Tag: Trump
Asset Allocation Bi-Weekly – White House vs. The Fed: The Looming Battle for US Monetary Policy (May 19, 2025)
by Thomas Wash | PDF
The Federal Reserve’s independence faces its most serious challenge in decades as the Trump White House escalates its criticism of central bank policy. This brewing confrontation echoes historic tensions — most notably the 1951 clash between President Truman and Fed policymakers over yield caps that ultimately led to the Treasury-Fed Accord. Today, the battle lines are being redrawn as the administration pushes for more accommodative monetary policy while it looks to shield the economy from its own trade war.
The widening policy gap between the Fed and its global peers has been highlighted in recent months. While the European Central Bank, Bank of England, and the People’s Bank of China have all lowered their benchmark short-term interest rates to combat slowing growth, the Fed has held its benchmark rate steady — a decision repeatedly criticized by the White House. This policy divergence is further strained by the Fed’s quantitative tightening program, which Treasury Secretary Bessent argues complicates the issuance of longer-term government securities.
The debate has now moved beyond short-term policy disagreements to fundamental questions about the Fed’s role and independence. Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, widely seen as the leading candidate to replace Chair Powell when his term ends in 2026, has emerged as a vocal critic of the central bank’s current direction. His critique focuses on two key concerns: first, that the Fed has strayed beyond its core mandate by engaging in issues like climate change policy and diversity, equity, and inclusion; and second, that its operational approach — particularly the frequency of public commentary by FOMC members — has created unnecessary market uncertainty.
Market participants are closely watching several potential flashpoints. The administration has reportedly considered accelerating the leadership transition by nominating Powell’s successor well before his term concludes, a move that could allow markets to price in policy changes gradually. Warsh’s combination of Republican credentials, Fed experience, and Treasury background makes him the probable choice, although some investors question how his well-documented hawkish views might align with the administration’s apparent preference for easier monetary policy.
The stakes for investors are significant. Any perception of compromised Fed independence could trigger a reassessment of risk premiums across asset classes. Treasury yields may face upward pressure, particularly at the long end of the curve, while the dollar could weaken if markets question the central bank’s commitment to price stability. In other words, concerns about reduced Fed independence could exacerbate the budding US capital flight that we discussed in our recent Asset Allocation Bi-Weekly from May 5, 2025. Perhaps most critically, the Fed’s ability to serve as a stabilizing force during future economic downturns could be diminished if political considerations are seen to influence its decision making.
As this drama unfolds, market participants would be wise to monitor three key developments: the timing and nature of any leadership transition, changes to the Fed’s communication strategy, and, most importantly, whether the central bank can maintain its operational independence while navigating increasingly choppy political waters. The outcome of this power struggle will shape monetary policy and market dynamics for years to come.
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Report – Growing Fragility in the US Bloc (April 7, 2025)
by Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA | PDF
We at Confluence have written extensively on the end of post-Cold War globalization and the fracturing of the world into various geopolitical and economic blocs. We’ve noted that the large, rich bloc led by the United States is an attractive place for investors, but fractured supply chains and rising international tensions may produce a range of economic and financial market problems, from elevated consumer price inflation to higher and more volatile interest rates. In this report, we explore what could happen to the US bloc as President Trump pursues his aggressive policies to push the costs of Western security and prosperity onto the US’s traditional allies. As we’ve noted before, those policies run the risk of reducing US influence with its allies and undermining cohesion within the US bloc. We assess in this report that reduced cohesion probably won’t splinter the US bloc in the near term. Nevertheless, we begin laying out how the world could change if the US bloc does disintegrate, and we discuss the economic and market implications if it does.
Don’t miss our accompanying podcasts, available on our website and most podcast platforms: Apple | Spotify
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Podcast – #64 “Growing Fragility in the US Bloc” (Posted 4/7/25)
Asset Allocation Bi-Weekly – #137 “Managing an Economic Slowdown” (Posted 3/31/25)
Asset Allocation Bi-Weekly – Managing an Economic Slowdown (March 31, 2025)
by Thomas Wash | PDF
Six months into his presidency, Reagan backed restrictive monetary policy to combat inflation. While the move initially drew criticism for its short-term economic pain, many viewed it as a necessary step toward long-term stability and growth. This optimism was ultimately vindicated, paving the way for Reagan’s landslide reelection in 1984. The lesson: an early-term recession, though difficult, can create strategic opportunities to push a bold and transformative agenda forward.
