Connect with us

News

Investors only have themselves to blame as Jay Powell steals Christmas

Published

on

Investors only have themselves to blame as Jay Powell steals Christmas

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

For markets, US Federal Reserve chief Jay Powell is the Grinch who stole Christmas. But the festive shakeout in bonds, currencies and stocks now under way in the wake of the US central bank’s latest pronouncements is a mini-crisis of investors’ own making.

Fed meetings, and the minutiae of its public statements, are always marquee events for investors, setting the tone across all major asset classes. Wednesday’s meeting, the last of 2024, always came with the potential for greater punch, given the timing — right on the cusp of Donald Trump’s second stint in the White House. 

The decision on rates itself — a quarter-point chop off the benchmark — was in line with expectations. But it went downhill from there, as the central bank’s apparent cooling on further cuts next year — an allusion to the potentially inflationary impact of Trump’s economic policies — has gone down like a mouldy mince pie.

Advertisement

US stocks nosedived, wiping out almost all of the gains in the S&P 500 benchmark index since Trump’s re-election day. The following morning brought a similar sea of red across Asian and European stocks too. The dollar popped higher, sending the euro and yen tumbling awkwardly hard, and US government bonds weakened, sending the yield on 10-year Treasuries forcefully above 4.5 per cent.

The Fed chair is facing some flak here. His comment in the post-meeting press conference that the year-end projection for inflation has “kind of fallen apart” is not the sort of self-assertion that investors seek in a Fed chair, and the pick-up in some inflation measures comfortably predates the reinauguration of Trump.

But markets are going through the wringer in no small part because the consensus among investors about the next steps for markets had become so intense — curdling hard around the themes of American exceptionalism in stocks and the vanquishing of inflation keeping bonds well supported. The path to an easy run in markets in 2025 had become exceptionally narrow and extremely crowded with like-minded views, and it has taken only a gentle push from the Fed to tip that out of balance.

The annual spectacle of year-ahead market outlooks from the big banks and asset managers demonstrated a near-unanimous set of views. Deutsche Bank is towards the top of the pack with its assessment that the benchmark S&P 500 index of heavyweight US stocks will ascend to 7,000 by the end of next year. After the overnight shock, that projection is 20 per cent above where we are now. It is punchy, but not wildly out of line. Core fundamental differences of opinion are hard to find. “The degree of uniformity in year-ahead projections has broken all previous records,” notes TS Lombard’s Dario Perkins.

The trouble with that was two-fold. First, it meant much, if not all, of the narrative was already baked in. Second, crowding around core themes tends to exaggerate the scale of market reactions when stuff goes wrong. Enter Powell stage left.

Advertisement

“Everyone’s portfolio is pointed towards US exceptionalism,” said Mike Riddell, a portfolio manager on Fidelity’s Strategic Bond Fund, speaking with some foresight the week before the Fed decision. “The consensus can be right, and we don’t see much to derail it. But if you see anything to move the narrative, you can get really violent market moves.”

We have been here before, in a range of different markets, but that does not prevent investors from making the same mistake over and over again. This time last year, Powell caught the market off guard in the opposite direction, dropping a hint of interest rate cuts that investors went on to exaggerate hugely out of proportion.

Crowded bets among investors also stung in early August, when a downbeat US labour market report blasted in to several popular and correlated market bets. In late September, deeply unloved Chinese stocks rocketed higher after Beijing unleashed stimulus measures to try and turn the hobbled economy and markets around. Investors had given China such a wide berth that stocks leapt 40 per cent in just a few days as funds piled in to a narrow entrance.

The latest ructions are a useful reminder that despite the disarming simplicity of the American exceptionalism theme, rakes are scattered all over markets for investors next year.

The assumption that the US economy will sail through the first year of Trump 2.0 is brave. Ignoring the (actually pretty obvious) banana skins, particularly around inflation, is “the ultimate ‘trust me’ trade” says Greg Peters, co-chief investment officer for PGIM Fixed Income. “It seems off to me.”

Advertisement

Now, investors should not assume that the Christmas holiday season will put all this angst to bed. As the final days of 2018 showed, portfolios can and do shake around wildly even when a lot of core markets are shut, on half-days, or on the go-slow. If anything, thinned-out trading volumes at this time of year can make matters worse. 

Some fund managers will be feeling sore about this year-end beating. But Powell has done us all a favour in reminding us that next year will not be for the faint of heart, and the wisdom of crowds is not always your friend.

katie.martin@ft.com

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending