Stock Market's Path Depends on Fed's View of What We Don't Know

(Bloomberg) -- For investors and traders trying to game out where the US economy, the stock market or interest rates are headed in the second half of 2025, good luck. There's simply too much uncertainty to be sure of anything right now.
Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities'
One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing
JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads
NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports
Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown
Take it from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who used variations of the word 'uncertain' nearly 20 times in his post-meeting press conference on Wednesday. Wall Street pros were looking to Powell and the Fed for clues about what's next in a world beset by risks — from escalating war in the Middle East to rising trade tensions between the US and China. But the answer they got was a resounding 'we don't know,' with the central bank remaining in wait-and-see mode before deciding whether it can safely start to lower interest rates.
'If anything, the Fed's read-and-react stance showed just how clueless everyone is right now,' said Scott Ladner, chief investment officer at Horizon Investments. 'As an investor, you cannot trade this, you cannot get ahead of it.'
The S&P 500 Index is within 3% of a record high, but it's been holding tight in a narrow range lately. There have been just two sessions this month with moves of more than 1%, and the benchmark has barely budged over the past two weeks. It's been a surprisingly stagnant period considering oil has soared and the dollar has plunged on the global developments.
Headline Swings
The problem for equity traders appears to be a lack of clarity as sentiment changes from one headline to the next.
You could see it in the stock market action late this week. On Thursday, which was a market holiday in the US, futures contracts on the S&P 500 sank more than 1% in the morning following reports that US officials were preparing for a possible strike on Iran in the coming days. Then, President Donald Trump signaled that he wanted to give diplomacy a chance, which halted the decline. And Friday morning Fed Governor Christopher Waller said he could see interest-rate cuts starting as soon as July, which sent S&P futures jumping into the beginning of the regular session.
But those gains turned out to be short-lived as Iran and Israel traded missile attacks and news hit that the Trump administration is ready to crack down on semiconductor plants in China. After all the back-and-forth, the index closed down 0.2% on the day.
'The S&P 500 is not breaking out one way or another because we've got crosswinds,' Ladner said.
Fed officials left interest rates unchanged this week, with the majority of voting members seeing at least two more quarter-point cuts this year. Those views are essentially guesses, however, because the pace of inflation in the coming months and the resilience of the labor market remain unknown in the face of mounting risks.
'No one holds these rate paths with a lot of conviction,' Powell said at his press conference. 'We expect a meaningful amount of inflation in the coming months, and we have to take that into account.'
And Wall Street is positioning accordingly. A gauge of equity positioning fell this week, led by discretionary investors who went from slightly below neutral to more notably underweight, data compiled by Deutsche Bank AG strategists including Parag Thatte show. With that cut, aggregate equity positioning now sits in the middle of the bottom-half of its usual band, the data show.
The mood among Wall Street prognosticators is equally mixed. Swaps traders are pricing in a roughly 62% chance the Fed will lower rates in September, but there isn't a lot of conviction backing those positions.
Michael Feroli, chief US economist at JPMorgan Securities wrote in a note to clients Wednesday that he foresees one cut this year, at the Fed's December meeting. UBS's senior US economist Brian Rose said that while the bank's base case still calls for 100 basis points of cuts starting in September, he sees risks skewed toward a later start to easing. And Bank of America economists led by Aditya Bhave wrote in a note on Wednesday that they aren't expecting any rate reductions this year.
Uncharted Territory
'The Fed too is facing an uncharted territory,' said Bill Sterling, global strategist at GW&K Investment Management in Boston. 'We haven't had tariff hikes this large in modern history, and there isn't an easy model they can go to.'
The S&P 500 is up 1.5% for the year after a stunning rebound from the brink of a bear market in April, when Trump unveiled his sweeping global tariffs. The gauge soared 19% from April 8, just before Trump paused the bulk of his levies, through the end of May on hopes that the trade war wouldn't turn out to be as bad as feared. But since then, the S&P has been pretty much stagnant, taking a few steps forward and a few steps back as each new headline rolls in.
'Long-term investors will be wise not to make abrupt shifts in portfolio allocations due to news headlines,' Sterling said.
The challenge for investors is that the same dynamics that powered the S&P 500 to gains of more than 20% in 2023 and 2024 — the emergence of artificial intelligence, strong corporate fundamentals, and a resilient consumer — remain intact. But what's holding back optimism is everything else, the uncertainty around policy, geopolitics, slowing growth and creeping signs of stress at the bottom end of consumer spending.
At their meeting this week, Fed officials downgraded their estimates for economic growth this year and lifted their forecasts for unemployment and inflation.
Economic data hasn't offered much help either, with indications heading in divergent directions.
A slew of figures pointed to early signs of the economy slowing down. US factory activity contracted in May for a third consecutive month. Industrial production declined in May for the second time in three months. A gauge of imports fell to a 16-year low. Job growth moderated. And May retail sales fell by the most since the start of the year.
But that flies in the face of the latest reading in the consumer price index, a key inflation gauge, which showed US prices in May rose by less than forecast for the fourth month in a row, suggesting consumers have yet to feel the pinch of tariffs. Of course, those numbers can change quickly if higher levies set in and inflation jumps.
All of which makes a hard road even tougher for traders trying to figure out how to position for the second half of 2025.
'The Fed has laid out its reaction function,' said Kevin Brocks of 22V Research. 'But investors will have to wait and see what the impact of tariffs on inflation actually is.'
Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags
Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros
Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028?
The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It
Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump?
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

