U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference following a two-day meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on interest rate policy in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 7, 2025.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
History suggests that President Donald Trump’s new “Too Late” nickname for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has a strong chance of coming true, though he’d hardly be alone if it does.
After all, central bank leaders have a long history of being too reluctant to raise or lower interest rates.
Whether it was Arthur Burns keeping rates too low in the face of the stagflation threat during the 1970s, Alan Greenspan not responding quickly enough to the dotcom bubble in the ’90s, or Ben Bernanke’s dismissal of the subprime housing prices as “contained” and not lowering rates prior to the 2008 financial crisis, Fed leaders have long been criticized as slow to act absent compelling data showing them something needs to be done.
So some economists think Powell, faced with a unique set of challenges to the Fed’s twin goals of full employment and low inflation, has a strong chance of wearing the “Too Late” label.
In fact, many of them think nothing is exactly what Powell should do now.
“Historically, go back and look at any Federal Reserve, and I’m going back into the ’70s, the Fed is always late both ways,” said Dan North, senior economist at Allianz Trade North America. “They tend to wait. They want to wait to make sure that they won’t make a mistake, and by the time they do that, usually it is too late. The economy is almost always in recession.”
However, he said that given the volatile policy mix, with Trump’s tariffs threatening both growth and inflation, Powell has little choice but to sit tight absent more clarity.
Powell is in a no-win situation, with threats to both sides of the Fed mandate, “and that’s why he’s doing the exact right thing at this moment, which is nothing, because one way or another it’s going to be a mistake,” North said.
Trump wants a cut
Though Trump said the economy probably will be fine no matter what the Fed does, he has been badgering the central bank lately to cut rates, insisting that inflation has been slayed.
In a Truth Social post after the Fed decision this week to keep rates unchanged, Trump declared that “Too Late’ Jerome Powell is a FOOL, who doesn’t have a clue.” The president declared there is “virtually NO INFLATION,” something that was true for March at least when the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge came in unchanged for the month.
However, the president’s tariffs have yet to be felt in the real economy, as they are barely a month old.
Recent economic data do not indicate price spikes nor a perceptible slowdown in economic activity. However, surveys are showing heightened worries in both the manufacturing and service sectors, while consumer sentiment has soured, and nearly 90% of S&P 500 companies mentioned tariff concerns on their quarterly earnings calls.
At this week’s post-meeting news conference, though, Powell repeatedly voiced confidence in what he called a “solid” economy and a labor market “consistent with maximum employment.”
No ‘pre-emptive’ cuts
The 72-year-old Fed chair also dismissed any idea of a pre-emptive rate cut, despite what sentiment survey data is indicating about current conditions.
“Powell offered two reasons for not being in a hurry. The first – ‘no real cost to waiting’ – is one he may live to regret,” Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI, said in a client note. “The second – ‘we are not sure what the right thing will be’ – makes more sense.”
Powell has his own particular history of being late, with the Fed reluctant to hike when inflation began spiking in 2021. He and his colleagues labeled that episode “transitory,” a call that came back to haunt them when they had to institute a series of historically aggressive hikes that still have not brought inflation back to the central bank’s 2% target.
“If they’re waiting for the labor market to confirm whether they should cut rates, by definition they’re too late,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities and a senior economic advisor to Trump in his first term. “I don’t think the Fed is being forward-looking enough.”
Indeed, if the Fed is using the labor market as a guide, it almost certainly will be behind the curve. An old adage on Wall Street says, “the labor market is the last to know” when a recession is coming, and history has been fairly consistent that job losses generally don’t start until after a downturn has begun.
LaVorgna thinks the Fed is hamstrung by its own history and will miss this call as well, as policymakers unsuccessfully try to game out the impact of tariffs.
“We’re not going to know if it’s too late until it’s too late,” he said. “Economic history combined with current market pricing suggests there’s a real risk the Fed will be too late.”
