Connect with us

Finance

Trump’s next Fed chair pick already comes with a credibility problem

Published

on

The silhouette of a pedestrian is seen walking past the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C

Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

If leading the Federal Reserve isn’t challenging enough, the next central bank chair faces an additional burden: credibility issues now that President Donald Trump has stepped up efforts to exert a heavy hand on monetary policy.

Whoever the successful candidate is could carry the specter of being there simply to do Trump’s bidding on interest rates, violating the Fed’s traditionally apolitical veneer.

To exert more influence in the near term, Trump reportedly is considering naming a “shadow chair” until the current occupant, Jerome Powell, leaves office next year, in an attempt to pressure the Fed into cutting rates.

The prospect leaves a series of thorny questions.

Beyond the awkward logistics of such an arrangement, there are potentially troublesome implications both institutionally for the Fed and for financial markets that count on it to make data-driven decisions free of outside influence.

“Naturally, this is an idea that leaves many investors feeling uneasy,” Dario Perkins, senior European economist at TS Lombard, said in a note Tuesday titled “Can We Trust the Next Fed Chair?” “Suddenly all the talk is of the Fed ‘losing independence’ and of there being a new era of ‘fiscal dominance’ – not helped by the fact that Trump is explicitly linking his demand for lower rates to reducing debt-servicing costs.”

Indeed, Fed officials generally make decisions in service to their twin goals, or “dual mandate,” namely to promote stable inflation or full employment.

Trump's painting the next Fed chair into a corner, says Harvard's Ken Rogoff

What Trump has been demanding is different — he has been hectoring Powell and his fellow Federal Open Market Committee officials, in increasingly belligerent terms, to cut rates to lower financing costs for the government’s ever-burgeoning debt load. Trump insists the Fed could save taxpayers some $800 billion by aggressively lowering its overnight funds rate, which currently sits at 4.33%.

Powell and his predecessors have repeatedly held the line that the public fiscal situation does not and will not play a role in rate decisions. Veering outside the traditional Fed decision-making parameters would pose further questions for the next chair’s credibility.

Advantages and disadvantages

“The real loser here is not Jay Powell but his successor,” Perkins wrote. “We don’t even know who that person is, and already there are strong doubts about their integrity and what sort of ‘deal’ they have made to secure the position. But it seems pretty clear that Powell’s replacement will come with a ‘tacit understanding’ to cut rates.”

To be sure, central bank experts acknowledge that there is some benefit to Trump wanting to get ahead of the game in naming the next Fed chair.

Powell’s term as chair ends in May 2026, so nominating a replacement perhaps a few months early would give the prospective nominee the chance to get through the Senate confirmation process and bone up on the myriad responsibilities that the position carries.

But Trump’s idea is different.

Such a “shadow chair,” under the market’s understanding and in conjunction with statements that Trump and his lieutenants have made on the matter, would be in place almost explicitly to undermine Powell. Should Powell not budge on pushing for rate cuts, the shadow chair could simply make public statements contrary to that position.

However, finding a candidate to fill that role might not be so easy considering the reputational risks.

“From the perspective of the nominee, there’s nothing good about being nominated far out in advance and being expected to serve as a shadow Fed chair. That can only end poorly,” said Lev Menand, an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School and author of the 2022 book, “The Fed Unbound: Central Banking in a Time of Crisis.”

“It could lead to reputational harm. It could lead to pressure on you to say or do things in the run up to actually taking office that you don’t want to say or do,” he added. “It could lead to your nomination being yanked. It could lead to all sorts of bad things. So there’s nobody who’s seeking the Fed chair job who’s going to want to be put up early, except someone who’s told you won’t otherwise get it.”

Markets might not like it

Fed's Bostic: July meeting too early to assess inflationary impact of tariffs

“A good case could be made for nominating the next Fed chair a few months before the handover in May 2026,” Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI, said in a recent note. “But nominating the next Fed chair now with the expectation that this person would be an active alternative voice on monetary policy for the best part of year would confuse the market, making it harder for the Fed to shape rate expectations and potentially … in ways that would not help advance rate cuts.”

Trump has a further set of logistics to navigate as he pushes his desire for lower rates.

Rate cuts aren’t certain

There is only one upcoming vacancy on the board of governors, with Adriana Kugler’s term up at the end of January 2026.

