Connect with us

Personal Finance

Is the ‘vibecession’ here to stay? Here’s what experts say

Published

on

How investors are viewing global uncertainty this election year

Some consumers have been weighed down by a “vibecession” for a while now — and those feelings might get worse, experts say.

A “vibecession” is the disconnect between consumer sentiment and economic data, said Kyla Scanlon, who coined the term in 2022. Scanlon is the author of “In This Economy? How Money and Markets Really Work.”

“It’s this idea that economic data is telling us one story and consumer sentiment is telling us another,” she tells CNBC.

Nearly half, 45%, of voters say they are financially worse off now than they were four years ago, and the highest rate since 2008, according to NBC Exit Poll data.

Yet economic metrics show the economy is booming. Inflation, while it’s still a burden for consumers, has slowed down significantly. While some warning signs have popped up in the job market, to some degree conditions are normalizing from the red-hot market of a few years ago.

“The economy is so extraordinarily personal, and people really hate inflation,” said Scanlon. “That’s what we saw in this presidential election.”

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election prompts some Americans to ‘doom spend’
The next president could face a tax battle in 2025 — what it means for investors
Why voters ages 50 and up may decide the 2024 presidential election

Even if the economy stays on track, Americans will likely continue to feel a “vibecession,” experts say.

The vibes might actually get worse, depending on what policies President-elect Donald Trump enacts, said Jacob Channel, senior economist at LendingTree. High-rate tariffs on imported goods will likely wipe out progress made to reduce inflation.

“If Donald Trump as president enacts the economic policies that he proposed as a candidate, we’re not only going to have a vibecession, we’re going to have a real recession,” Channel said.

Inflation and the labor market

Inflation, or the rate at which prices for goods and service increase over time, has come down — which means prices are still rising, but at a slower pace. Prices overall remain high, said Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School.

“Americans’ lingering frustration with the economy and their personal circumstances appears rooted in the persistently high prices that remain post-pandemic,” he said. “This makes for daily sticker shocks when buying groceries, getting a burger, paying rent and filling up the car.”

The consumer price index, a gauge measuring the costs of goods and services in the U.S., grew to a seasonally adjusted 0.2% in September, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the Federal Reserve is still concerned about inflation, “we’re seeing these signs of weakness in the labor market,” Scanlon said.

The quits rate was 3.1 million in September, a 1.9% decrease from a month before, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. There’s also a slowdown in hiring. The economy only added 12,000 jobs in October, the BLS reported. That’s less than the forecast of 100,000 increase and lower than the 223,000 jobs added in September.

To be sure, “a lot of this is just simply normalization after the distortions that occurred after the COVID shutdowns,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst.

Additionally, the unemployment rate continues to hold steady at 4.1% and wage growth is up 4% from a year prior. “This suggests that the labor market remains firm despite signs of weakening,” J.P. Morgan noted.

‘What the bond market is telling us’

The stock market rallied after the presidential election results. Just before close on Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had surged more than 1,500 points to a record high. The S&P 500 also popped more than 2%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite jumped 2.9% — both to record highs.

U.S. bond yields also rose. The 10-year Treasury yield jumped 15 basis points on Wednesday closing to trade at 4.43%, hitting its highest level since July, as investors bet a Trump presidency would increase economic growth, along with fiscal spending.

The yield on the 2-year Treasury was up by 0.073 basis points to 4.276%, reaching its highest level since July 31.

That could be a warning sign, Scanlon said: “I don’t think the inflation story is over yet. That’s what the bond market is telling us.”

Depending on what policies are enacted under Trump’s second term, the inflation problem might get worse, experts say.

“When we see treasury yields rising [and] the possibility of another $7 [trillion] to $10 trillion added to federal debt, those are not anti-inflationary moves, nor are mass deportations,” Hamrick said.

Trump has proposed a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports across the board, as well as a rate between 60% and 100% for goods from China. Such moves “will be inflationary,” Scanlon said. On top of that, his fiscal plan could potentially add $7.75 trillion in spending through fiscal year 2035, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“Who knows what will actually get passed from this fiscal plan, but massive tax cuts and tariffs … it’s expensive, and the bond market’s telling us that,” she said.

‘Vibecessions’ going forward

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a recession is “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.” The last time this occurred was in the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

However, it doesn’t necessarily take for these conditions to take place for consumers to feel negative about the economy. It can be “very difficult to square” what people are feeling in their everyday lives versus national averages and medians, experts say.

“There’s still going to be that continued disconnect between how people feel and what the economy is doing,” Scanlon said.

To that point, “the vibecession will endure,” Channel said.

And if consumers end up having to deal with extra costs associated with tariffs every time they go to the grocery store, “the vibes might actually start to get a whole heck of a lot worse,” Channel added.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Personal Finance

Here’s what President-elect Trump’s tariff plan may mean for your wallet

Published

on

Donald Trump speaks at a rally on Nov. 5, 2024 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Scott Olson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump won Tuesday’s presidential election partly by addressing Americans’ economic anxieties over higher prices.