Investors always pay close attention to bonds, and what the latest movement in prices and yields is saying about the economy. Right now, the action is telling investors to stick to the shorter-end of the fixed-income market with their maturities.
“There’s lots of concern and volatility, but on the short and middle end, we’re seeing less volatility and stable yields,” Joanna Gallegos, CEO and founder of bond ETF company BondBloxx, said on CNBC’s “ETF Edge.”
The 3-month T-Bill right now is paying above 4.3%, annualized. The two-year is paying 3.9% while the 10-year is offering about 4.4%.
ETF flows in 2025 show that it’s the ultrashort opportunity that is attracting the most investors. The iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF (SGOV) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 T-Bill ETF (BIL) are both among the top 10 ETFs in investor flows this year, taking in over $25 billion in assets. Only Vanguard Group’s S&P 500 ETF (VOO) has taken in more new money from investors this year than SGOV, according to ETFAction.com data. Vanguard’s Short Term Bond ETF (BSV) is not far behind, with over $4 billion in flows this year, placing with the top 20 among all ETFs in year-to-date flows.
“Long duration just doesn’t work right now” said Todd Sohn, senior ETF and technical strategist at Strategas Securities, on “ETF Edge.”
Long-term treasuries and long-term corporate bonds have posted negative performance since September, which is very rare, according to Sohn. “The only other time that’s happened in modern times was during the financial crisis,” he said. “It is hard to argue against short term duration bonds right now,” he added.
Sohn is advising clients to steer clear of anything with a duration of longer than seven years, which has a yield in the 4.1% range right now.
Gallegos says she is concerned that amid the bond market volatility, investors aren’t paying enough attention to fixed income as part of their portfolio mix. “My fear is investors are not diversifying their portfolios with bonds today, and investors still have an equity addiction to concentrated broad-based indexes that are overweight certain tech names. They get used to these double-digit returns,” she said.
Volatility in the stock market has been high this year as well. The S&P 500 rose to record levels in February, before falling 20%, hitting a low in April, and then reversing all of those losses more recently. While bonds are an important component of long-term investing to shield a portfolio from stock corrections, Sohn said now is also a time for investors to look beyond the United States with their equity positions.
“International equities are contributing to portfolios like they haven’t done in a decade” he said. “Last year was Japanese equities, this year it is European equities. Investors don’t have to be loaded up on U.S. large cap growth right now,” he said.
The iShares MSCI Eurozone ETF (EZU) is up 25% so far this year. The iShares MSCI Japan ETF (EWJ) Japan ETF is up 25% over the last two years.
Chinese smartphone company Xiaomi in the last week reported record net profit for a second-straight quarter, bolstering several analysts’ conviction on the Hong Kong-listed stock. In absolute dollar terms, Xiaomi’s earnings are still a fraction of Apple’s . But the Chinese company has a larger smartphone market share in China , and has built an electric vehicle business, while the iPhone maker dropped its car plans . Apple in recent months has also come under pressure from the Trump administration over its overseas supply chain. Apple shares are down 20% year-to-date to around $200. Xiaomi’s have gained more than 45% to 50.95 Hong Kong dollars ($6.50) a share. Following Xiaomi’s earnings report on May 27, Jefferies analysts raised their price target to 73 HKD, up from 69.50 HKD previously — for upside of 43% from Friday’s close. The analysts attributed the company’s earnings beat to outperformance in “AIoT.” The category refers to Xiaomi’s appliances, which incorporate artificial intelligence functions and can be controlled remotely over the internet using an app. Xiaomi’s adjusted net income for the first quarter was 10.68 billion yuan ($1.48 billion), beating the expected 9.48 billion yuan, according to a FactSet analyst poll. Revenue of 111.29 billion yuan also came in above the 108.49 billion yuan predicted by the poll. In smartphones, Xiaomi has become more conservative about the global outlook, but the Jefferies analysts pointed out the company will likely continue to gain market share in the high-end China market with its new Xring O1 chip. Xiaomi officially revealed the chip on May 22 and said it would power its new 15S Pro smartphone, which sells for far less than Apple’s iPhone 16 Pro in China. CEO Lei Jun claimed at the event that Xiaomi’s Xring O1 Apple’s A18 Pro on several metrics, including the ability to operate a game with less heat. Smartphones account for just under 40% of Xiaomi’s revenue. Appliances and other products make up nearly 22%. “We believe appliances represent major upside in the next two years, but [Xiaomi’s