32 minutes ago

• Forbes

The Washington Post Is Running Out Of Readers Willing To Pay

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 5: The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square in Washington, DC. ... More (Photo by) I could hardly believe it when I saw The Washington Post's new average daily paid circulation figure that made the rounds in recent days — a number so low that I first thought it must surely be missing a digit. 97,000. That figure comes via the Alliance for Audited Media, and it reveals that The Washington Post's average paid daily circulation has dropped below 100,000 for the first time in 55 years. To put that in perspective: 97,000 is the sort of figure you'd expect to see from a mid-size regional paper like The Minnesota Star Tribune or The Seattle Times. Not from a globally recognized newsroom with a billionaire owner and multiple Pulitzers to its name. The Washington Post's vanishing readership Well, who cares about print anymore anyway, you might think. But there's a difference between being the most important thing – and simply being important. Print falls in the latter category, because not only does the physical version of a newspaper or magazine still brings in revenue – an outlet's circulation is also a kind of proxy metric that reflects the strength of a media brand's connection to its audience. Five years ago, the Post was selling 250,000 papers a day. On Sundays, it now barely crosses 160,000 (both numbers, again, from the Alliance for Audited Media data). Those numbers suggests that, at a time when trust and relevance are more important than ever for media institutions, the Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper seemingly comes up short on both counts – based on the declining number of readers who are willing to pay for it. What's more, the timing of this latest data coincides with a new bout of contraction: The Post is also eliminating its Metro section, folding local news coverage into a hybrid that combines Metro, Sports, and Style. You don't need a memo to understand what's happening here. The Post is shrinking, both physically and in terms of its relevance. Once a D.C. powerhouse with national ambition, it's now in retreat, dealing with a collapse in readership and constant editorial instability. You could also argue there's something of a disconnect that remains between the paper's mission and its audience. As one reader wrote on X, 'Local coverage of Virginia is a joke, and Politico, Axios and others eat their lunch' on Capitol Hill reporting. Another noted that the Post tried to become a national rival to The New York Times and failed — abandoning its identity as a regional and D.C. insider paper in the process. One theory worth considering: The problem may very well be baked into the newspaper's brand itself. For all its Pulitzer-winning political journalism and ambitious national coverage, The Washington Post still carries the weight and limitations of, well, its name. My suspicion is that, because of its name, it probably remains too closely associated with Beltway politics, federal institutions, and D.C. power players. That makes it an obvious read for lawmakers and lobbyists, but a tougher sell for someone in, say, Des Moines. The New York Times has certainly rebranded itself as a national lifestyle enterprise, with features like games and cooking-related content that augment its journalism. But while New York is a hub for media, entertainment, politics, and business, Washington D.C. is kind of a one-note town. Making matters worse, the Post has been hemorrhaging top talent in recent months, including Metro veterans and key editors. It's also dealing with sagging newsroom morale and tension surrounding Bezos's editorial direction. Long story short: The paper is facing a reader crisis, a branding problem, and a leadership challenge all at once. It's hard to see how the Post pulls itself out of this nosedive – and the circulation numbers suggest it's running out of time.

