attack ships with drones and missiles
◾ Jam GPS signals
The effectiveness any of these disruptions would have varying impact on prices in world oil markets. Recent history shows that the larger the rise in oil prices at the start of a conflict, the longer it typically takes for them to return to previous levels.
How oil prices changed following in previous incidents
How gas prices followed oil prices after Russia invaded Ukraine
Not unsurprisingly, higher oil prices drive up fuel prices. It's rarely a one-to-one change, though, because of the additional costs—refining, taxes and distribution among them—by the time gasoline reaches the pump. When Russia invaded Ukraine, already inflated oil prices drove up U.S. gas prices and helped drive higher inflation throughout the economy.
How a short-term, oil-price spike might affect inflation in the U.S.
Oxford Economics modeled what might happen if Iran were able to slow about 70% of shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and raise world oil prices by 25%. Their model showed that the annual inflation rate—which was 2.4% in May as measured by the consumer price index—could rise as high as 5.5% by the end of the year.
In the same scenario, Oxford Economics projected the unemployment rate to rise from 4.2% in May to 4.5%, which could spur the Federal Reserve to start cutting interest rates to slow job losses—despite the higher prices driven by higher oil prices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Lawmakers remove ‘revenge' tax provision from Trump's big bill after Treasury Department request
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans agreed to remove the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill on Thursday after a request by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Section 899 provision that was nixed would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging 'unfair foreign taxes' on U.S. companies.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PCAOB imposes smaller exam cheating fines, citing cooperation
This story was originally published on CFO Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily CFO Dive newsletter. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board announced three separate settled disciplinary orders against Netherlands member firms of Deloitte, Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers, sanctioning them with penalties totaling $8.5 million for violating the board's rules and quality control standards related to their internal training programs, according to a Wednesday press release. From 2018 to 2022 hundreds of the firms' professionals, including partners, improperly shared answers to tests for mandatory firm training courses on such topics as professional independence, audit requirements and professional integrity, the PCAOB release states. Without admitting or denying the findings, Deloitte Netherlands and PwC Netherlands each agreed to pay a $3 million civil penalty and EY Netherlands agreed to pay $2.5 million. The fines would have been 'significantly larger' if the firms had not been as cooperative, according to the release. The U.S. audit watchdog's latest exam-cheating sanctions come as the board's broader future is uncertain: Republican lawmakers have proposed to eliminate the Enron-era body and fold its duties into the Securities and Exchange Commission. The PCAOB was handed a legislative lifeline last week when the Senate Parliamentarian found that the provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill wasn't compliant with the so-called Byrd rule. Still, the Trump administration's push for deregulation could drive other means of curbing the board's powers, CFO Dive previously reported. The fines are smaller than the record $25 million penalty imposed last year by the board when it sanctioned KPMG Netherlands and its former head of assurance in connection with cheating and sharing of answers on the firm's internal training exams during a five-year period. At the time, the PCAOB noted that the widespread cheating on the training courses was enabled by the firm, which took 'virtually no steps to investigate' the misconduct which was ultimately brought forward by a whistleblower. With the clock potentially ticking with regard to the board, Robert Pawlewicz Ph.D., an assistant professor of accounting at the University of Richmond's Robins School of Business, said the PCAOB may be willing to settle for less to have these violations closed and made public before the SEC makes any changes. It's possible 'the PCAOB was incentivized to wrap up the enforcements,' he said. He also said that the board, acting alongside the newly appointed SEC administration, isn't likely to pursue such actions that aren't audit-related which can be criticized by some as regulatory overreach, although Pawlewicz doesn't agree with that view. 'With a new Board, I would not expect to hear about more of these violations,' Pawlewicz said in an email. A PCAOB spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. In a statement emailed to CFO Dive, EY Netherlands said integrity is a core value and that it takes such matters seriously, noting that it has fully cooperated with PCAOB. 'We have taken extensive actions to reinforce our culture of compliance, ethics, and integrity, as well as further measures to address the issues identified through our investigation. With this settlement, we can bring these matters with the PCAOB to a conclusion and will work with local regulator AFM [Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets] to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the measures we have taken,' the statement from EY said. In a press release PwC Netherlands said it has taken steps to remediate the problem and that the settlement coincides with its internal investigation. 'This behaviour is contrary to our values, and we have imposed a range of sanctions on those found to be involved, including written warnings, financial penalties, demotions and exits from the firm,' the release states. Deloitte did not respond immediately to a request for comment. Recommended Reading PCAOB wins Senate lifeline while future remains murky Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK made fewer vehicles for the fifth straight month in May as tariffs bite
(Reuters) -Britain's vehicle production declined from a year ago for the fifth successive month in May, industry data showed on Friday, as factory disruptions and U.S. tariffs weighed on automakers. UK car and commercial vehicle production dropped 32.8% from a year ago to 49,810 units last month, marking the worst percentage drop in May output since 1949, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic-hit 2020, according to data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Exports to the UK's two biggest markets, the EU and the U.S., declined by 22.5% and 55.4% respectively, SMMT said. U.S. President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on imported automobiles and parts, imposed in March, have disrupted global supply chains, added hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for manufacturers, prompted export suspensions and pushed several automakers, especially in Europe, to consider shifting production to the U.S. to avoid the duties. British manufacturing also contracted in May, as output, orders and employment declined. Still, SMMT chief Mike Hawes said the UK's trade deals, especially with the U.S., and a more positive relationship with the EU, provided some optimism. The U.S. and UK reaffirmed a previously agreed trade deal during the G7 summit in Canada earlier this month, under which up to 100,000 UK-made cars a year can enter the U.S. at a 10% tariff, lower than the 25% rates other countries face. In May, Britain reached a trade deal with India to lower tariffs and set quotas on auto imports, while also moving closer to the European Union on cooperation in defence, energy and agriculture. Car production, excluding commercial vehicles, dropped by 31.5% in May, largely driven by model changeovers, restructuring and the impact of U.S. tariffs, SMMT said. Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
