Equity investors seeking clarity should be careful what they wish for
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Financial markets famously hate uncertainty, but getting answers to many of the open questions currently hanging over markets may end up offering investors little comfort.
Several recent global developments, including President Donald Trump's April 2 tariff announcement and subsequent 90-day pause as well as the breakout of the Israel-Iran war, have sparked some of the highest levels of uncertainty in decades.
If recent U.S. stock market performance is anything to go by, investors seem convinced that everything will work out just fine.
Investors will likely get more clarity on several of these issues in the coming weeks, but they may find that this optimism is unwarranted.
On July 9, the 90-day pause on Trump's Liberation Day 'reciprocal tariffs' will end, and unless the delay is extended or multiple trade deals are struck, U.S. import tariffs will essentially double from the 10% level today.
So far, only the UK has managed to agree on a trade deal, and, even here, there is little clarity about the future of tariffs on UK steel exports. Negotiations with the European Union and Japan have stalled, and the EU has prepared a range of potential retaliatory measures.
At the same time, the U.S. Commerce Department is preparing to present its findings on investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, copper, aircraft, jet engines and a host of other goods, opens new tab. It is widely expected that once these findings are presented, the U.S. government will act quickly to impose additional tariffs or import restrictions.
Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to vote on the Trump administration's budget bill in July. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated, opens new tab that in its current form, this bill will add $3.3 trillion in extra debt over the coming decade.
Investor confidence in the dollar and the safety of U.S. Treasuries has been shaken recently, partly due to the country's deteriorating fiscal outlook, so this deficit-expanding budget will only add fuel to the fire.
And now, the war between Israel and Iran has been thrown into the mix, with the U.S. attacking Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday. Oil prices have increased by roughly 10% since the war broke out, though the price as of June 20 was still in line with the 2024 average. After the U.S. attacks, we could see Iranian retaliation against oil fields in the Middle East or the all-important Strait of Hormuz, which could drive oil prices much higher.
With all these moving parts, it is easy to lose sight of what matters right now and what doesn't. While many actions, such as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts in the budget bill, will take years to unfold, the rise in tariff levels could have an immediate impact.
The tariffs currently in place (e.g., base tariffs and tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos) could add 0.9 percentage points to U.S. inflation over the next 12 months, as importers are forced to pass tariff costs on to consumers. If there are no additional trade deals struck and tariffs revert to the higher levels announced on Liberation Day, another 0.7 percentage points could be added. And that doesn't even include potential tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other goods.
The inflation impact from the budget bill will likely be much smaller at roughly 0.1 percentage points over the next 12 months, and an oil price spike to $80 per barrel is apt to have roughly the same impact. Only if oil prices spike to about $100 and remain in that region for the next six months would we have to be seriously worried about an inflation shock from the war in the Middle East.
Of course, if all these developments, including a 20% oil price spike, come to pass, U.S. inflation could rise from current levels by up to two percentage points in the next twelve months, dwarfing the likely impact on the UK and euro zone.
Despite these concerning figures, U.S. equity investors seem nonplussed. U.S. stock markets, perhaps banking on another TACO moment, have rallied 15% above the level justified by macroeconomic fundamentals, based on my estimates.
Over the last 10 years, a deviation of this size was followed by an average decline of 7% in the S&P 500 in the subsequent three months. The gap between performance and fundamentals is smaller in the euro zone and UK, suggesting any mean reversion would be less extreme there.
Now, it's possible that everything – from the trade war to the real war – will end well. And stock markets have an uncanny ability to ignore adversity for a long time.
However, if much of this uncertainty is resolved negatively, resulting in either higher U.S. inflation or lower growth, U.S. equities' surprising resilience is likely to be challenged.
(The views expressed here are those of Joachim Klement, an investment strategist at Panmure Liberum, the UK's largest independent investment bank).
Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
Axel Springer looking for third business pillar in bid to double value
BERLIN, June 23 (Reuters) - German unlisted news and media marketing company Axel Springer SE said on Monday it is looking for a third pillar of business as a strategic hedge, part of a bid to double the group's value over five years. In the search for the new area, the company will look for businesses that are related to the company's main competencies "content, subscription, advertising, mass markets, technology", Axel Springer said in a statement.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
In the wake of Trump's strikes on Iran, what are Keir Starmer's options?