A president typically wields the greatest amount of political capital at the outset of their tenure. This period, often referred to as the “honeymoon phase,” is usually marked by peak public approval, fueled by the optimism and goodwill that was generated during the election campaign (see chart below). Supporters are often energized, and even those who may not have voted for the president often extend a measure of deference and give the new administration an opportunity to set the tone and pursue its agenda.
During this pivotal period, President Trump has escalated his aggressive trade war with the rest of the world. It appears that the administration’s strategy is to weather any associated short-term economic challenges — such as heightened market volatility caused by unpredictable trade policies and budget cuts designed to strengthen the government’s fiscal position — in order to achieve a broader goal of transforming the US economy from one driven by high consumption to one that prioritizes export promotion.
The administration’s ability to manage an economic downturn will be largely influenced by the capacity to lower long-term rates, especially in today’s high interest rate environment, as well as the fiscal flexibility created by recent efforts to curb government spending. Extending the 2017 corporate tax cuts could also provide businesses with a financial buffer, enabling them to adapt to the impact of new tariffs.
Importantly, the Trump administration is apparently counting on the Federal Reserve to serve as an economic safety net in the event of a severe downturn. While the central bank has already reduced rates by 100 basis points from their peak during the tightening cycle, it still has the ability to cut rates and restart balance sheet expansion, if needed. These measures could enable households to refinance their mortgages at lower rates, thereby improving household balance sheets and paving the way for higher spending.
That said, this strategy carries significant risks. For example, if the downturn persists for too long, it could potentially trigger a financial crisis, undermining household confidence and consumers’ willingness to spend. In such a scenario, the government might be forced to take more drastic measures, such as implementing a bailout or fiscal stimulus to restore confidence and stabilize the economy. Such spending could lead to a sharp increase in government debt, raising concerns about its long-term sustainability and potentially leading to a period of stagnating growth.
While there is no reward without risk, the president’s ability to slow the economy to implement longer-term, sustainable reforms also hinges on his capacity to embrace short-term political pain in exchange for long-term gain. For example, we note that while the Reagan recession was relatively short, it resulted in Republicans losing House seats to the Democrats. This scenario could present considerable challenges for the Trump administration. Unlike President Reagan, who successfully advanced his agenda by working across the aisle, Trump may find himself constrained by a lack of bipartisan cooperation given the current political climate. As a result, he may be more incentivized to ensure that Republicans regain and possibly add to their majority in Congress, something Reagan was not able to do in the mid-term elections during his first term.
In such a scenario, the president would need to pivot strategically, prioritizing the delivery of a tangible and widely recognized victory to the public ahead of next year’s primary election to sustain momentum and galvanize support. This could take the form of highlighting major achievements, such as breakthroughs in trade negotiations or the successful passage of the long-awaited tax bill.
We continue to believe that equities will be able to produce attractive long-term investment returns, especially if the Trump administration achieves its long-term goals. However, given the current level of uncertainty and the risk of near-term economic disruptions, we also see gold as an attractive option. Additionally, the potential for a decline in long-term interest rates could make this an opportune time to extend duration in government fixed-income securities.
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Podcast – #59 “Trump and the Political Economy of Alliances” (Posted 1/27/25)
Bi-Weekly Geopolitical Report – Trump and the Political Economy of Alliances (January 27, 2025)
by Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA | PDF
Now that President Trump is back in office, we think investors are about to see major changes in how the United States deals with the rest of the world. Trump, Treasury Secretary Bessent, and other key officials have signaled they will push to dramatically shift US policies on national security, foreign affairs, and international trade and capital flows. They haven’t necessarily laid out specific, detailed plans. However, based on their initial statements, it’s clear that they aim to reverse the traditional US approach to global hegemony and force US allies to shoulder more of the cost of allied security and prosperity.
In other words, Trump and his aides want to revamp the “political economy of alliance,” not only in formal military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but also in the broader US-led geopolitical and economic bloc. At the same time, the China-led bloc is changing its internal relations. In this report, we show how the Trump/Bessent plan could cut costs for the US but at the risk of reducing its influence or hurting the cohesion of the US bloc. At the same time, the China bloc is moving toward greater cohesion and increased power. We wrap up with the implications for investors.