Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Donovan

The Federal Reserve meets to decide interest rates—over a hundred economists expect no change. The question is whether one can credibly disagree, without appearing as a political puppet. A case can be made for rate cuts (if one views US President Trump's trade taxes as a heavier burden on US consumers). However, even if a Fed member sincerely believes that scenario, their dissent would almost inevitably be viewed as Trump twitching the political puppet strings in the background.

Shares in Japan fluctuated at the open while those in South Korea and Australia were flat Wednesday after the S&P 500 snapped a six-day rally. Treasuries were steady in early Asian trading after jumping the most in a month in the prior session. In the US, Federal Reserve policymakers are largely expected to hold interest rates steady for a fifth consecutive meeting at the conclusion of their July 29-30 gathering. Dissents from one or more officials could send the message that some members of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee prefer to reduce borrowing costs sooner rather than later. We preview Thursday's FOMC decision with Mark Heppenstall, President and CIO at Penn Mutual Asset Management. Plus - US and China will continue talks over maintaining a tariff truce before it expires in two weeks and Trump will make the final call on any extension. Adding an extra 90 days is one option, according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Meantime, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday that the world economy will keep weakening and remains vulnerable to trade shocks even though it is showing some resilience to Donald Trump's tariffs. We break down the latest trade headlines with Paul Donovan, Chief Economist at UBS Global Wealth Management. He speaks with Bloomberg's Shery Ahn and Haidi Stroud-Watts on The Asia Trade.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US June trade balance is due—a number once overlooked but which politics has made it matter. Are international investors rushing to buy more US-made products? They are not (Canadians seem to be rushing in the other direction). Are US consumers less inclined to buy foreign goods? Probably not—even as late as June, some imports will not yet be hit with trade taxes. The euro has weakened, allegedly in response to concerns about the economic implications of the trade “deal”; but we still lack “deal” details, and the reaction of US companies will also matter to the EU economic outlook.

The EU and the US agreed that US consumers should pay more tax—levied at 15% for imports from the EU. EU President von der Leyen made vague pledges to buy stuff from and invest in the US, without the necessary authority to make those pledges reality. Pharmaceuticals and steel seem to be excluded from this deal. The result is better for the US economy than the worst-case scenario, but worse for the US economy than the situation in January this year—but it is bad news markets have probably anticipated.

From time to time, these comments might have given the impression of dissatisfaction with Federal Reserve Chair Powell. While one can (very) credibly disagree with Powell's policies, those policies are independent. Yesterday, Powell defended that independence, publicly correcting US President Trump's errors about the Fed's building projects. Powell suggested that Trump's trade tax policy was behind some cost overruns (a subtle reminder that US consumers pay tariffs, not foreign exporters).

US Commerce Secretary Lutnick suggested US rates should be cut now, and Federal Reserve Chair Powell should resign or be fired. Do investors want to live in a world where Fed independence is compromised and Lutnick influences policy? To judge from the dollar's reaction, the answer is “no”.

The proposed US-Japan trade deal means US buyers of Japanese goods (including autos) face a 15% tax. Steel is still taxed at 50%. Of course, deals are not the same as implementation, as the UK steel industry can testify. There are media reports that Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba will resign in August. Investors are unlikely to expect significant policy change given the lack of a majority in either house of the Diet.

US Treasury Secretary Bessent suggested a “wholesale review” of the Federal Reserve was necessary (while supporting central bank independence). In the context of recent challenges, these remarks may trouble investors. Central bank independence was critical to the post-1970s moderation of inflation, and helped prevent the post-pandemic inflation from being worse than it was.

South Korean export data for the first part of July showed growth, adjusted for differences in working days. Semiconductor sales were strong, and exports to Europe continued to grow. The US habit of taxing its consumers if they buy foreign steel meant exports in that sector were weaker. The data is a reminder that while the US is an important economy, there are other important economies that are not burdening their consumers with additional taxes.

After this week's events, the question is whether anyone can advocate for US rate cuts without being seen as a political puppet? Yesterday, Federal Reserve Governor Waller offered some (debatable, but valid) economic points in favor of US rate cuts, but the position is politically tainted. The problem for the Fed and markets is that the US administration's policy continues to create considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook.

