Pivoting from tax cuts to tariffs, Trump ignores economic warning signs
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Related
:
Advertisement
Since taking office, Trump has raced to enact his economic vision, aiming to pair generous tax cuts with sweeping deregulation that he says will expand America's economy. He has fashioned his steep, worldwide tariffs as a political cudgel that will raise money, encourage more domestic manufacturing and improve U.S. trade relationships.
But for many of his signature policies to succeed, Trump will have to prove investors wrong, particularly those who lend money to the government by buying its debt.
Advertisement
So far, bond markets are not buying his approach. Where Trump sees a 'golden age' of growth, investors see an agenda that comes with more debt, higher borrowing costs, inflation and an economic slowdown. Investors who once viewed government debt as a relatively risk-free investment are now demanding that the United States pay much more to those who lend America money.
That is on top of businesses,
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) spoke after the passage in the House of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on Thursday.
KENNY HOLSTON/NYT
Still, Trump continues to proclaim that his policies will bring prosperity. This past week, the White House released data showing that its tax cuts could increase U.S. output as much as 5.2% in the short term, compared with the gains it would have achieved if the bill is not adopted. The administration has stood largely alone in offering such rosy predictions about the effects of Trump's policies on businesses, average workers and the nation's fiscal future.
In report after report, economists this past week predicted that Trump's signature tax package could
Related
:
Advertisement
The tax cuts are largely an extension of ones that Congress passed in 2017, meaning that few taxpayers will see an increase to their after-tax income. In fact, some might see their financial situation deteriorate: Many of the lowest earners may even see about $1,300 less on average under the Republican bill in 2030, according to the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model, which factored in the proposed cuts to federal safety-net programs.
Facing an onslaught of red flags and dour reports, the White House has remained bullish.
'I think folks have cried wolf a lot,' Stephen Miran, chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview, stressing that Trump's agenda would 'grow the economy.'
In the past, investors and businesses might have rejoiced over Trump's grand proclamations about lowering taxes, reducing regulations and opening access to foreign markets. But the most common reaction this past week was concern over Trump's sclerotic approach, which has renewed fears that the economy could enter a prolonged period of pain.
'It's possible that you're going to get a big benefit to growth, but the costs are so obvious and so clear that I think it's hard to put a lot of faith in that at the moment,' said Eric Winograd, an economist at the investment firm AllianceBernstein.
By most metrics, Trump inherited a solid economy. Layoffs were low when he took office and have stayed that way, helping to keep the unemployment rate stable. And consumers, even amid elevated prices, continued to spend apace.
Four months into his second term, however, there are signs that the economy is beginning to come under greater strain, in what experts worry is a prelude to a more substantive slowdown. Although economists do not expect the economy to tip fully into a recession, they say Trump's tariffs in particular have raised the odds of a downturn, as both businesses and consumers begin to cut back.
Advertisement
Shipping containers at a port in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, on April 28. Many businesses, including Walmart, have said they may have to raise prices as a result of Trump's global trade war.
LINH PHAM/NYT
Many of the president's allies maintain that Trump is doing exactly as he promised during the 2024 presidential campaign, acting out of a belief that his vision can spur robust economic growth. In doing so, that can help to create jobs, raise wages and generate the sort of activity that can lessen the nation's fiscal imbalance, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist who served as one of Trump's advisers during his first term.
Some businesses have forecast price increases as a result of Trump's tariff threats. A report this past week from Allianz found that many businesses are trying to push the added tariff costs onto suppliers or consumers, with roughly half of its survey respondents saying they may increase prices.
The potential for rising prices while growth is slowing poses a unique challenge for the Fed and its voting members, forcing them to reconcile with conflicting missions — a goal to pursue low, stable inflation, and a desire to sustain a healthy labor market.
'The bar for me is a little higher for action in any direction while we're waiting to get some clarity,' Austan Goolsbee, president of the Chicago Fed and a voting member on this year's rate-setting committee, told CNBC on Friday.
