Stock Markets

Trump’s broadsides in 2018 were met with veritable silence at Fed, transcripts show

Published

11 months ago

January 13, 2024

Trump's broadsides in 2018 were met with veritable silence at Fed, transcripts show

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as Jerome Powell, his nominee to become chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, speaks at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 2, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

By Howard Schneider and Michael S. Derby

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – On the surface, Donald Trump’s blistering comments about the Federal Reserve beginning in 2018 seemed a grand breach of protocol for a U.S. president, with the businessman-turned-politician railing against a “loco” central bank he thought was undermining his economic policies with interest rate increases.

Inside the Fed, however, an institution designed to be insulated from direct political influence, Trump’s insults in interviews and social media posts landed with nary a whisper among policymakers, according to newly released transcripts of the U.S. central bank’s eight policy meetings in 2018, a year that marked the leadership change from former Chair Janet Yellen to current chief Jerome Powell, who was handpicked by Trump.

Powell, at least in the official record of the Fed’s meetings released on Friday, never uttered Trump’s name, and neither did any of the Fed governors and reserve bank presidents charged with navigating what proved a surprisingly turbulent year for monetary policymakers.

The economy overall was moving along well with strong growth and low unemployment.

But the new trade policies of the Trump administration, including tariffs and curbs on trade with China, had introduced a wealth of unknowns into the monetary policy debate, including the possibility of higher inflation and growth fueled by tax cuts that figured into the Fed’s gradual rate increases.

By the time of the Fed’s Nov. 7-8, 2018 meeting, financial conditions had grown notably tighter, especially in the aftermath of an interview Powell had given to the Public Broadcasting Service a month earlier that stoked a sell-off in stocks and a sharp widening in credit spreads on corporate bonds.

Simon Potter, who was at the time the head of the New York Fed’s markets operations, noted how the Powell interview – in which he said the Fed’s policy rate was “a long way” from neutral, or the point at which it was neither stimulative nor restrictive – was seen by markets as a turning point.

The “notable rise in Treasury yields” that day, Potter said, “precipitated a subsequent reassessment of equity valuations. The move in yields was attributed in part to better-than-expected economic data as well as comments by Chairman Powell that were seen as suggesting a potentially more restrictive monetary policy path and a higher neutral rate.”

“Financial conditions” were mentioned 22 times at that meeting, notably more than at either of the two previous policy gatherings, and key Fed officials, such as Richard Clarida, then the Fed’s vice chair, took stock of a situation in terms that have echoed the central bank’s current deliberations on whether to call time on a tightening cycle.

Clarida mentioned rising bond-yield “term premiums” and posited there was a historic case for the bond market doing “some of the Fed’s job for it” – topics that have been bandied about by current central bank officials. He also described an economy not unlike the present one – with faster-than-trend growth expected soon to cool, a job market at or near full employment and risks of “excess-demand-driven” inflation seen as likely to fade and augur for a change in policymakers’ outlook.

POSSIBLE REUNION

At the Dec. 18-19 meeting that year, policymakers boosted the Fed’s benchmark overnight interest rate to the 2.25%-2.50% range, in what would prove to be the final increase of that hiking cycle.

“With growth expected to decline to closer to trend next year, we can afford to be patient about further policy firming, especially in an environment in which inflation is still muted,” Powell told his colleagues. The Fed leader described an economy where the data had been strong but sentiment was weak, while noting upside inflation risks had declined and the risks of tighter financial conditions had risen.

While that debate included extensive staff analysis of how new international trade frictions and administration policies were influencing the economy, that was the only apparent avenue through which Trump entered the discourse.

There was only one direct reference to Trump’s running commentary about the Fed, and that was to document that it was having no influence.

At the July 31-Aug. 1 meeting, Fed staff discussed how “recent comments by President Trump” had influenced the views of market participants about monetary policy, and found in a survey that investors felt the president “would have no material effect on the (rate-setting Federal Open Market) Committee’s reaction function.”

Though U.S. presidents typically take a hands-off attitude towards the Fed, Trump’s frustration over Powell and the central bank mounted during his four years in the White House. He would eventually call Powell an enemy of the U.S., comparing him to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and saying the Fed chief was among his worst appointments.

