Connect with us

Finance

Fed Governor Bowman says additional rate hike could be needed if inflation stays high

Published

on

US Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman attends a “Fed Listens” event at the Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2019. 

Eric Baradat | AFP | Getty Images

Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman said Friday that it’s possible interest rates may have to move higher to control inflation, rather than the cuts her fellow officials have indicated are likely and that the market is expecting.

Noting a number of potential upside risks to inflation, Bowman said policymakers need to be careful not to ease policy too quickly.

“While it is not my baseline outlook, I continue to see the risk that at a future meeting we may need to increase the policy rate further should progress on inflation stall or even reverse,” she said in prepared remarks for a speech to a group of Fed watchers in New York. “Reducing our policy rate too soon or too quickly could result in a rebound in inflation, requiring further future policy rate increases to return inflation to 2 percent over the longer run.”

As a member of the Board of Governors, Bowman is a permanent voting member of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee. Since taking office in late 2018, her public speeches have put her on the more hawkish side of the FOMC, meaning she favors a more aggressive posture toward containing inflation.

Bowman said her most likely outcome remains that “it will eventually become appropriate to lower” rates, though she noted that “we are still not yet at the point” of cutting as “I continue to see a number of upside risks to inflation.”

The speech, to the Shadow Open Market Committee, comes with markets on edge about the near-term future of Fed policy. Statements this week from multiple officials, including Chair Jerome Powell, have indicated a cautious approach to cutting rates. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, an FOMC voter, told CNBC he likely sees just one reduction this year, and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari indicated no cuts could happen if inflation does not decelerate further.

Futures traders are pricing in three cuts this year, though it has become a close call between June and July for when they start. FOMC members in March also penciled in three cuts this year, though one unidentified official in the “dot plot” indicated no decreases until 2026 and there was considerable dispersion otherwise about how aggressively the central bank would move.

“Given the risks and uncertainties regarding my economic outlook, I will continue to watch the data closely as I assess the appropriate path of monetary policy, and I will remain cautious in my approach to considering future changes in the stance of policy,” Bowman said.

Weighing inflation risks, she said that supply-side improvements that helped bring numbers down this year may not have the same impact going forward. Moreover, she cited geopolitical risks and fiscal stimulus as other upside risks, along with stubbornly higher housing prices and labor market tightness.

“Inflation readings over the past two months suggest progress may be uneven or slower going forward, especially for core services,” Bowman said.

Fed officials will get their next look at inflation data Wednesday, when the Labor Department releases the March consumer price index report.

Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

Continue Reading

Finance

Tariffs may raise much less than White House projects, economists say

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders in the Oval Office on March 6, 2025.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

President Donald Trump says that tariffs will make the U.S. “rich.” But those riches will likely be far less than the White House expects, economists said.

The ultimate sum could have big ramifications for the U.S. economy, the nation’s debt and legislative negotiations over a tax-cut package, economists said.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Sunday estimated tariffs would raise about $600 billion a year and $6 trillion over a decade. Auto tariffs would add another $100 billion a year, he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Navarro made the projection as the U.S. plans to announce more tariffs against U.S. trading partners on Wednesday.

Economists expect the Trump administration’s tariff policy would generate a much lower amount of revenue than Navarro claims. Some project the total revenue would be less than half.

Roughly $600 billion to $700 billion a year “is not even in the realm of possibility,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “If you get to $100 billion to $200 billion, you’ll be pretty lucky.”

The White House declined to respond to a request for comment from CNBC about tariff revenue.

The ‘mental math’ behind tariff revenue

There are big question marks over the scope of the tariffs, including details like amount, duration, and products and countries affected — all of which have a significant bearing on the revenue total.

The White House is considering a 20% tariff on most imports, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. President Trump floated this idea on the campaign trail. The Trump administration may ultimately opt for a different policy, like country-by-country tariffs based on each nation’s respective trade and non-trade barriers.

But a 20% tariff rate seems to align with Navarro’s revenue projections, economists said.

The U.S. imported about $3.3 trillion of goods in 2024. Applying a 20% tariff rate to all these imports would yield about $660 billion of annual revenue.

“That is almost certainly the mental math Peter Navarro is doing — and that mental math skips some crucial steps,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

Trade advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro speaks to press outside of the White House on March 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Kayla Bartkowski | Getty Images

That’s because an accurate revenue estimate must account for the many economic impacts of tariffs in the U.S. and around the world, economists said. Those effects combine to reduce revenue, they said.