Goolsbee recalled a recent exchange with the CEO of a construction business, who said: 'We're now in a put-your-pencils-down moment.' Businesses, Goolsbee said, now 'have to wait if every week or every month or every day there's going to be a new major announcement.'
Advertisement
'They just can't take action until some of those things are resolved,' he added.
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What To Make Of Yum! Brands' (NYSE:YUM) Decelerating Rates Of Return
If we want to find a stock that could multiply over the long term, what are the underlying trends we should look for? Amongst other things, we'll want to see two things; firstly, a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an expansion in the company's amount of capital employed. Put simply, these types of businesses are compounding machines, meaning they are continually reinvesting their earnings at ever-higher rates of return. So when we looked at Yum! Brands (NYSE:YUM), they do have a high ROCE, but we weren't exactly elated from how returns are trending. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. If you haven't worked with ROCE before, it measures the 'return' (pre-tax profit) a company generates from capital employed in its business. To calculate this metric for Yum! Brands, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.47 = US$2.6b ÷ (US$6.7b - US$1.2b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). So, Yum! Brands has an ROCE of 47%. In absolute terms that's a great return and it's even better than the Hospitality industry average of 9.6%. View our latest analysis for Yum! Brands In the above chart we have measured Yum! Brands' prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Yum! Brands . Things have been pretty stable at Yum! Brands, with its capital employed and returns on that capital staying somewhat the same for the last five years. Businesses with these traits tend to be mature and steady operations because they're past the growth phase. Although current returns are high, we'd need more evidence of underlying growth for it to look like a multi-bagger going forward. This probably explains why Yum! Brands is paying out 46% of its income to shareholders in the form of dividends. Given the business isn't reinvesting in itself, it makes sense to distribute a portion of earnings among shareholders. While Yum! Brands has impressive profitability from its capital, it isn't increasing that amount of capital. Although the market must be expecting these trends to improve because the stock has gained 64% over the last five years. But if the trajectory of these underlying trends continue, we think the likelihood of it being a multi-bagger from here isn't high. On a final note, we found 4 warning signs for Yum! Brands (2 are a bit concerning) you should be aware of. High returns are a key ingredient to strong performance, so check out our free list ofstocks earning high returns on equity with solid balance sheets. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With 71% ownership of the shares, TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUE) is heavily dominated by institutional owners
Significantly high institutional ownership implies TrueCar's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions 54% of the business is held by the top 6 shareholders Analyst forecasts along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUE) can tell us which group is most powerful. With 71% stake, institutions possess the maximum shares in the company. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Since institutional have access to huge amounts of capital, their market moves tend to receive a lot of scrutiny by retail or individual investors. As a result, a sizeable amount of institutional money invested in a firm is generally viewed as a positive attribute. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of TrueCar. Check out our latest analysis for TrueCar Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in TrueCar. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of TrueCar, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. It looks like hedge funds own 5.2% of TrueCar shares. That worth noting, since hedge funds are often quite active investors, who may try to influence management. Many want to see value creation (and a higher share price) in the short term or medium term. Caledonia (Private) Investments Pty Limited is currently the company's largest shareholder with 20% of shares outstanding. USAA Investment Services Company is the second largest shareholder owning 9.1% of common stock, and BlackRock, Inc. holds about 8.4% of the company stock. In addition, we found that Jantoon Reigersman, the CEO has 0.8% of the shares allocated to their name. We also observed that the top 6 shareholders account for more than half of the share register, with a few smaller shareholders to balance the interests of the larger ones to a certain extent. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. We can see that insiders own shares in TrueCar, Inc.. In their own names, insiders own US$4.3m worth of stock in the US$127m company. It is good to see some investment by insiders, but we usually like to see higher insider holdings. It might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 14% stake in TrueCar. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. Public companies currently own 6.1% of TrueCar stock. This may be a strategic interest and the two companies may have related business interests. It could be that they have de-merged. This holding is probably worth investigating further. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 1 warning sign for TrueCar you should be aware of. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