US President Trump has recently shown an eagerness to change the media narrative. The narrative changed yesterday with speculation about the future of Federal Reserve Chair Powell. That shift might be expensive. Trump declared they had been “surprised” by Powell's appointment. Trump originally appointed Powell.

US June consumer price inflation gave some troubling signals about data quality—not only are fewer prices being measured, there is circumstantial evidence that budget cuts mean more prices are being guessed. However, on the basis of the numbers provided, it is clear that President Trump's trade taxes are being passed through to US consumers—the monthly increase in consumer appliance prices was the fastest this century.

US June consumer price inflation is the first number that might show trade tax effects. Only half the expected trade tax rise has hit the economy so far. Inventory stockpiling means pre-tax items are still available. How readily US firms can pass on price increases matters. Post-pandemic inflation made this easier. Tariffs have dominated the (non-Republican) media narrative, making price increases easier. The details, not the headlines, will indicate the potential scale of the inflation surge.

Financial markets seem content to assume US President Trump will default to retreating from their latest trade tax threats. If financial investors want to change their position, they can do so at the touch of a button. In the real world, decisions around factory construction or hiring cannot be reversed so quickly, and the random nature of policy therefore raises real world risks that may have consequences.

Scapegoat economics wrongly blames a particular group for problems, while prejudice politics promises to reduce that group’s influence. Paul Donovan of UBS explains what happens when prejudice fails to solve the underlying issue.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The latest US tax increases were a 35% tax on products from Canada—in spite of Canadian concessions over digital taxes. It is not clear if the tax applies to all Canadian products, or just products not covered by the revised NAFTA (currently taxed at 25%), or to oil (currently 10%). US President Trump signaled that when they were tired of the lost art of letter writing, all remaining countries would be taxed at 15% to 20% (the penguins of the Heard and McDonald Islands thus know their fate).

The Federal Reserve meeting minutes were a masterclass in the art of sitting on a fence. US President Trump's trade tax inflation might be a one-off, or it might persist. The labor market may be weak enough to justify rate cuts, or not. Uncertainty over trade tax levels is a problem, but the real issue is the lack of clarity about the severity of second-round effects (e.g. profit-led inflation). Masterful inactivity seems the default policy option.

US President Trump announced the start of a new wave of taxes on US consumers, with a 25% tax on US citizens who want to buy products from South Korea and Japan. Other countries' exports also received higher tax rates, but it seems a wasted effort to analyze every Trump social media post when investors understandably anticipate future retreats. Japan and South Korea accounted for around 8.5% of US imports last year, so this tax increase adds 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points to consumer price inflation.

The additional taxes US President Trump intended to impose on US consumers from Wednesday will now be delayed until 1 August. That means that, allowing for some stockpiling ahead of Christmas, consumers may not experience the inflation spike from these taxes until January next year—assuming that Trump does not retreat again.

The US June employment report was strong enough in the headline to dispel ideas of a sudden US interest rate cut. It was troubling enough in the detail to suggest a more negative outlook for the US economy. Job creation was very narrowly focused.

Tomorrow's US holiday means US labor market data appears today. There is a hint today's report may be weak. US presidents normally see the data the night before release. Last night, US President Trump issued a social media post calling for Federal Reserve Chair Powell to resign. Policy uncertainty and the largest tax increase in modern times are more likely to damage the labor market than Fed policy, but the post might signal weaker data.

The US Senate passed legislation to enshrine an unsustainable fiscal position into law. The bill goes to the House, where it may run into difficulties. Some fiscal conservatives are unhappy with the unsustainable part of US fiscal policy. Markets are not likely to react to squabbles over details—unsustainable US fiscal policy is well understood, and the economic effects of redistributing from lower income to higher income households will take time to emerge.

The US administration seems to be retreating from the idea of “90 trade deals in 90 days”. With less than a week to go, they have a half-hearted agreement with the UK and a de-escalation with China, and little else. The idea is that interim agreements will be sought, retaining the 10% tax on US consumers of foreign products. Uncertainty about future product-specific taxes appears to be making it more difficult to do deals.