Yahoo

32 minutes ago

• Yahoo

How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance

Imagine for a minute that you were the winning bidder last year for Claude Monet's Nymphéas. It sold last year at Sotheby's, New York after a competitive bidding war lasting only 17 minutes. And the price? $65.5m. That is just for starters. One might be forgiven for thinking that the auction house commission for the sale would be paid by the seller. One would of course be wrong. There is the buyer's premium to calculate. In this case, if Sotheby's standard fees applied, that means a 27% buyer's premium for works up to $1m; 22% for the part of the transaction between $1m-$8m and 15% for the balance above $8m. The Monet is now going to set back the buyer almost $76m. And there is more to come. Let us also imagine that the buyer is based in the UK and is working through his or her bank, say one of the traditional big four banks. The bank will typically add to the cost of the Monet by charging an FX fee of at least 2%, probably closer to the 3% to 4% range. Even at the midpoint of the FX fees scale, that adds about another $2.3m to the final cost to the buyer. For the sake of brevity, let us avoid the tricky question of VAT on the buyers premium or VAT on imported works of art and just focus on FX fees. The total cost of the Monet in question, including VAT, is now way over $80m for a UK buyer. A saving on the FX fee is do-able and it is almost akin to negligence if the theoretical winning UK bidder uses a traditional bank and meekly pays a 3%-4% FX fee. It also offers disrupters in the market such as iBanFirst, an outstanding market opportunity to highlight the benefits of its smarter, fairer FX fees structure. Vivek Savani, UK Country Manager at iBanFirst, is on a mission to address the imbalance in the FX market. 'Whether we're talking about high-net-worth individuals or not, the foreign exchange imbalance is an unnecessary premium that really doesn't represent smart financial management. It also affects businesses. And I think when we look at it, there are exorbitant fees and premiums built into FX pricing and services that many banks offer. 'Over 70% of businesses are still using their bank. If we extrapolate that to the private market for individuals, it's probably vastly more than 70% moving up towards 80% and 90% of individuals that have currency transfers and requirements, that are using their bank. And it's there that these fees really start to kick in. Typically, they may charge between 2% to 4% and ultimately, that's a really, really high price to pay for, ultimately what is quite a straightforward transaction. And they offer, essentially an execution only service. They seldom offer the quite bespoke service that many of these individuals and businesses require. So yeah, I'd say it's quite a vast problem.' To suggest that the global art market is struggling, as some have claimed, might be stretching it a little. If you want a quick but comprehensive summary of the sector, the annual Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2025 by Arts Economics is a good starting point. It reveals that the global art market recorded an estimated $57.5bn in sales in 2024. The number of transactions grew 3% year-on-year, demonstrating continued interest from collectors worldwide. On the other hand, that total for the year of $57.5bn is down by 12% y-o-y. The US and UK continue to lead the way with 43% and 18% respectively of global sales by value. But their 2024 sales of $24.8bn and $10.4bn are down by 9% and 5% respectively. Given the decline in the total value of art sales, Savani argues that it is time for the art world to start paying closer attention to FX and says this could support the entire ecosystem. It would encourage higher bids for auction houses/dealers, support a better seller experience and increasing buyer strength. And he highlights the support iBanFirst provides in the global art market and says that its business model, built around close relationships, mirrors the art world. Specifically, iBanFirst can help buyers and sellers better track payments, meaning that they are better equipped when it comes to buying and selling based on the real-time cost of currency. 'Purchasing art is a sizable investment for many people, and those fees add to the overall cost of that transaction. They're quite opaque. So ultimately, I would argue that this really deters many people from potentially participating in an overseas auction. It erodes confidence and penalises the sellers potentially from having a wider audience to bid on those particular pieces of art. Having overall transparency would really encourage people to participate and help the sellers and help the buyers at the same time, as well as the intermediaries, the brokers and the auction houses that are a central part of that particular ecosystem.' Savani says that there has been a rise in levels of interest in working with FX specialists instead of banks for such international transfers and in the specialist service that bespoke disruptors can offer. But he adds: 'It's not moving at as quick a pace as one would hope. From the consumer perspective, we want to work with more individuals, more dealers, more brokers, to try and bridge that gap. It is improving. There's still a lot of work to be done, and we hope that we can get the message out there that there is an alternative to the bank. There are better levels of service, of convenience, of information, of assistance that are out there.' Savani summarises the iBanFirst proposition as offering a combination of technology mixed with the human touch. 