electric SUV] YU7 sales will be [the] key [short-term] catalyst,” the Jefferies analysts said. Xiaomi revealed its YU7 SUV at the same May 22 event. While the company didn’t announce a price, it said an official launch would be held in July and that the new car would come with a longer driving range than rival Tesla’s Model Y. “We believe the launch of YU7, scheduled for July 2025, will likely be the most important catalyst for Xiaomi this year,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a May 27 report. They expect the SUV can garner a higher price point than Xiaomi’s SU7 electric sedan that hit the market last year. “If sales volume is strong, it could help Xiaomi achieve higher ASPs, better margins, and ongoing earnings growth,” the Morgan Stanley analysts said. They rate Xiaomi overweight and have a price target of 62 HKD. In addition to the YU7 release this summer, several analysts said they are looking forward to Xiaomi’s investor day, scheduled for June 3. Those are both potential positive catalysts, Macquarie said. “We believe Xiaomi is a beneficiary of rising EV demand, changing consumer behavior, and industry consolidation in China.” “The company is widening its core business product offerings, expanding overseas and controlling [operating expenses] to drive profitability,” the report said. Macquarie rates the stock outperform, with a price target of 69.32 HKD. JPMorgan analysts kept their neutral rating, however, as they said Xiaomi’s ecosystem-related revenue growth was the slowest among major categories — not supportive of a high valuation in their view. They cautioned that while Apple was able to gain value once services started driving growth instead of hardware, Xiaomi has seen accelerating hardware growth while services has grown more slowly. Their price target is 60 HKD, still about 18% above where the stock closed Friday. — CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.
Sarah Kapnick started her career in 2004 as an investment banking analyst for Goldman Sachs. She was struck almost immediately by the overlap of financial growth and climate change, and the lack of client advisory around that theme.
Integrating the two, she thought, would help investors understand both the risks and opportunities, and would help them use climate information in finance and business operations. With a degree in theoretical mathematics and geophysical fluid dynamics, Kapnick saw herself as uniquely positioned to take on that challenge.
But first, she had to get deeper into the science.
That led her to more study and then to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the nation’s scientific and regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its defined mission is to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts and to share that knowledge and information with others.
In 2022, Kapnick was appointed NOAA’s chief scientist. Two years later, JPMorgan Chase hired her away, but not as chief sustainability officer, a role common at most large investment banks around the world and a position already filled at JPMorgan.
Rather, Kapnick is JPMorgan’s global head of climate advisory, a unique job she envisioned back in 2004.
Just days before the official start of the North American hurricane season, CNBC spoke with Kapnick from her office at JPMorgan in New York about her current role at the bank and how she’s advising and warning clients.
Here’s the Q&A:
(This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.)
Diana Olick, CNBC: Why does JPMorgan need you?
Sarah Kapnick, JPMorgan global head of climate advisory: JPMorgan and banks need climate expertise because there is client demand for understanding climate change, understanding how it affects businesses, and understanding how to plan. Clients want to understand how to create frameworks for thinking about climate change, how to think about it strategically, how to think about it in terms of their operations, how to think about it in terms of their diversification and their long-term business plans.
Everybody’s got a chief sustainability officer. You are not that. What is the difference?
The difference is, I come with a deep background in climate science, but also how that climate science translates into business, into the economy. Working at NOAA for most of my career, NOAA is a science agency, but it’s science agency under the Department of Commerce. And so my job was to understand the future due to physics, but then be able to translate into what does that mean for the economy? What does that mean for economic development? What does that mean for economic output, and how do you use that science to be able to support the future of commerce? So I have this deep thinking that combines all that science, all of that commerce thinking, that economy, how it translates into national security. And so it wraps up all these different issues that people are facing right now and the systematic issues, so that they can understand, how do you navigate through that complexity, and then how do you move forward with all that information at hand?
