How Wall Street's exuberance — despite Trump's tariffs — masks major warning signs

'Either the entire street is wrong, or the good times will continue to roll.'
So said a top hedge fund manager, remarking recently to On The Money about the weird disconnect he's seeing lately in how the market is pricing in Trump's trade war.
What surprised him is the latest iteration of the market zig-zagging is that after freaking out, investors appear to be pricing in the Trump tariffs as a big bowl of nothing.
Advertisement
4 With Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick out of the picture, investors appear to be pricing in the Trump tariffs as a big bowl of nothing.
Jack Forbes / NY Post Design
The recent maybe irrational exuberance comes even as Trump keeps throwing fuel on the tariff fire.
After pausing them on the world, including the most draconian levies on China, which supplies the US with cheap goods and keeps our inflation rate stable, he just blurted out that he's doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum.
The market didn't tank as it did during the early days of the tariff tantrum. In fact, there's green on the screen for a policy that is supposed to slow growth and/or increase inflation, according to most economists.
Advertisement
So, what gives?
First, economists aren't making the market bets you're seeing. Asset managers, hedge funders, traders and a bunch of so-called mom-and-pop investors continue to show an appetite to buy, and digest bad news in the most favorable light.
The best I can tell is that they're making a forward-looking bet that Trump, through his trusty and highly competent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, will negotiate all of the tariffs — even against super adversaries like China — down to something either meaningless or manageable for the economy to absorb.
Advertisement
4 The recent maybe irrational exuberance comes even as President Trump keeps throwing fuel on the tariff fire.
AFP via Getty Images
Stocks will then trend higher on his deregulation and tax policy found in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the thinking goes.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's MAGA-inspired dream that tariffs on foreign goods will create a domestic manufacturing utopia will never materialize, because Lutnick is largely out of the picture. Bessent has taken the reins, and he's crafting trade deals that will lead to stable economic growth, low inflation and high-tech manufacturing jobs the Trump tax and regulatory policy will create, or so the thinking goes.
So, what could go wrong? A lot, according to a few smart Wall Streeters I know as they look back at recent market history and figure out when was the last time the markets defied conventional wisdom and got things so wrong before an economic storm hit.
Advertisement
4 Stocks will then trend higher on his deregulation and tax policy found in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the thinking goes.
REUTERS
One big misread came in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Every major CEO and most large investors (not all but most) viewed the 2007 'credit crunch,' where banks cut back lending as housing prices tanked, as simply a downturn in the economic cycle. A few Fed rate cuts, and presto, things would be back to normal.
Recall how the Dow hit then historic highs in October 2007 (around 14K), just before the bottom fell out early the following year. It began with bond insurers imploding, then subprime lenders, then Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
By the end of September 2008, the meltdown hit nearly ever bank and Wall Street firm because the housing downturn was more than a downturn, it impaired the balance sheets of major financial institutions so much that most (except Jamie Dimon's 'fortress balance sheet' at JPMorgan) were on the verge of insolvency
4 Traders are betting Trump will negotiate tariffs down to something either meaningless or manageable for the economy to absorb.
JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
After the financial collapse, and the government bailouts, came the Great Recession, which forever altered the political landscape. It ushered in a wave of left-wing (Barack Obama) and later right-wing populism (Donald Trump).
There are plenty of structural differences between 2008 and today. Our banks are pretty sound, but we have more debt, a lot more. We are more dependent on foreign buyers of the debt, without whom interest rates would be much higher as debt payments continue to grow.
Advertisement
The trade war has pissed off some of our foreign bond buyers, namely Japan and China.
Plus markets hate being surprised. If we're experiencing a bit of irrational exuberance before the reality of higher baseline tariffs kick in no matter what deals are cut, if the economy does begin to falter and inflation does pickup, if foreign buyers don't keep buying our debt and interest rates spike, the correction could be pretty brutal if history is any guide, traders tell On The Money.
Until that happens, it's all blue skies ahead.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

40 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.

Bloomberg

an hour ago

• Bloomberg

What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.