'We have a really nice piece of technology. Many clients find the platform really convenient, very easy to use, and very different to what a banking system would offer them. We also offer that human touch, so someone that is there to speak to the client from the beginning of the transaction right until the end. And this is something that is really missing from a banking solution and many of our competitors. 'That is, a specialised individual that can provide guidance in terms of setting up the transaction, even more insight and a real, healthy overview of what's happening in the market at any particular time. Ultimately, we hold the hand of the client from the beginning until the end. And that is a very important feature, I would say, when it comes to these high value transactions. They're not small amounts of money, and it's a comfort for clients to know there is someone at the end of a phone that will help them with any situation, whether it's funds, whether it's the payment, whether it's making the transaction, the FX piece.' Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Belgium, iBanFirst is regulated as a payment institution, passported throughout the EU and is a serious competitor to the traditional bank offering for SMBs. Its core banking platform offers fast and secure multicurrency transactions and it wins on cost versus banks, thanks to no setup fee, no tiered monthly subscription costs and no transfer fees. Savani says that what the client sees is exactly what the client pays. The iBanFirst pricing structure is designed with scaling international businesses in mind. iBanFirst gives a standard exchange rate spread that applies across all of a client's transactions. This means they can predict their costs even as payment values increase, rather than watching fees eat away at profits. Its offering best suits established small and medium businesses that are outgrowing entry level payment providers and that need advanced tools for things like FX risk management. It will suit importers and exporters with international supply chains seeking the tools and expertise to manage complex payments, that do not want fees eating into their margins. And it suits wholesalers who rely on FX risk management tools that crave detailed payment tracking and hands on responsive support. What's more, iBanFirst clients are able to track international payments every step of the way, with detailed, timestamped updates and tracking links that clients can share with their partners and suppliers. This is, however, a competitive market, and iBanFirst is competing with some serious players. For example, Wise Business can claim that it keeps things simple, both in terms of pricing and functionality. It targets both individual consumers and businesses, especially those looking for a cost-effective solution. On the other hand, once you are regularly moving over, say, €100,000 euros annually, across borders, iBanFirst would argue that Wise's per transaction fees soon start adding up. And if a business is growing, foreign currency risks will become more of a concern. Wise doesn't offer the kind of FX risk management tools or dedicated support that iBanFirst offers to protect margins from exchange rate swings. Another competitor is Airwallex, a cross-border payment provider that offers multi-currency accounts. Airwallex is a payment gateway allowing e-commerce businesses to collect online payments, and it offers virtual and physical cards for expense management. On the other hand, it's a more complex platform, and its features are plan dependent, that may require a steep learning curve for some users. And iBanFirst might argue that the Airwallex pricing structure is not the most SMB friendly. Another competitor is Payoneer, which specialises in facilitating payments to and from freelancers, contractors and online sellers. But with a split focus across multiple audiences, freelancers, businesses and marketplaces, Payoneer, arguably isn't so focused on developing solutions that meet the specific needs of SMBs. And then there is Ebury. Ebury offers forward contracts and other FX hedging tools and offers mass payment capabilities for handling multiple international transactions. However, its complex tailored pricing structure can make it harder for businesses to predict costs or compare Ebury to other providers. In addition, iBanFirst may argue that the Ebury platform is not so user friendly, making it harder to integrate into a modern tech stack. Two other competitors are Convera and Revolut. Convera does suit large businesses with more complex FX needs across multiple countries, but some SMBs may find the Convera platform overwhelming and potentially more expensive than alternatives like Wise or iBanFirst. And finally, there is Revolut. It features a tiered monthly subscription model and each plan comes with a monthly allowance for currency exchanges at the interbank rate. Revolut business does work well for companies that want a single platform to handle most of their financial needs. So, it does have a lot to offer in terms of functionality, but iBanFirst could argue it's not a specialised tool for a specific business type, because it tries to cater to vastly different audiences. Accordingly, some clients may find themselves paying for features that are not relevant to their business needs. And Savani can argue that if human support is a must have, iBanFirst can win against any of what is a very competitive peer group. "How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What if Elon Musk Is Right About U.S. National Debt? 3 Stocks to Buy if He Is.