Nearly half of all voters said they were worse off financially than they were four years ago, the highest level in any election since 2008, according to an NBC News exit poll.

But a cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy — sweeping new tariffs on imported goods — would likely exacerbate the very Biden-era inflation Trump lambasted on the campaign trail, according to economists.  

There’s still much uncertainty around how and when such tariffs might be implemented. If they were to take effect, they would likely raise prices for American consumers and disproportionately hurt lower earners, economists said.

The typical U.S. household would pay several thousand more dollars each year on clothing, furniture, appliances and other goods, estimates suggest.

Trump tariffs would have 'staggering' impact on consumer prices, says NRF CEO Matt Shay

“It’s bad for consumers,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “It’s a tax on consumers in the form of higher prices for imported goods.”

“It’s inflationary,” he added.

He and other economists predict the proposed tariffs would also lead to job loss and slower economic growth, on a net basis.

The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC on the impact of tariffs or their scope.

How Trump’s tariff proposal might work

A tariff is a tax placed on imported goods.

Tariffs have been around for centuries. However, their importance as a source of government revenue has declined, especially among wealthy nations, according to Monica Morlacco, an international trade expert and assistant professor of economics at the University of Southern California.

Now, the U.S. largely uses tariffs as a protectionist policy to shield certain industries from foreign competition, according to the Brookings Institution, a think tank.

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election prompts Americans to ‘doom spend’
Next U.S. president could face a tax battle in 2025
How the ‘vibecession’ influences investors

Trump imposed some tariffs in his first term — on washing machines, solar panels, steel, aluminum and a range of Chinese goods, for example. The Biden administration kept many of those intact.

However, Trump’s proposals from the campaign trail are much broader, economists said.

He has floated a 10% or 20% universal tariff on all imports and a tariff of at least 60% on Chinese goods, for example. Last month, the president-elect suggested vehicles from Mexico have a tariff of 200% or more, and in September threatened to impose a similar amount on John Deere if the company were to shift some production from the U.S. to Mexico.

“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff,'” Trump said at the Chicago Economic Club in October. “It’s my favorite word. It needs a public relations firm.”

China is very 'concerned' about the rhetoric around tariffs, says Longview's Dewardric McNeal

How much tariffs cost consumers

A 20% worldwide tariff and a 60% levy on Chinese goods would raise costs by $3,000 in 2025 for the average U.S. household, according to an October analysis by the Tax Policy Center. Trump’s plan would reduce average after-tax incomes by almost 3%, according to the tax think tank.

Additionally, a 200% Mexico-vehicle tariff would increase household costs by an average $600, TPC said.

American consumers would lose $46 billion to $78 billion a year in spending power on apparel, toys, furniture, household appliances, footwear and travel goods, according to a National Retail Federation analysis published Monday.

“I feel pretty confident saying [tariffs] are a price-raising policy,” said Mike Pugliese, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “The question is just the magnitude.”

The reason for these higher costs: Tariffs are paid by U.S. companies that import goods. The “vast majority” of that additional cost is passed on to American consumers, while only some of it is paid for by U.S. distributors and retailers or by foreign producers, said Zandi of Moody’s.

Philip Daniele, president and CEO of AutoZone, alluded to this dynamic in a recent earnings call.

“If we get tariffs, we will pass those tariff costs back to the consumer,” Daniele said in September.

The U.S. imported about $3.2 trillion of goods in 2022, for example, said Olivia Cross, a North America economist at Capital Economics. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests a 10% across-the-board tariff would be roughly equivalent to a $320 billion tax on consumers, Cross said.

Tariffs reduce economic growth and jobs

Of course, the financial fallout likely wouldn’t be quite that large, Cross said.

Trump’s plan could boost the strength of the U.S. dollar, and there may also be tariff exemptions for certain categories of goods or imports from certain countries, all of which would likely blunt the overall impact, Cross said.

'No argument' for Trump tariffs on Mexico, says Harvard's Jason Furman

A 20% universal tariff and 60% Chinese import tax would also generate about $4.5 trillion in net new revenue for the federal government over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“The administration could take tariff revenue and redistribute to households via tax cuts in some form or another,” explained Pugliese of Wells Fargo.

Trump has proposed various tax breaks on the campaign trail. Additionally, tax cuts enacted by Trump in 2017 are due to expire next year, and tariff revenue may potentially be used to extend them, should Congress pass such legislation, economists said.

However, the typical U.S. household would still lose $2,600 a year from Trump’s tariff plan, even after accounting for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, according to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Here's what's at stake for global trade & tariffs this election

The U.S. economy would also likely suffer due to other tariff “cross currents,” Zandi said.

While U.S. companies that financially benefit from protectionist tariff policies may add jobs, the total economy would likely shed jobs on a net basis, Zandi said.

This is because countries on which the U.S. imposes tariffs would likely retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. exports, hurting the bottom lines of domestic businesses that export goods, for example, Zandi said.

Higher prices for imported goods would likely also lead to lower consumer demand, weighing on business profits and perhaps leading to layoffs, he said.

