Connect with us

News

UK government seeks to quell turmoil in bond markets as borrowing costs soar

Published

on

UK government seeks to quell turmoil in bond markets as borrowing costs soar

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The British government sought to quell tumult in UK bond markets on Thursday by vowing to stick to its fiscal rules even as borrowing costs hit their highest level since the financial crisis.

Darren Jones, number two at the UK Treasury, appeared in parliament to answer urgent questions on the markets turmoil after the 10-year gilt yield rose to 4.93 per cent, its highest since 2008, and the pound dropped as much as 1 per cent against the dollar to its lowest for more than a year.

“UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way,” Jones told MPs. “There should be no doubt of the government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. This is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.”

Advertisement

Jones’ appearance came after Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, accepted an urgent question from the Conservative opposition about the “growing pressure of borrowing costs on the public finances”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who is about to leave for a long-scheduled trip to China, dispatched Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury, to answer.

UK borrowing costs have risen sharply as investors worry about the government’s heavy borrowing needs and the growing threat of stagflation, which combines lacklustre growth with persistent price pressures.

“The sell-off in [the pound] and gilts reflects a deterioration in the UK’s fiscal prospects,” said analysts at Brown Brothers Harriman.

On Thursday, the 10-year gilt yield rose as much as 0.12 percentage points before easing back to 4.83 per cent. Sterling was swept up in the sell-off, dropping to $1.224, its weakest since November 2023, before staging a partial recovery.

Advertisement

Jones argued it was normal for gilt prices to vary and that there was still strong underlying demand for UK government bonds.

“The latest auction held yesterday received three times as many bids as the amount on offer,” he said.

The minister said the Treasury was still working on a multiyear spending review due this summer on the basis of assumptions set out in the October Budget.

However, he acknowledged that the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent Budget watchdog, would come up with fresh forecasts on March 26, which could then have an impact on discussions with ministers.

The recent bond market strains also raise the spectre of tax rises or spending cuts. The Treasury has signalled that, if necessary, it would reduce expenditure rather than increase taxes.

Advertisement

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride, who had posed the urgent question, said Reeves should have attended parliament herself. 

“Where is the chancellor?” he asked. “It is a bitter regret that at this difficult time, with these serious issues, she herself is nowhere to be seen.” 

He later called on Reeves to cancel her China trip “and focus on this country instead”, as he attacked Labour’s “panicked attempt to reassure the markets on the economic mess of their own making”.

Reeves left herself a slender £9.9bn of headroom against her revised fiscal rules in last year’s autumn Budget even after announcing a £40bn tax-raising package that aimed to “wipe the slate clean” on public finances.

The chancellor’s key fiscal rule is a promise to fund all day-to-day public spending with tax receipts by 2029-30.

Advertisement

Increases in government debt yields have since put that budgetary wriggle room under threat. The level of bond yields is an important determinant of the budget headroom, given its implications for the government’s interest bill, which exceeds £100bn a year.

“Investors are looking for some sort of guidance from somebody but the government has just said there is no problem,” said Tomasz Wieladek, chief European economist at T Rowe Price. “The Bank of England will stick this out as long as possible,” he added, saying the moves were not big enough to merit anything beyond a verbal response from policymakers.

The gilts market could suffer another bout of selling on Friday, analysts said, if closely watched jobs data in the US was to push yields higher on US Treasuries, dragging gilts with them.

“It can turn extremely grim for gilts if we see a strong payroll,” said Pooja Kumra, a UK rates strategist at TD Securities.

Analysts have said the simultaneous sell-off of gilts and the pound carried echoes of the reaction triggered by Liz Truss’s “mini” Budget in 2022.

Advertisement

But many investors think the situation is short of the 2022 gilts crisis.

“I do anticipate things to start bottoming out . . . On gilts the washout already happened last year,” said Geoffrey Yu, a senior strategist at BNY. “I’m not denying there are issues in the UK, but to suddenly draw comparisons to 2022, I think that is pushing things.”

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