Powell’s time as chair runs out in May 2026, but he can stay on as governor until 2028. In the past, most Fed chairs have stepped down after the time at the helm ended; should Powell not go that route, he would then force Trump to name a current sitting governor as his successor, eliminating presumptive candidates such as Bessent, former Governor Kevin Warsh and current National Economic Council leader Kevin Hassett.

Moreover, the chair is just one voter out of 12 on the Federal Open Market Committee. While there currently are disparate views from policymakers on how quickly rates should come down, there are no members who have indicated they support the kind of cuts Trump seeks.

Investors will get a further peek into the Fed’s thinking when minutes of the June FOMC meeting are released Wednesday.

“This is all somewhat unprecedented how things would develop,” Menand said. “But I think that it’s safe to say that depending on how it’s rolled out, it could really ultimately unsettle expectations and change how some of these dynamics unfold in the fall.”

Markets expect the Fed will start cutting again in September, but the path from there is unclear. Should Trump name the shadow chair in the fall, it comes with the risk of both unsettling markets, and of causing problems for whomever he picks.

“Depending on who it is, it could have no effect, really at all, on Powell’s ability to govern for the remainder of his term, or it could actually be quite disruptive,” Menand added. “What would actually happen if the person was named in advance? The devil would be in the details.”

The Fed really can't cut until they see solid evidence of weakening, says MetLife's Drew Matus

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Finance

Big Tech Enterprise Borrowing Reaches $135 Billion as Hyperscalers Fund AI Infrastructure

Published

on

Big Tech Enterprise Borrowing Reaches $135 Billion

Corporate debt markets are undergoing a major structural shift as major technology hyperscalers execute unprecedented debt offerings to finance large-scale artificial intelligence infrastructure. According to institutional market estimates, the annual value of debt issued by top technology firms reached $135 billion in 2026, marking a massive increase from the $35 billion annual average recorded between 2020 and 2024. This wave of corporate borrowing reflects the immense capital required to build next-generation data centers, secure specialized silicon, and build energy infrastructure.

The scale of AI-driven capital expenditures is reshaping corporate finance frameworks. While tech giants historically maintained fortress balance sheets dominated by cash reserves and minimal debt liabilities, the speed of the AI infrastructure deployment race has led corporate treasurers to access debt capital markets. These multi-billion-dollar corporate bond issuances are competing directly with sovereign debt for institutional investment capital.

Credit rating agencies and fixed income analysts are evaluating the long-term balance sheet implications of this corporate borrowing boom. While technology hyperscalers possess substantial revenue streams and strong operating margins, the high interest rate environment means new debt issuances carry higher coupon burdens. Financial analysts are closely tracking return-on-investment (ROI) metrics to ensure capital outlays generate sufficient cash flow to service expanding debt obligations over the coming decade.

Despite elevated borrowing costs, primary market demand for high-grade technology bonds remains robust. Institutional asset managers, pension funds, and insurance firms are absorbing new issuances, attracted by investment-grade credit ratings and attractive yields. However, the concentration of corporate debt issuance within the technology sector highlights growing exposure to enterprise technology spend cycles.

Why This Information Matters
The massive surge in technology sector debt issuance impacts broader credit markets and institutional liquidity. For corporate leaders and investors, understanding how major enterprise tech firms fund infrastructure expansion provides key insights into market interest rate dynamics, corporate credit availability, and the long-term ROI expectations driving modern corporate finance.

Continue Reading

Finance

S&P 500 Outperforms Amid Strong Corporate Earnings as Treasury Yields Cap Equity Multiples

Published

on

S&P 500 Outperforms Amid Strong Corporate Earnings as Treasury Yields Cap Equity Multiples

Financial markets opened September on a firm footing following a solid performance in August, where the S&P 500 gained 2.6% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite rose 3.9%. Corporate earnings across major index constituents showed impressive momentum, with S&P 500 year-over-year earnings growth topping historic averages. However, despite robust corporate balance sheets, equity market valuations face headwinds as benchmark 10-year Treasury yields remain elevated near 4.75%.