In June, the Tax Foundation estimated Trump’s tariff plan would shrink U.S. employment by 684,000 full-time jobs and reduce its gross domestic product, a measure of economic output, by at least 0.8%.

Capital Economics expects the Trump administration would introduce tariffs — and a curb on immigration — in the second quarter of next year, the group said in a note Tuesday night. Together, those policies would cut Gross Domestic Product growth by about 1% from the second half of 2025 through the first half of 2026 and add 1 percentage point to inflation, it said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Here’s how a Trump presidency could affect your taxes

Published

on

Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump holds a rally in Saginaw, Michigan, U.S., October 3, 2024. Democratic presidential nominee U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz speaks during a campaign rally and concert in Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S. October 28, 2024.

Brendan McDermid | Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

Former President Donald Trump has defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win the White House, which could broadly impact taxpayers — but the details remain unclear, according to policy experts.

Enacted by Trump in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, will be a key priority for the president-elect in 2025. The law brought sweeping changes, including lower tax brackets, higher standard deductions, a more generous child tax credit and bigger estate and gift tax exemption, among other provisions.

Those individual tax breaks will sunset after 2025 without action from Congress, which could trigger higher taxes for more than 60% of taxpayers, according to the Tax Foundation. However, Trump wants to fully extend expiring TCJA provisions.

More from FA Playbook:

Here’s a look at other stories impacting the financial advisor business.

Plus, most of Trump’s tax policy requires Congressional approval, which could be challenging, depending on control of the Senate and House of Representatives and support within the Republican party.

While Republicans secured a Senate majority, control of the House remains uncertain. If Democrats flip the House, we could see “more gridlock” in Congress, which could stall Trump’s agenda, Gleckman explained.

The ‘budget math’ will be harder in 2025

Tax negotiations could also be tough amid growing concerns about the federal budget deficit, according to Erica York, senior economist and research manager with the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy. 

“The budget math is a lot harder this time around than it was back in 2017,” with higher interest rates and a bigger baseline budget deficit, she said. The deficit topped $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024. 

Fully extending TCJA provisions could decrease federal revenue by $3.5 trillion to $4 trillion over the next decade, depending on the scoring model, according to the Tax Foundation.  

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Trump promised no taxes on Social Security benefits. here what experts say

Published

on

Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to speak at his rally during the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, in Palm Beach County Convention Center, in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., November 6, 2024.

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a notable promise to retirees: No taxes on Social Security benefits.

Now that Trump has won a second presidential term, that may prompt Social Security’s beneficiaries to wonder whether that change may come to pass.

But nixing those taxes may be a difficult task, even if Trump has a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Any changes to Social Security would require at least 60 Senate votes, and Republicans would therefore need some Democratic support to pass those changes.

Just eliminating taxes on benefits, without any other changes to make up for that loss in revenues, would worsen the program’s current funding woes, experts say.

“It’s hard for me to imagine that Democrats would be willing to provide votes to get over that 60-vote threshold and weaken Social Security solvency,” said Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who has also served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.

“I think a lot of Republicans would have heartburn about it, too,” he said.

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election is prompting some Americans to ‘doom spend’
What top advisors tell investors about the markets during elections
How the ‘vibecession’ is influencing investors this election year

Ending taxes on Social Security benefits — along with other Trump proposals to end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs and deport immigrants — would “dramatically worsen” Social Security’s finances, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found in a recent report.

The Trump campaign has pushed back on those findings, calling the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget “consistently wrong” in a statement to CNBC when the report was released.

The campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, about where the proposal stands on Trump’s priority list following his inauguration.

The Social Security trust fund used to help pay retirement benefits is projected to run out in 2033, according to the program’s actuaries. At that time, beneficiaries could see across-the-board benefit cuts, though the president may have the ability to determine how those reductions are distributed among beneficiaries, according to recent research.

Higher-income seniors would benefit most

Experts say those who would benefit most from eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would be the wealthy.

Households with between $63,000 and $200,000 in income would benefit most from the change, according to an August analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Lower income households making $32,000 or less would not get a tax cut, as most of their Social Security benefits are not currently taxed. Meanwhile, those with between $32,000 and $60,000 in annual income may see about $90 in tax cuts, according to the research.

“You’re giving a tax break to the higher-income senior population, so that might wind up mitigating its political sale ability as well,” Blahous said.

50% of Americans believe election outcome will directly impact their personal finances, survey finds

Currently, up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be taxed based on an individual’s or married couple’s income. Those taxes are determined based on a formula called combined income, or the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.

Individuals face up to 85% in taxes on their benefits if they have more than $34,000 in combined income; for married couples that applies if their combined income is more than $44,000.

Individual beneficiaries may pay taxes on up to 50% of their benefits on combined income between $25,000 and $34,000, or for married couples with between $32,000 and $44,000.

Because those thresholds are not adjusted, more Social Security benefit income becomes subject to income taxes over time.

For now, financial advisors say it is too early to factor in the elimination of taxes on benefits into financial plans.

“You don’t know what the law or policy is going to be if it hasn’t even been properly drafted yet, much less adopted,” said David Haas, a certified financial planner and owner of Cereus Financial Advisors in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

“I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending