Connect with us

Economics

Hot inflation data pushes market’s rate cut expectations to September

Published

on

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during afternoon trading on April 09, 2024 in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

As recently as January, investors had high hopes that the Federal Reserve was about to embark on a rate-cutting campaign that would reverse some of the most aggressive policy tightening in decades.

Three months of inflation data have brought those expectations back down to earth.

March’s consumer price index report Wednesday helped verify worries that inflation is proving stickier than thought, giving credence to caution from Fed policymakers and finally dashing the market’s hopes that the central bank would be approving as many as seven rate cuts this year.

“The math suggests it’s going to be hard near term to get inflation down to the Fed’s target,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “Not that you’ve put a pin in inflation getting to the Fed’s target, but it’s not happening imminently.”

There was little good news to come out of the Labor Department’s CPI report.

Both the all-items and ex-food and energy readings were higher than the market consensus on both a monthly and annual basis, putting the rate of inflation well above the Fed’s target. Headline CPI rose 0.4% on the month and 3.5% from a year ago, ahead of the central bank’s 2% goal.

Danger beneath the surface

But other danger signs beyond the headline numbers emerged.

Services prices, excluding energy, jumped 0.5% and were up 5.4% from a year ago. A relatively new computation the markets are following which takes core services and subtracts out housing — it has come to be known as “supercore” and is watched closely by the Fed — surged at an annualized pace of 7.2% and rose 8.2% on a three-month annualized basis.

There’s also another risk in that “base effects,” or comparisons to previous periods, will make inflation look even worse as energy prices in particular are rising after falling around the same time last year.

All of that leaves the Fed in a holding position and the markets worried about the possibility of no cuts this year.

The CME Group’s FedWatch tool, which computes rate-cut probabilities as indicated by futures market pricing, moved dramatically following the CPI release. Traders now see just a slim chance of a cut at the June meeting, which previously had been favored. They have also pushed out the first reduction to September, and now expect only two cuts by the end of the year. Traders even priced in a 2% probability of no cuts in 2024.

“Today’s disappointing CPI report makes the Fed’s job more difficult,” said Phillip Neuhart, director of market and economic research at First Citizens Bank Wealth. “The data does not completely remove the possibility of Fed action this year, but it certainly lessens the chances the Fed is cutting the overnight rate in the next couple months.”

Market reaction

Markets, of course, didn’t like the CPI news and sold off aggressively Wednesday morning. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by more than 1%, and Treasury yields burst higher. The 2-year Treasury note, which is especially sensitive to Fed rate moves, jumped to 4.93%, an increase of nearly 0.2 percentage point.

There could yet be good news ahead for inflation. Factors such as rising productivity and industrial capacity, along with slower money creation and easing wages, could take the pressure off somewhat, according to Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities.

However, “inflation will remain higher than what is necessary to warrant Fed easing,” he added. “In this regard, Fed cuts will be pushed out to into the second half of the year and are likely to fall only 50 basis points [0.5 percentage point] with risks being tilted in the direction of even less easing.”

In some respects, the market has only itself to blame.

The pricing in of seven rate cuts earlier this year was completely at odds with indications from Fed officials. However, when policymakers in December raised their “dot plot” indicator to three rate cuts from two projected in September, it set off a Wall Street frenzy.

“The market was just way over its skis in that assumption. That made no sense based on the data,” Schwab’s Sonders said.

Still, she thinks if the economy stays strong — GDP is projected to grow at a 2.5% rate in the first quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed — the knee-jerk reaction to Wednesday’s data could pass.

“If the economy hangs in there, I think the market is, for the most part, OK,” Sonders said.

Correction: The markets are worried about the possibility of no cuts this year. An earlier version misstated the worries.

Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

Evercore ISI's Krishna Guha: Not clear if the Fed has a good plan B

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Economics

Can Progressives learn to make progress again?

Published

on

In the political wilderness, Democrats are asking themselves how they lost their way

Continue Reading

Trending