Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the “Federal Reserve’s Semi-Annual Monetary Policy Report” on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2024.
Bonnie Cash | Reuters
If there was any doubt before, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has pretty much cemented the likelihood that there won’t be interest rate reductions anytime soon.
Now, Wall Street is wondering if the central bank will cut at all this year.
“They’ve got the economy right where they want it. They now are just focused on inflation numbers. The question is, what’s the bar here?” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “My sense is they need two, probably three consecutive months of inflation numbers that are consistent with that 2% target. If that’s the bar, the earliest they can get there is September. I just don’t see rate cuts before that.”
With most readings putting inflation around 3% and not moving appreciably for several months, the Fed finds itself in a tough slog on the last mile toward its goal.
Market pricing for rate cuts has been highly volatile in recent weeks as Wall Street has chased fluctuating Fed rhetoric. As of Wednesday afternoon, traders were pricing in about a 71% probability that the central bank indeed most likely will wait until September, with the implied chance of a July cut at 44%, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch gauge.
As for a second rate cut, there was a tilt toward one in December, but that remains an open question.
“Right now, my base case is two — one in September and one in December, but I could easily see one rate cut, in November,” said Zandi, who thinks the presidential election could factor into the equation for Fed officials who insist they are not swayed by politics.
‘Real risk’ of no cuts until 2025
The uncertainty has spread through the Street. The market-implied odds for no cuts this year stood around 11% on Wednesday, but the possibility can’t be ignored at this point.
For instance, Bank of America economists said there is a “real risk” that the Fed won’t cut until March 2025 “at the earliest,” though for now they’re still going with a December forecast for the one and only cut this year. Markets at the onset of 2024 had been pricing in at least six quarter-percentage point reductions.
“We think policymakers will not feel comfortable starting the cutting cycle in June or even September,” BofA economist Stephen Juneau said in a client note. “In short, this is the reality of a data-dependent Fed. With the inflation data exceeding expectations to start the year, it comes as little surprise that the Fed would push back on any urgency to cut, especially given the strong activity data.”
To be sure, there’s still hope that the inflation data turns lower in the next few months and gives the central bank room to ease.
Citigroup, for example, still expects the Fed to begin easing in June or July and to cut rates several times this year. Powell and his fellow policymakers “will be pleasantly surprised” by inflation data in coming months, wrote Citi economist Andrew Hollenhorst, who added that the Fed “is poised to cut rates on either slower year-on-year core inflation or any signs of weakness in activity data.”
Elsewhere, Goldman Sachs pushed back the month that it expects policy to ease, but only to July from June, as “the broader disinflationary narrative remains intact,” wrote Jan Hatzius, the firm’s chief economist.
Danger looms
If that is true, then “the pause on rate cuts would be lifted and the Fed would move ahead,” wrote Krishna Guha, head of the global policy and central bank strategy team at Evercore ISI. However, Guha also noted the wide breadth of policy possibilities that Powell opened in his remarks Tuesday.
“We think it still leaves the Fed uncomfortably data-point dependent, and highly vulnerable to being skittled from three to two to one cut if near-term inflation data does not cooperate,” he added.
The possibility of a stubborn Fed raises the possibility of a policy mistake. Despite the resilient economy, higher rates for longer could threaten labor market stability, not to mention areas of the finance sector such as regional banks that are susceptible to duration risk posed to fixed income portfolios.
Zandi said the Fed already should have been cutting with inflation well off the boil from its mid-2022 highs, adding that factors related to housing are essentially the only thing standing between the central bank and its 2% inflation goal.
A Fed policy mistake “is the most significant risk to the economy at this point. They’ve already achieved their mandate on full employment. They’ve all but achieved their mandate on inflation,” Zandi said.
“Stuff happens, and I think we need to be humble here regarding the financial system,” he added. “They run the risk they are going to break something. And to what end? If I were on the committee, I would be strongly arguing we should go already.”
“What we try to do is help investors leverage the upside through sector rotation, but also minimize drawdowns,” the Fairlead Strategies founder told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “That’s obviously a big advantage longer term when you can just go into a less deep hole to climb out of.”
According to Stockton, her ETF is particularly nimble in this environment because it uses multiple strategies — not just one. Since President Donald Trump announced his “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2, the ETF has fallen just over 4%, while the S&P 500 has lost 6.9%.
Stockton’s ETF rotates monthly between all 11 S&P 500 sectors.
“We don’t own technology anymore,” Stockton said. “Some of the sectors that we like to invest in have fallen out of favor.”
As of Thursday’s close, the Fairlead Tactical Sector ETF is down 4% so far this year.
Meanwhile, ETFs that are centered around specific sectors or strategies are largely under pressure. For example, the Invesco Top QQQ Trust (QBIG), which tracks the top 45% of companies in the Nasdaq-100 index, is down 22% in 2025.
BTIG’s Troy Donohue, the firm’s head of Americas portfolio trading, thinks Stockton’s ETF employs a sound strategy – particularly during the recent “dramatic pullback.”
“TACK is a great example of how you can be nimble during these market times,” Donohue said. “It’s great to see it in an ETF product that has performed really well during this recent drawdown.”
“The Board evaluated the application under the statutory factors it is required to consider, including the financial and managerial resources of the companies, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served by the combined organization, and the competitive and financial stability impacts of the proposal,” the Fed said in a release.
Capital One first announced it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Discover in February 2024. It will also indirectly acquire Discover Bank through the transaction.
Under the agreement, Discover shareholders will receive 1.0192 Capital One shares for each Discover share or about a 26% premium from Discover’s closing price of $110.49 at the time, Capital One said in a release.
