Goldman Sachs sees Fed cutting rates thrice in 2025, twice more in 2026
This would put the terminal rate at between 3% and 3.25%, down from the current 4.25%-4.50% level. The Goldman note followed data on Tuesday showing U.S. consumer prices increased marginally in July, rising just 0.2% last month after a gain of 0.3% in June, in line with economists' expectations.
The moderation in the Consumer Price Index reflected a 2.2% decline in gasoline prices. Food prices were unchanged after rising 0.3% for two straight months.
U.S. rate futures priced in late Wednesday a 93% chance of a 25-bps easing next month and as much as a 7% probability of a 50-bps rate decline, according to LSEG calculations. The latter was 3% earlier on Wednesday.
Traders also implied about 65 bps of easing this year, up from roughly 60 bps last week.
The slight pop in the 50-bps odds on Wednesday came after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed for cuts of that magnitude in interviews with Fox News on Tuesday and Bloomberg TV on Wednesday. Bessent said on Bloomberg TV that he thought an aggressive half-point cut was possible given recent weak employment numbers. He based his argument for cuts on recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing soft employment gains in May, June, and July, in contrast to initial estimates for May and June indicating stronger employment growth.
"Rates are too constrictive ... We should probably be 150 to 175 basis points lower," Bessent said, adding to the Trump administration's penchant for public criticism and detailed policy advice for the independent central bank. (Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss in New York and Pritam Biswas in Bengaluru ; Editing by Tasim Zahid and Rod Nickel)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UAE Moments
4 hours ago
- UAE Moments
Your Daily Career Tarot Card Reading for August 16th, 2025
16.8.25 The Hanged Man: The Hanged Man card may show a tendency to drift rather than take action. It's possible that you're waiting for a job or promotion - or perhaps business success to fall into your lap, when you really need to get out there and make it happen. Begin today to work out what you want and to plan a strategy that will enable you to reach your goal.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Pictures of the week: From Limp Bizkit in Abu Dhabi to a robotic knockout
Investing in disruptive technology can be a bumpy ride, as investors in Tesla were reminded on Friday, when its stock dropped 7.5 per cent in early trading to $575. It recovered slightly but still ended the week 15 per cent lower and is down a third from its all-time high of $883 on January 26. The electric car maker's market cap fell from $834 billion to about $567bn in that time, a drop of an astonishing $267bn, and a blow for those who bought Tesla stock late. The collapse also hit fund managers that have gone big on Tesla, notably the UK-based Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust and Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation ETF. Tesla is the top holding in both funds, making up a hefty 10 per cent of total assets under management. Both funds have fallen by a quarter in the past month. Matt Weller, global head of market research at GAIN Capital, recently warned that Tesla founder Elon Musk had 'flown a bit too close to the sun', after getting carried away by investing $1.5bn of the company's money in Bitcoin. He also predicted Tesla's sales could struggle as traditional auto manufacturers ramp up electric car production, destroying its first mover advantage. AJ Bell's Russ Mould warns that many investors buy tech stocks when earnings forecasts are rising, almost regardless of valuation. 'When it works, it really works. But when it goes wrong, elevated valuations leave little or no downside protection.' A Tesla correction was probably baked in after last year's astonishing share price surge, and many investors will see this as an opportunity to load up at a reduced price. Dramatic swings are to be expected when investing in disruptive technology, as Ms Wood at ARK makes clear. Every week, she sends subscribers a commentary listing 'stocks in our strategies that have appreciated or dropped more than 15 per cent in a day' during the week. Her latest commentary, issued on Friday, showed seven stocks displaying extreme volatility, led by ExOne, a leader in binder jetting 3D printing technology. It jumped 24 per cent, boosted by news that fellow 3D printing specialist Stratasys had beaten fourth-quarter revenues and earnings expectations, seen as good news for the sector. By contrast, computational drug and material discovery company Schrödinger fell 27 per cent after quarterly and full-year results showed its core software sales and drug development pipeline slowing. Despite that setback, Ms Wood remains positive, arguing that its 'medicinal chemistry platform offers a powerful and unique view into chemical space'. In her weekly video view, she remains bullish, stating that: 'We are on the right side of change, and disruptive innovation is going to deliver exponential growth trajectories for many of our companies, in fact, most of them.' Ms Wood remains committed to Tesla as she expects global electric car sales to compound at an average annual rate of 82 per cent for the next five years. She said these are so 'enormous that some people find them unbelievable', and argues that this scepticism, especially among institutional investors, 'festers' and creates a great opportunity for ARK. Only you can decide whether you are a believer or a festering sceptic. If it's the former, then buckle up.
Zawya
8 hours ago
- Zawya
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments -- in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" -- have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of BLS, claiming -- without evidence -- that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump 'certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official told Reuters. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. REPUTATIONAL RISKS There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. 'Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. 'If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York Attorney General, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.