Give us an example, on a ground level, of what some of that expertise does for investors.
There’s a client that’s concerned about the future of wildfire risk, and so they’re asking, How is wildfire risk unfolding? Why is it not in building codes? How might building codes change in the future? What happens for that? What type of modeling is used for that, what type of observations are used for that? So I can explain to them the whole flow of where is the data? How is the data used in decisions, where do regulations come from. How are they evolving? How might they evolve in the future? So we can look through the various uncertainties of different scenarios of what the world looks like, to make decisions about what to do right now, to be able to prepare for that, or to be able to shift in that preparation over time as uncertainty comes down and more information is known
So are they making investment decisions based on your information?
Yes, they’re making investment decisions. And they’re making decisions of when to invest because sometimes they have a knowledge of something as it’s starting to evolve. They want to act either early or they want to act as more information is known, but they want to know kind of the whole sphere of what the possibilities are and when information will be known or could be known, and what are the conditions that they will know more information, so they can figure out when they want to act, when that threshold of information is that they need to act.
How does that then inform their judgment on their investment, specifically on wildfire?
Because wildfire risk is growing, there’ve been a few events like the Los Angeles wildfires that were recently seen. The questions that I’m getting are could this happen in my location? When will it happen? Will I have advanced notice? How should I change and invest in my infrastructure? How should I think about differences in my infrastructure, my infrastructure construction? Should I be thinking about insurance, different types of insurance? How should I be accessing the capital markets to do this type of work? It’s questions across a range of trying to figure out how to reduce vulnerability, how to reduce financial exposure, but then also, if there are going to be risks in this one location, maybe there are more opportunities in these other locations that are safer, and I should be thinking of them as well. It’s holistically across risk management and thinking through risk and what to do about it, but then also thinking about what opportunities might be emerging as a result of this change in physical conditions in the world.
But you’re not an economist. Do you work with others at JPMorgan to augment that?
Yes, my work is very collaborative. I work across various teams with subject matter experts from different sectors, different industries, different parts of capital, and so I come with my expertise of science and technology and policy and security, and then work with them in whatever sphere that they’re in to be able to deliver the most to the bank that we can for our clients.
With the cuts by the Trump administration to NOAA, to FEMA, to all of the information gathering sources — we’re not seeing some of the things that we normally see in data. How is that affecting your work?
I am looking to what is available for what we need, for whatever issue. I will say that if data is no longer available, we will translate and move into other data sets, use other data sets, and I’m starting to see the development out in certain parts of the private sector to pull in those types of data that used to be available elsewhere. I think that we’re going to see this adjustment period where people search out whatever data it is they need to answer the questions that they have. And there will be opportunities. There’s a ton of startups that are starting to develop in that area, as well as more substantial companies that have some of those data sets. They’re starting to make them available, but there’s going to be this adjustment period as people figure out where they’re going to get the information that they need, because many market decisions or financial decisions are based on certain data sets that people thought would always be there.
But the government data was considered the top, irrefutable, best data there was. Now, how do we know, when going to the private sector, that this data is going to be as credible as government data?
There’s going to be an adjustment period as people figure out what data sets to trust and what not to trust, and what they want to be using. This is a point in time where there is going to be adjustment because something that everyone got used to working with, they now won’t have that. And that is a question that I’m getting from a lot of clients, of what data set should I be looking for? How should I be assessing this problem? Do I build in-house teams now to be able to assess this information that I didn’t have before? And I’m starting to see that occurring across different sectors, where people are increasingly having their own meteorologist, their own climatologist, to be able to help guide them through some of these decisions.
Final thoughts?
Climate change isn’t something that is going to happen in the future and impact finance in the future. It’s something that is a future risk that is now actually finding us in the bottom line today.