Trump, who is favored to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is running even with President Joe Biden at the outset of the race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week.

Should the former president win the Nov. 5 election and return to the White House next year, it will mark a reunion of sorts. Powell’s current term lasts through May of 2026, 16 months after the next presidential inauguration.

Stock Markets

14 lessons from 2024 to remember in 2025: BofA

Published

17 hours ago

December 22, 2024

Investing.com — In a recent note, Bank of America outlined 14 key lessons from 2024 that investors should keep in mind as they head into 2025, warning that market momentum and stretched valuations could face headwinds in the year ahead.

While this year resembled the steady gains of 1996-97, rather than the bubble peaks of 1998-99, risks are mounting—from geopolitical tensions and rising debt to market fragility highlighted by the VIX.

BofA points to opportunities in Europe, China, and Japan but cautions that volatility, trade disputes, and macroeconomic uncertainty will shape the next leg of the market cycle.

Below are the 14 lessons that BofA highlighted.

1. 2024 was a strong year for markets, but it might only be the beginning.

2. The market’s performance in 2024 looked more like the steady gains of 1996-97 than the bubble peaks of 1998-99.

3. In a bubble environment, market leadership can persist for longer than investors can afford to stay underweight.

4. However, the combination of strong momentum and high valuations is already too stretched to avoid a potential bust.

5. The has shown that markets remain fragile, and a major shock may be overdue.

6. August 2024 suggests buying market dips and locking in volatility spikes; using smarter strategies like skewed delta positioning may be key for 2025.

7. Rising debt levels and persistent inflation mean bond vigilantes remain the most visible macroeconomic tail risk.

8. Market fragility, faster reactions, and elevated valuations suggest a repeat of the calm volatility seen in 2017 is unlikely.

9. A Trump election victory has reignited concerns around tariffs, with European companies favored by dollar strength potentially becoming the next trade targets.

10. European equities remain cheap and unloved—investors should be cautious about being caught short, as fewer crowded trades mean less volatility pain.

11. China’s outperformance over Japan in 2024 could continue if U.S. interest rates decline.

12. VIX options data indicates that positioning risks in the market have not gone away.

13. Eurozone bank dividends have outperformed the for much of the past year; investors may need to hedge against a different outcome in 2025.

14. The risk of sharp movements in the Japanese yen, driven by volatility, could cause instability for the in 2025.

Stock Markets

Class Action Lawsuit Reminder WOLF: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Reminds Wolfspeed, Inc. (WOLF) Investors – A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed

Published

17 hours ago

December 22, 2024

RADNOR, PA. – (NewMediaWire) – December 21, 2024 – The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolfspeed (NYSE:), Inc. (Wolfspeed) (NYSE: WOLF) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Wolfspeed securities between August 16, 2023, and November 6, 2024, inclusive (the Class Period). The lead plaintiff deadline is January 17, 2025.

CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:

If you suffered Wolfspeed losses, you may CLICK HERE or go to: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/wolfspeed-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=wolf&mktm=r

You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com .

DEFENDANTS ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wolfspeeds optimistic claims of potential growth of its Mohawk Valley fabrication facility and general demand for Wolfspeeds 200mm wafers in the electronic vehicle market fell short of reality; and (2) Wolfspeed had overstated demand for its key product and placed undue reliance on purported design wins while the Mohawk Valley facilitys growth had begun to taper before recognizing the $100 million revenue per quarter allegedly achievable with only 20% utilization of the fabrication, let alone the promised $2 billion revenue purportedly achievable by the facility.

Please CLICK HERE to view our video or copy and paste this link into your browser: https://youtu.be/zMLfnSRjg2Y

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:

Wolfspeed investors may, no later than January 17, 2025, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Wolfspeed investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaints in this action were not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com .

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Jonathan Naji, Esq.