As Elon Musk argues, rising national debt and debt servicing costs are curtailing the growth prospects of the U.S. economy. More debt could lead to higher interest rates over the long term. These stocks are beneficiaries of rising interest rates. 10 stocks we like better than Prudential Financial › The highly public spat between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump over the One, Big, Beautiful Bill highlights an ongoing, decades-long debate over national debt. The focus of this article is to explore a potential scenario and suggest a way to invest in protection against it. That path is via life and retirement insurance companies like Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU), MetLife (NYSE: MET), and Corebridge Financial (NYSE: CRBG). Here's why. This chart gets to the heart of the matter. As shown below, the U.S. national debt has increased substantially, and so has the level of debt in relation to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The shaded areas show recessionary periods, including the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the pandemic, whereby GDP contracted and spending soared, so naturally, the debt-to-GDP ratio did, too. Still, the response in both cases was the same: more spending and more debt. Musk's view is that the national debt issue needs to be addressed as it's out of control and has the potential to saddle Americans with an unsustainable debt burden, which the bill will exacerbate. To be fair, the Trump administration's aim is not to increase the deficit as officials believe it will lower the deficit, through implementation of mandatory savings and promoting GDP growth. Again, this is not the place to debate that matter. However, what if Musk is right and the U.S. continues down the path of rising debt? Rising debt levels and debt servicing payments imply more debt issuance. Simple economics argues that, unless demand improves, the rising supply of debt will lead to a rise in the price of debt. In other words, long-term interest rates will rise, and could be higher than the market is expecting. The chart below indicates that the market is comfortable with the matter and isn't attaching a significant premium (beyond the usual premium to reflect the increased risk of holding longer-dated debt) to long-term interest rates over medium-term rates. But the market could be wrong. And while Musk's primary concern appears to be the difficulty of cutting rates caused by rising debt, it's only a short step away to argue that rising debt could lead to higher long-term interest rates. The situation might not be catastrophic, but interest rates could be higher than anticipated. It's not an ideal scenario for stocks overall, as it makes them relatively expensive compared to bonds. However, there is one sector that could do well, namely life and retirement insurers such as Prudential Financial, MetLife, and Corebridge. These insurance companies pick up premiums from policyholders. The policies create long-term liabilities for insurers that they need to balance against their assets. As such, they tend to invest in relatively low-risk assets, such as government debt. While rising interest rates will reduce the value of the existing debt holdings, they will also increase the discount rate used to calculate the net present value of their liabilities. Consequently, as rates rise, insurers will be able to buy corporate bonds, mortgage loans, and government debt at higher rates. Here's a breakdown of all three insurers and the assets they hold in their general accounts, which are used to match their liabilities. General Account Assets Highest Share Second Third Notes Prudential Financial 54.9% in publicly available for sale fixed maturities 18.3% in privately available for sale fixed maturities 14.4% commercial mortgage and other loans Mainly corporate and government fixed maturities MetLife 31.6% investment grade corporate debt 18.4% Net mortgage loans 16.1% structured products Only $11.6 billion of its $430.9 billion in general account assets is in non-investment grade corporate and foreign government bonds Corebridge 35% public corporate debt 10% private corporate debt 7% residential mortgage-backed securities 97% in fixed income or short-term investments Data sources: Company presentations. As indicated above, the assets in their general accounts are fixed income and relatively safe investments, giving all three companies good exposure to the theme of higher long-term rates. It's important not to be too alarmist here. The debt problem is undoubtedly an issue, but it's very hard to predict where interest rates, or total interest payable, will be. That said, if you are a young person worried about the public debt burden and the possibility of higher rates over your lifetime, then it makes sense to buy stocks in this sector as a form of (I'm avoiding the obvious word) matching your assets to your potential future liabilities from rising public debt servicing costs. Before you buy stock in Prudential Financial, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Prudential Financial wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. What if Elon Musk Is Right About U.S. National Debt? 3 Stocks to Buy if He Is. was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data