Capital One and Discover are among the largest credit card issuers in the U.S., and the merger will expand Capital One’s deposit base and its credit card offerings.
After the deal closes, Capital One shareholders will hold 60% of the combined company, while Discover shareholders own 40%, according to the February 2024 release.
In a joint statement, Capital One and Discover said they expect to close the deal on May 18.
Smart robotic arms work on the production line at the production workshop of Changqing Auto Parts Co., LTD., located in Anqing Economic Development Zone, Anhui Province, China, on March 13, 2025. (Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
BEIJING — China missed several key targets from its 10-year plan to become self-sufficient in technology, while fostering unhealthy industrial competition which worsened global trade tensions, the European Chamber of Commerce in China said in a report this week.
When Beijing released its “Made in China 2025” plan in 2015, it was met with significant international criticism for promoting Chinese business at the expense of their foreign counterparts. The country subsequently downplayed the initiative, but has doubled-down on domestic tech development given U.S. restrictionsin the last several years.
Since releasing the plan,China has exceeded its targets on achieving domestic dominance in autos, but the country has not yet reached its targets in aerospace, high-end robots and the growth rate of manufacturing value-added, the business chamber said, citing its research and discussions with members. Out of ten strategic sectors identified in the report, China only attained technological dominance in shipbuilding, high-speed rail and electric cars.
China’s targets are generally seen as a direction rather than an actual figure to be achieved by a specific date. The Made In China 2025 plan outlines the first ten years of what the country called a ‘multi-decade strategy’ to become a global manufacturing powerhouse.
The chamber pointed out that China’s self-developed airplane, the C919, still relies heavily on U.S. and European parts and though industrial automation levels have “increased substantially,” it is primarily due to foreign technology. In addition, the growth rate of manufacturing value add reached 6.1% in 2024, falling from the 7% rate in 2015 and just over halfway toward reaching the target of 11%.
“Everyone should consider themselves lucky that China missed its manufacturing growth target,” Jens Eskelund, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, told reporters Tuesday, since the reverse would have exacerbated pressure on global competitors. “They didn’t fulfill their own target, but I actually think they did astoundingly well.”
Even at that slower pace, China has transformed itself over the last decade to drive 29% of global manufacturing value add — almost the same as the U.S. and Europe combined, Eskelund said. “Before 2015, in many, many categoriesChina was not a direct competitor of Europe and the United States.”
The U.S. in recent years has sought to restrict China’s access to high-end tech, and encourage advanced manufacturing companies to build factories in America.
The U.S. restrictions have “pushed us to make things that previously we would not have thought we had to buy,” said Lionel M. Ni, founding president of the Guangzhou campus of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. That’s according to a CNBC translation of his Mandarin-language remarks to reporters on Wednesday.
Ni said the products requiring home-grown development efforts included chips and equipment, and if substitutes for restricted items weren’t immediately available, the university would buy the second-best version available.
In addition to thematic plans, China issues national development priorities every five years. The current 14th five-year plan emphasizes support for the digital economy and wraps up in December. The subsequent 15th five-year plan is scheduled to be released next year.
China catching up
It remains unclear to what extent China can become completely self-sufficient in key technological systems in the near term. But local companies have made rapid strides.
“Western chip export controls have had some success in that they briefly set back China’s developmental efforts in semiconductors, albeit at some cost to the United States and allied firms,” analysts at the Washington, D.C.,-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a report this week. However, they noted that China has only doubled down, “potentially destabilizing the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem.”
For example, the thinktank pointed out, Huawei’s current generation smartphone, the Pura 70 series, incorporates 33 China-sourced components and only 5 sourced from outside of China.
Huawei reported a 22% surge in revenue in 2024 — the fastest growth since 2016 — buoyed by a recovery in its consumer products business.The company spent 20.8% of its revenue on research and development last year, well above its annual goal of more than 10%.
Overall, China manufacturers reached the nationwide 1.68% target for spending on research and development as a percentage of operating revenue, the EU Chamber report said.
“‘Europe needs to take a hard look at itself,” Eskelund said, referring to Huawei’s high R&D spend. “Are European companies doing what is needed to remain at the cutting edge of technology?”
However, high spending doesn’t necessarily mean efficiency.
The electric car race in particular has prompted a price war, with most automakers running losses in their attempt to undercut competitors. The phenomenon is often called “neijuan” or “involution” in China.
“We also need to realize [China’s] success has not come without problems,” Eskelund said. “We are seeing across a great many industries it has not translated into healthy business.”
He added that the attempt to fulfill “Made in China 2025” targets contributed to involution, and pointed out that China’s efforts to move up the manufacturing value chain from Christmas ornaments to high-end equipment have also increased global worries about security risks.
Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox Subscribe now
Such fierce competition compounds the impact of already slowing economic growth. Out of 2,825 mainland China-listed companies, 20% reported a loss for the first time in 2024, according to a CNBC analysis of Wind Information data as of Thursday. Including companies that reported yet another year of losses, the share of companies that lost money last year rose to nearly 48%, the analysis showed.
China in March emphasized that boosting consumption is its priority for the year, after previously focusing on manufacturing. Retail sales growth have lagged behind industrial production on a year-to-date basis since the beginning of 2024, according to official data accessed via Wind Information.
Policymakers are also looking for ways to ensure “a better match between manufacturing output and what the domestic market can absorb,” Eskelund said, adding that efforts to boost consumption don’t matter much if manufacturing output grows even faster.
But when asked about policies that could address manufacturing overcapacity, he said, “We are also eagerly waiting in anticipation.”