Independence Wars Ahead?
- 20 May 2024 (10 min read)
In the US, core consumer prices have resumed their deceleration in April in year-on-year terms. Slower rents have helped, but even when controlling for this – and the pesky car insurance prices - the short-term momentum has flattened, in contrast with almost systematic re-acceleration since the second half of last year. It is only one monthly print though, and we need to be prudent. Yet, it is tempting to read this piece of good news on the inflation side in the context of a softer dataflow in the real economy. A disappointing number for retail sales out last week, together with the deterioration in consumer confidence, point to a more hesitant household sector.
In principle, this should trigger a divergence in the market reaction across asset classes, pushing the price of risk-free assets up, as the odds of Fed cuts are rising, but also weighing on the price of equity and credit as the economy would become less supportive. Such divergence did not materialise last week. It seems the market is pinning their hopes on a goldilocks scenario in which the Fed’s loosening – and general improvement in financial conditions – would keep the real economy robust enough to minimise any significant deceleration in profits and deterioration in credit quality. The fact that no fiscal austerity is looming in the US also helps.
Still, we want to explore the possibility that, especially under a potential second term for Donald Trump, a conflict arises between a Fed opting for a very prudent removal of the restrictive stance and a US administration ready to provide even more fiscal support next year. This is not a theoretical concern. Trump was explicitly critical of Jay Powell during his first term, at least until the pandemic, and last week a former President of the New York Fed published an Op Ed on the possibility to see the administration exert pressure on the central bank. The legislative process through which the Fed’s status could be reformed would probably be cumbersome, but the institutional set-up of the Fed is quirky, and its independence is less solidly guaranteed than the ECB’s.
Disclaimer
The information on this website is intended for investors domiciled in Switzerland.
AXA Investment Managers Switzerland Ltd (AXA IM) is not liable for unauthorised use of the website.
This website is for advertising and informational purpose only. The published information and expression of opinions are provided for personal use only. The information, data, figures, opinions, statements, analyses, forecasts, simulations, concepts and other data provided by AXA IM in this document are based on our knowledge and experience at the time of preparation and are subject to change without notice.
AXA IM excludes any warranty (explicit or implicit) for the accuracy, completeness and up-to-dateness of the published information and expressions of opinion. In particular, AXA IM is not obliged to remove information that is no longer up to date or to expressly mark it a such. To the extent that the data contained in this document originates from third parties, AXA IM is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, up-to-dateness and appropriateness of such data, even if only such data is used that is deemed to be reliable.
The information on the website of AXA IM does not constitute a decision aid for economic, legal, tax or other advisory questions, nor may investment or other decisions be made solely on the basis of this information. Before any investment decision is made, detailed advice should be obtained that is geared to the client's situation.
Past performance or returns are neither a guarantee nor an indicator of the future performance or investment returns. The value and return on an investment is not guaranteed. It can rise and fall and investors may even incur a total loss.
AXA Investment Managers Switzerland Ltd.