Over the past few days, Canada and the US stopped talking about trade, and started talking about trade again. Unusually, this was not a unilateral retreat by the US—Canada surrendered its digital services tax. Markets, quite rightly, are ignoring all of this. US President Trump cut taxes on US consumers of UK cars—from today the tax goes to 10%.

Necessary reading for those interested in the trends shaping wealth, the report covers 56 markets and more than 92 per cent of global wealth. Featuring insights from UBS economists Paul Donovan and James Mazeau.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Japan exhibited some disinflation with the June Tokyo consumer price data. Using the international definition of core inflation, the rate slowed to 1.8% y/y. A lot of the headline inflation seems to be driven by non-fresh food, perhaps suggesting relative price shifts rather than strong, broad inflation momentum.

The Wall Street Journal reports US President Trump may announce the next Federal Reserve Chair in September or October. The Senate needs to confirm the Chair, and in Trump's first term was prepared to oppose several of Trump's Fed nominees. Only convention prevents the Fed from overruling the Chair—an obvious political appointee may be ignored by the FOMC. The greatest threat to policy independence would be someone who was not an obvious political puppet but was swayed by Trump's instructions.

In the US yesterday, Federal Reserve Chair Powell delivered a speech to members of the House of Representatives (most of whom are not economists). The main messages were: no rush to cut rates, and trade taxes create uncertainty. This will not surprise markets. There was a further softening of the data dependency mantra, as Powell focused on future inflation as a reason to keep rates unchanged for now. Powell testifies again today.

Iran and Israel seem to be saying “if they stop, I'll stop”, although there were some missile exchanges overnight. That is enough for markets, with oil prices back to the levels of a couple of weeks ago (wiping out the potential economic impact). As with situations like North Korea, investors are not inclined to give weight to extreme tail risks, so things like the location of enriched uranium will be overlooked.

We live in a world of political polarization and soundbite economics. That encourages sensationalism. Deckchair generals will offer extreme opinions on the US attacks on Iran. Both supporters and opponents the attacks are likely to dramatize events. Investors should be cautious of knee-jerk overreactions.

Let us know your thoughts. Send us a Text Message. Follow me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedInEpisode Title:

European powers begin nuclear talks with Iran, and the US has signaled that it does not intend to decide on military strikes against Iran for two weeks. That means two weeks of uncertainty for financial markets, but investors are still inclined to see the Middle East conflict as a local, not a global, economic issue.

The US Federal Deserve did as expected yesterday—nothing. The Fed's dilemma can be summed up by a comment from US President Trump (in a different context) “I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do”. The uncertainty about trade taxes, fiscal policy, and the reactions of US companies and consumers means (as Fed Chair Powell noted) there can be very little certainty about the future path of interest rates.

Yesterday's US data flurry gave hints about trade tax effects. Headline retail sales were weakened by poor auto sales. Some consumers bought cars early, anticipating trade taxes, and so did not show up at car dealerships in May. Import prices rose, suggesting that foreign companies were not absorbing trade taxes (so US companies and consumers will pay). Japan's May trade data did show a 4.7% m/m drop in passenger car export prices, suggesting Japan's automakers were absorbing some of the tariffs. Only auto prices showed this shift, which should appear in June's US import price data.

Die Welt wird reicher: Wie ein neuer Bericht der UBS zeigt, steigt das globale Vermögen 2024 um 4.6 Prozent an – Spitzenplatz beim Durchschnittsvermögen belegt weiterhin die Schweiz. Zudem habe die Vermögensungleichheit leicht abgenommen, so UBS-Chefökonom UBS und Vermögensverwalter Paul Donovan. SMI: -0.4%

US President Trump left the G7 summit a day early. Their departure does not change much of substance—the US was resisting a joint statement on Iran-Israel. However, there is symbolism about Trump's willingness to cooperate with others. An executive order to implement some of the UK trade agreement was signed, but little progress seems to have been made with Japan.