The choices Keir Starmer makes in the next few days could define his premiership. Tony Blair never escaped the accusation he had been George Bush 's 'poodle' over the invasion of Iraq. And how far the current Labour PM goes in backing another US president in another foreign conflict could help or haunt him for years to come. Despite the prime minister last week repeatedly saying ' de-escalation is the priority ', the Trump administration pressed ahead with strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. The prime is now walking a tightrope between supporting the UK's closest ally and attempting to call for calm. In the wake of the strikes, Sir Keir appeared to give the US his cautious backing – describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. But he has also issued stark warnings about the conflict escalating beyond the region. As the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate, the prime minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. He is currently sat firmly on the fence - with his most senior ministers refusing to say whether Trump's strikes were either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. And while the US did not ask Britain for help in its first round of strikes, at some point, the prime minister will be forced to make a decision. So what are his options? One option – albeit the most diplomatically tricky – is to withhold support entirely. Sir Keir has spent months trying to build a special relationship with President Trump. Anything less than support for their actions is likely to go down badly in the White House. However, the Attorney General Lord Hermer, a close political ally of Sir Keir, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: 'The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' The weight the Labour leader places on his old friend's legal judgement could limit the extent of any support for the US, if Trump does decide to act militarily. The PM's own background will also play a role in the decision. The energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said on Thursday that he 'who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' But will he really risk infuriating President Trump at a time when the Republican's tariffs on goods entering the US have already led economists to downgrade their forecasts for the UK economy? Another option, considered the most likely, is to allow the use of the UK-US airbase at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. On Saturday, Trump's strikes on Iran were launched directly without the use of the Diego Garcia base. But in future military actions, the US may ask Britain's permission to use the joint airbase in the Chagos archipelago. The type of B-2 stealth bombers which are often based there are the ones that are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which were used in the operation over the weekend. This is a middle ground seen as the most likely option for the UK government to back. It would not require action from the UK, but could protect the relationship with the US by seeming to offer support. He is already under pressure over the issue at home. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has said the UK should give permission for the US to use Diego Garcia to launch bunker-buster bombs. One step beyond the Diego Garcia option is to provide logistical support to the US, and what that would look like in practice is being wargamed in Whitehall. The benefit of this option is that it would allow the UK to appear to be more supportive of Present Trump than just simply allowing him to use a US airbase, and at the same time risking only a limited response from Iran. The UK is keen not to allow Tehran a pretext to strike British bases or interests and has sent extra assets to the region, with another six Typhoon jets sent to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, joining the eight already there. The final option, considered the least likely, is full UK military intervention. Britain is still pushing hard behind the scenes for a de-escalation in the Middle East. The UK's most favoured outcome is a diplomatic solution, in which both sides dial down the aggression. Keir Starmer is also, as a politician, a gradualist and as such is considered less likely than some of his predecessors as prime minister to commit the UK military to support this kind of intervention, even if it is in the aid of one of our key allies, the United States.
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
Hague NATO summit aims to focus on Trump's spending goal but Iran looms large
THE HAGUE, June 23 (Reuters) - The NATO alliance has crafted a summit in The Hague this week to shore itself up by satisfying U.S. President Donald Trump with a big new defence spending goal - but it now risks being dominated by the repercussions of his military strikes on Iran. The two-day gathering is also intended to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is united, despite Trump's previous criticism of the alliance, and determined to expand and upgrade its defences to deter any attack from Moscow. The summit and its final statement are meant to be short and focused on heeding Trump's call to spend 5% of GDP on defence - a big jump from the current 2% goal. It is to be achieved by investing more in both militaries and other security-related spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, however, upset NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's preparations on Sunday as he declared Madrid did not need to meet the new spending target even as Spain approved the summit statement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has had to settle for a seat at the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening - rather than a formal session with the leaders when they meet on Wednesday - due to his volatile relationship with Trump. The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend makes the summit much less predictable than Rutte - a former prime minister of the Netherlands hosting the gathering in his home city - and other NATO member countries would like. Much will depend on the precise situation in the Middle East when the summit takes place - such as whether Iran has retaliated against the U.S. - and whether other NATO leaders address the strikes with Trump or in comments to reporters. If the meeting does not go to plan, NATO risks appearing weak and divided, just as European members confront what they see as their biggest threat since the end of the Cold War - Russia - while bracing for possible U.S. troop cuts on the continent. Under the new defence spending plan, countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on "core defence" - essentially, weapons and troops - and a further 1.5% on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyber-attacks. Such an increase - to be phased in over 10 years - would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence. Last year, alliance members collectively spent about 2.6% of NATO GDP on core defence, amounting to about $1.3 trillion, according to NATO estimates. The lion's share came from the United States, which spent almost $818 billion. Washington has insisted it is time for Europeans to take on more of the financial and military burden of defending their continent. European leaders say they have got that message but want an orderly and gradual transition, fearful that any gaps in their defences could be exploited by Putin. They are particularly keen to stress their spending commitment as Trump has previously threatened not to protect allies that do not spend enough on defence. A prepared text summit statement agreed by NATO governments and seen by Reuters says: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - that an attack on one is an attack on all." As part of their efforts to keep Trump onside, NATO officials have shunted difficult topics to the sidelines of the summit or kept them off the agenda altogether. While many European nations see Russia as an ever-growing threat, Trump has expressed a desire for better economic relations with Moscow - a prospect that Europeans think would help Russia to strengthen its military and threaten them more. Similarly, many Europeans are deeply wary of Trump's moves to lessen Russia's diplomatic isolation as part of his efforts to secure a deal to end the war in Ukraine. The brief summit statement will include just one reference to Russia as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security and another to allies' commitment to supporting Ukraine, diplomats say.
