Connect with us

Economics

Surging inflation fears sent markets tumbling and Fed officials scrambling

Published

on

A sign advertising units for rent is displayed outside of a Manhattan building on April 11, 2024 in New York City.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images

The early data is in for the path of inflation during the first three months of 2024, and the news so far is, well, not good.

Pick your poison. Whether it’s prices at the register or wholesale input costs, while inflation is off the blistering pace of 2022, it doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. Future expectations also have been drifting higher.

Investors, consumers and policymakers — even economists — have been caught off guard with just how stubborn price pressures have been to start 2024. Stocks slumped Friday as the Dow Jones Industrial Average coughed up nearly 500 points, dropping 2.4% on the week and surrendering nearly all its gains for the year.

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” Harvard economist Jason Furman told CNBC this week. “We’ve now had three months in a row of prints coming in above just about what everyone expected. It’s time to change the way we think about things going forward.”

No doubt, the market has been forced to change its thinking dramatically.

Fed can't argue against three hotter-than-expected inflation reports, says Fundstrat's Tom Lee

Even import prices, an otherwise minor data point, contributed to the narrative. In March, it posted its biggest increase for a three-month period in about two years. All of it has amounted to a big headache for markets, which sold off through most of the week before really hitting the skids Friday.

As if all the bad inflation news wasn’t enough, a Wall Street Journal report Friday indicated that Iran plans to attack Israel in the next two days, adding to the cacophony. Energy prices, which have been a major factor in the past two months’ inflation readings, pushed higher on signs of further geopolitical turmoil.

“You can take your pick. There’s a lot of catalysts” for Friday’s sell-off, said market veteran Jim Paulsen, a former strategist and economist with Wells Fargo and other firms who now writes a blog for Substack titled Paulsen Perspectives. “More than anything, this is really down to one thing now, and it’s the Israel-Iran war if that’s going to happen. … It just gives you a great sense of instability.”

High hopes dashed

In contrast, heading into the year markets saw an accommodative Fed poised to cut interest rates early and often — six or seven times, with the kickoff happening in March. But with each months’ stubborn data, investors have had to recalibrate, now anticipating just two cuts, according to futures market pricing that sees a non-zero probability (about 9%) of no reductions this year.

“I’d love the Fed to be in a position to cut rates later this year,” said Furman, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Barack Obama. “But the data is just not close to being there, at least yet.”

This week was filled with bad economic news, with each day literally bringing another dose of reality about inflation.

It started Monday with a New York Fed consumer survey showing expectations for rent increases over the next year rising dramatically, to 8.7%, or 2.6 percentage points higher than the February survey. The outlook for food, gas, medical care and education costs all rose as well.

On Tuesday, the National Federation of Independent Business showed that optimism among its members hit an 11-year low, with members citing inflation as their primary concern.

Wednesday brought a higher-than-expected consumer price reading that showed the 12-month inflation rate at 3.5%, while the Labor Department on Thursday reported that wholesale prices showed their biggest one-year gain since April 2023.

Finally, a report Friday indicated that import prices rose more than expected in March and notched the biggest three-month advance since May 2022. On top of that, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned that “persistent inflationary pressures” posed a threat to the economy and business. And the University of Michigan’s closely watched consumer sentiment survey came in lower than expected, with respondents pushing up their inflation outlook as well.

Still ready to cut, sometime

Fed remains in focus for venture capital investors after strong CPI report

While consumer and producer price indexes captured the market’s attention this week, it’s worth remembering that the Fed’s attention is elsewhere when it comes to inflation. Policymakers instead follow the personal consumption expenditures price index, which has not been released yet for March.

There are two key differences between the CPI and the PCE indexes. Primarily, the Commerce Department’s PCE adjusts for changes in consumer behavior, so if people are substituting, say, chicken for beef because of price changes, that would be reflected more in PCE than CPI. Also, PCE places less weighting on housing costs, an important consideration with rental and other shelter prices holding higher.

In February, the PCE readings were 2.5% for all items and 2.8% ex-food and energy, or the “core” reading that Fed officials watch more closely. The next release won’t come until April 26; Citigroup economists said that current tracking data points to core edging lower to 2.7%, better but still a distance from the Fed’s goal.

Adding up the signals

Moreover, there are multiple other signals showing that the Fed has a long way to go.

So-called sticky price CPI, as calculated by the Atlanta Fed, edged up to 4.5% on a 12-month basis in March, while flexible CPI surged a full percentage point, albeit to only 0.8%. Sticky price CPI entails items such as housing, motor vehicle insurance and medical care services, while flexible price is concentrated in food, energy and vehicle prices.

Finally, the Dallas Fed trimmed mean PCE, which throws out extreme readings on either side, to 3.1% in February — again a ways from the central bank’s goal.

A bright spot for the Fed is that the economy has been able to tolerate high rates, with little impact to the employment picture or growth at the macro level. However, there’s worry that such conditions won’t last forever, and there have been signs of cracks in the labor market.

“I have long worried that the last mile of inflation would be the hardest. There’s a lot of evidence for a non-linearity in the disinflation process,” said Furman, the Harvard economist. “If that’s the case, you would require a decent amount of unemployment to get inflation all the way to 2.0%.”

That’s why Furman and others have pushed for the Fed to rethink it’s determined commitment to 2% inflation. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, for instance, told CNBC on Friday that if the Fed could get inflation to around 2.8%-3%, it should “call it a day and a win.”

“At a minimum, I think getting to something that rounds to 2% inflation would be just fine — 2.49 rounds to two. If it stabilized there, I don’t think anyone would notice it,” Furman said. “I don’t think they can tolerate a risk of inflation above 3 though, and that’s the risk that we’re facing right now.”

Economic crosscurrents creating questions around earnings season, says Crossmark's Bob Doll

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO

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