The ongoing exchange of missile strikes between Iran and Israel this weekend has not had a major impact on financial markets. The severity of Israel's initial strike against Iran was unexpected and caused a reaction. Further market moves would be justified only if there were expectations of even more disruption to energy supplies or shipping lanes.

The scale of Israel's air strikes against Iran were not anticipated by financial markets (US President Trump having suggested a deal with Iran was close, just yesterday). As a result, the oil price has had the largest spike since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The economic disruption may well be contained—the starting point was quite a weak oil market, given expectations of a US growth slowdown.

Yesterday's US consumer price inflation data showed, as expected, faint hints at the effects of trade taxes and clearer examples of weak demand. The declining number of people wishing to visit the US helped weaken air fares. Goods where inventory is held for longer (like autos) avoided tariff effects for now. Imported goods with shorter inventory times—like bananas—saw price surges. Large consumer appliances had the second largest price increase on record. Producer price data may show more tariff price effects, as these goods sit closer to the point of import in the supply chain.

US President Trump has declared trade talks with China “not easy”. There may be a difference between the administration's perception of its bargaining position and reality. With the 90-day deadline to do deals approaching, no deals have yet been made—and the UK trade agreement has not come into effect. There are suggestions that Trump will retreat from export restrictions on chips in exchange for some so-called “rare” earths.

Media coverage of events in Los Angeles has been intense. There are economic and financial market consequences, but domestic and international investors may react differently. Domestic investors' views will be shaped by their chosen cable news channel, and potentially by fake news on social media. International investors' perceptions of risk will be affected by their own experiences of protest, civil unrest, militarization, and secession.

The US May employment report is due, with the regular reminders that this data has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, and average earnings are not wages. This month's data will correct errors that crept into last month's data. Signs of weakness in restaurant and leisure travel sectors mean fewer lower paid workers may be employed, raising average earnings without affecting wages. But, the Federal Reserve's “data dependency” means the labor market is seen as a trigger for policy action.

A total of 52 out of 52 surveyed economists expect a quarter point ECB rate reduction today. How could so many economists possibly be wrong?

US President Trump's mega-donor Musk was strongly critical of the “big, beautiful bill” currently before Congress. The bill contains many things markets are worried about. Musk's opposition may embolden some Republican senators to oppose parts of the bill (Musk has more money than Trump, but their recent political forays have not been universally successful).

Reports in Washington suggest US President Trump may talk directly with China's President Xi later this week (after several days of more heated rhetoric between the US and China over trade). As Trump has been anxious for the call, and China has not, this may hint at more US retreats over trade taxes as a concession to bring China to the telephone.

US President Trump doubled taxes on US consumers of imported steel on Friday, and (so far) has not retreated from that tax increase. Trump reacted angrily when confronted with the Financial Times acronym “TACO”, and the implication that markets expect Trump to reverse policy rapidly. Investors may worry that Trump persists with these taxes, not because of some economic objective but instead as an emotional reaction to market perceptions of their negotiating stance.

There is yet more uncertainty in the US economy. US President Trump appealed the ruling that their trade taxes were illegal. While this is decided, the taxes stay. There are thus three layers of uncertainty. Will the taxes survive? If they are illegal, will US companies and consumers get refunds? And are trade taxes today actually being collected? There is also uncertainty around how US companies will react to this uncertainty, especially with pricing.

The US trade court ruled that about half of US President Trump's trade tax increases are illegal. Markets reacted positively, but the US has not been reset to its factory settings.

Equity markets seemingly rallied on optimistic comments from US President Trump around trade. So much focus on the words of one individual is unusual. Trump has the power to limit future economic damage from new trade taxes, but cannot undo the damage of past policy swings. For example, comments in yesterday's sentiment data highlighted that companies are delaying decisions in the face of policy uncertainty, even as Trump retreated from some tariffs.

The US long weekend was marked by aggressive policies and then a retreat, but that still leaves its mark on financial markets. The US dollar remains near its recent lows against major currencies. Investors are concerned that the retreats may not be comprehensive, and that economic behavior will still have to adjust to accommodate wild policy swings.