(484) 270-1453

280 King of Prussia Road

Radnor, PA 19087

info@ktmc.com

May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

View the original release on www.newmediawire.com

Stock Markets

Starbucks workers’ union strikes across US as talks hit impasse

Published

17 hours ago

December 22, 2024

By Savyata Mishra, Gursimran Mehar and Renee Hickman

(Reuters) -Some members of the Starbucks (NASDAQ:) workers’ union that represents more than 10,000 baristas walked off their jobs in multiple U.S. cities on Friday, citing unresolved issues over wages, staffing and schedules.

The five-day strike, which began on Friday and closed Starbucks cafes in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle, will expand to Columbus (WA:), Denver, and Pittsburgh through Saturday, the union said in a statement.

This is the latest in a series of labor actions that have picked up pace across service industries following a period when workers at manufacturers in the automotive, aerospace and rail industries won substantial concessions from employers.

At Starbucks, the Workers United union, which represents employees at 525 stores across the U.S., said late on Thursday that walkouts would escalate daily, and could reach “hundreds of stores” nationwide by Christmas Eve.

“It’s estimated that 10 stores out of 10,000 company-operated stores did not open today,” Starbucks said, adding that there was no significant impact to store operations on Friday.

Around 20 people joined a picket line at a Starbucks location on Chicago’s north side, buffeted by snow and wind, but cheering in response to the honking horns of passing cars.

A few confused customers tried to walk into the closed store before strikers began chanting, but union member Shep Searl said the reaction had been mostly positive.

Searl said 100% of the unionized workers at the Starbucks location in Chicago’s Edgewater neighborhood were participating in the strike, and according to the workers, they have been subject to numerous unfair labor practices including write-ups, “captive-audience” meetings and firings.

The union member said they made about $21 an hour and added, “that would have been a great wage in 2013”.

It is an inadequate wage, the baristas said, given inflation and the high cost of living in a large city, especially since they rarely get 40-hour work weeks.

WORKERS SNUB OFFER

Negotiations between the company and Workers United began in April, based on an established framework agreed upon in February, which could also help resolve numerous pending legal disputes.

The company said on Thursday it has held more than nine bargaining sessions with the union since April, and reached more than 30 agreements on “hundreds of topics”, including economic issues.

The Seattle-headquartered firm said it is ready to continue negotiations, claiming the union delegates prematurely ended the bargaining session this week.

The union, however, said in a Facebook (NASDAQ:) post on Friday that Starbucks had yet to present a serious economic proposal with less than two weeks remaining until the year-end contract deadline.

The workers’ group also snubbed an offer of no immediate wage hike and a guarantee of a 1.5% increase in future years.

“Workers United proposals call for an immediate increase in the minimum wage of hourly partners by 64%, and by 77% over the life of a three-year contract. This is not sustainable,” Starbucks said on Friday.

In response to Starbucks’ statement on the proposals, Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks barista and bargaining delegate, said, “Starbucks’ characterization of our proposals is misleading and they know it. We are ready to finalize a framework that includes new investments in baristas in the first year of contracts”.

Separately, the baristas’ union said on Friday that it filed a new labor practice charge against the coffee house, alleging Starbucks “refused to bargain and engaged in bad faith bargaining” over economic issues.

Hundreds of complaints have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), accusing Starbucks of unlawful labor practices such as firing union supporters and closing stores during labor campaigns. Starbucks has denied wrongdoing and said it respects the right of workers to choose whether to unionize.

WORKING ON A TURNAROUND

Last month, the NLRB said that Starbucks broke the law by telling workers at its flagship Seattle cafe that they would lose benefits if they joined a union.

“It’s (the strike) taking place during one of the busiest times of the year for Starbucks, which could magnify its impact while bringing unwanted public scrutiny into the company’s labor practices,” Emarketer analyst Rachel Wolff said.

The coffee chain is working on a turnaround under its newly appointed top boss, Brian Niccol, who aims to restore “coffee house culture” by overhauling cafes and simplifying its menu among other measures.

“Given how much Starbucks is already struggling to win over customers, it can ill afford any negative publicity – or impact to sales – that the strike could bring,” Wolff said.

The Starbucks workers’ strike comes in the same week as Amazon.com (NASDAQ:) workers at seven U.S. facilities walking off the job on Thursday, during the holiday shopping rush.

There were 33 work stoppages in 2023, the most since 2000, though far lower than in past decades, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showed.