A 20% broad tariff would raise about $250 billion a year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade) when taking those effects into account, according to Tedeschi, citing a Yale Budget Lab analysis published Monday.  

There are ways to raise larger sums — but they would involve higher tariff rates, economists said. For example, a 50% across-the-board tariff would raise about $780 billion per year, according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Even that is an optimistic assessment: It doesn’t account for lower U.S. economic growth due to retaliation or the negative growth effects from the tariffs themselves, they wrote.

Why revenue would be lower than expected

Tariffs generally raise prices for consumers. A 20% broad tariff would cost the average consumer $3,400 to $4,200 a year, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

Consumers would naturally buy fewer imported goods if they cost more, economists said. Lower demand means fewer imports and less tariff revenue from those imports, they said.

Tariffs are also expected to trigger “reduced economic activity,” said Robert McClelland, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

More from Personal Finance:
Economists say ‘value-added taxes’ aren’t a trade barrier
Tariffs are ‘lose-lose’ for U.S. jobs and industry
Why uncertainty makes the stock market go haywire

For example, U.S. companies that don’t pass tariff costs on to consumers via higher prices would likely see profits suffer (and their income taxes fall), economists said. Consumers might pull back on spending, further denting company profits and tax revenues, economists said. Companies that take a financial hit might lay off workers, they said.

Foreign nations are also expected to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. products, which would hurt companies that export products abroad. Other nations may experience an economic downturn, further reducing demand for U.S. products.

Tariffs could be a major rewiring of the domestic and global economy, says Mohamed El-Erian

“If you get a 20% tariff rate, you’re going to get a rip-roaring recession, and that will undermine your fiscal situation,” Zandi said.

There’s also likely to be a certain level of non-compliance with tariff policy, and carve-outs for certain countries, industries or products, economists said. For instance, when the White House levied tariffs on China in February, it indefinitely exempted “de minimis” imports valued at $800 or less.

The Trump administration might also funnel some tariff revenue to paying certain parties aggrieved by a trade war, economists said.

President Trump did that in his first term: The government sent $61 billion in “relief” payments to American farmers who faced retaliatory tariffs, which was nearly all (92%) of the tariff revenue on Chinese goods from 2018 to 2020, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The tariffs will also likely have a short life span, diluting their potential revenue impact, economists said. They’re being issued by executive order and could be undone easily, whether by President Trump or a future president, they said.

“There’s zero probability these tariffs will last for 10 years,” Zandi said. “If they last until next year I’d be very surprised.”

Why this matters

The Trump administration has signaled that tariffs “will be one of the top-tier ways they’ll try to offset the cost” of passing a package of tax cuts, Tedeschi said.

Extending a 2017 tax cut law signed by President Trump would cost $4.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Foundation. Trump has also called for other tax breaks like no taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, and a tax deduction for auto loan interest for American made cars.

If tariffs don’t cover the full cost of such a package, then Republican lawmakers would have to find cuts elsewhere or increase the nation’s debt, economists said.

Continue Reading

Finance

Investors hope April 2 could bring some tariff clarity and relief. That may not happen

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Cliff Asness’s AQR multi-strategy hedge fund returns 9% in the first quarter during tough conditions

Published

on

Cliff Asness.

Chris Goodney | Bloomberg | Getty Images

AQR Capital Management’s multistrategy hedge fund beat the market with a 9% rally in the first quarter as Wall Street grappled with extreme volatility amid President Donald Trump’s uncertain tariff policy.

The Apex strategy from Cliff Asness’ firm, which combines stocks, macro and arbitrage trades and has $3 billion in assets under management, gained 3.4% in March, boosting its first-quarter performance, according to a person familiar with AQR’s returns who asked to be anonymous as the information is private.

AQR’s Delphi Long-Short Equity Strategy gained 9.7% in the first quarter, while its alternative trend-following offering Helix returned 3%, the person said.

AQR, whose assets under management reached $128 billion at the end of March, declined to comment.

The stock market just wrapped up a tumultuous quarter as Trump’s aggressive tariffs raised concerns about an severe economic slowdown and a re-acceleration of inflation. The S&P 500 dipped into correction territory in March after hitting a record in February.

For the quarter, the equity benchmark was down 4.6%, snapping a five-quarter win streak. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 10.4% in the quarter, which would mark its biggest quarterly pullback since a 22.4% plunge in the second quarter of 2022.

Continue Reading

Trending