The current financial environment is characterized by a strong divergence between corporate earnings resilience and bond market pressure. Enterprise technology leaders, financial institutions, and consumer sectors reported strong profit margins, benefiting from operational efficiency gains and disciplined cost management. Yet, institutional investors remain cautious about expanding price-to-earnings multiples when risk-free benchmark bond yields offer yields near 4.7%.

Fixed income markets continue to reflect restrictive monetary conditions. The broader aggregate bond market recorded flat total returns year-to-date, while fixed income yields—such as 30-day SEC yields on core bond funds—stayed above 4.6%. This yield profile provides institutional and retail investors with meaningful cash flow returns without taking on equity market downside risk, creating a competitive alternative for institutional capital allocation.

Portfolio managers and investment strategists recommend a disciplined, quality-oriented approach entering the final quarter of 2026. Rather than chasing speculative momentum, capital flows are favoring companies with strong cash flow generation, low debt-to-equity ratios, and robust pricing power capable of withstanding elevated input costs.

Why This Information Matters
The tension between strong corporate earnings and elevated bond yields directly impacts portfolio allocations and retirement wealth. Individual investors and wealth managers must balance equity market participation with fixed-income yield opportunities, ensuring portfolios are diversified against sudden valuation adjustments caused by fluctuating benchmark interest rates.

Continue Reading

Finance

Treasury Bond Volatility Forces Bessent to Double Debt Buyback Size as Yields Swing

Published

on

Bessent

A turbulent week in the U.S. Treasury market prompted the Treasury Department to sharply increase the size of its long-term debt buyback program, as bond prices fell even while equity markets pushed toward record highs. The divergence has drawn attention from fixed-income strategists who see it as a signal of underlying investor unease about federal borrowing levels.

What Happened This Week

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Thursday, August 20, 2026, that the Treasury had doubled the size of its long-term debt buyback operations, moving from roughly $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation. Bessent indicated the figure could climb further, saying “we’re going to increase the size of the buyback,” and noted the accelerated pace could exceed the announced $4 billion threshold per issue.

Buybacks allow the Treasury to repurchase outstanding government bonds directly from the market, which can help support prices and dampen yield volatility during periods of stress. The expanded program came as stocks staged a late-week recovery: the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 both advanced on Friday, August 21, even as Treasuries logged mild losses, according to Bloomberg market data.

Why Bond and Equity Markets Are Diverging

Capital.com senior market analyst Daniela Hathorn described the week’s dynamic as markets “ending the week on a softer tone after the relative calm of early August was disrupted by renewed pressure in global bond markets, another rise in oil prices, and growing uncertainty around the Federal Reserve’s next move.” She noted that higher long-term borrowing costs are increasingly challenging elevated equity valuations, even as U.S. equities pull back modestly from record highs.

This divergence — equities near record levels while bonds sell off  is unusual and reflects two different sets of investor concerns. Equity investors have remained focused on corporate earnings strength, particularly from large technology companies ahead of Nvidia’s closely watched August 26 earnings report. Bond investors, by contrast, are more directly exposed to concerns about the scale of federal borrowing, highlighted this week by the national debt crossing the $40 trillion threshold for the first time.

The Fed and Treasury “Working in Opposite Directions”

Wilmington Trust senior bond portfolio manager Wil Stith told Yahoo Finance that current conditions reflect “the Fed and the Treasury basically working in sort of opposite directions,” adding that the imbalance will likely require the Federal Reserve  which he described as having “the larger sandbox”  to adjust the federal funds rate rather than relying on Treasury market interventions alone to manage yields.

Notably, the bond market’s reaction to the Treasury’s buyback expansion was relatively muted; strategists described the move as being largely absorbed without a major rally, suggesting the underlying pressure on yields stems from factors, such as inflation persistence and debt sustainability concerns, that a buyback program alone cannot resolve.

What Comes Next

Markets are now looking to two major events in the days ahead: Nvidia’s earnings report on Wednesday, August 26, and the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, running August 27-29. This will be the first Jackson Hole gathering under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, whose public communication style and policy signals remain less established than his predecessors’, according to market commentary from Regards of Wall Street.

For investors, the key metrics to watch are the size and frequency of future Treasury buyback operations, movements in the 10-year Treasury yield, and any policy signals from Warsh’s keynote address. Continued yield volatility alongside record equity valuations would suggest the market imbalance identified this week has not yet been resolved.

 

Continue Reading

Trending