Summer sales could offer the last pre-tariff bargains on many goods this year
President Donald Trump's springtime pause on his sweeping global tariffs is set to expire Wednesday. He has indicated the July 9 deadline isn't set in stone, and his treasury secretary said Sunday that higher rates would kick in Aug. 1 if agreements aren't reached by then. So without a flurry of trade deals with dozens of countries in the coming weeks, the import taxes are set to drive up the prices of numerous overseas goods for businesses and consumers alike.
In the meantime, major retailers are rolling out deep midseason discounts to keep customers spending despite widespread pessimism. Consumer sentiment has improved from its dismal levels months ago but remains sharply lower than this time last year. The promotions could run as much as 40% off during Home Depot's 4th of July Sale (June 19-July 9) and Target's Circle Week (July 6-12) and up to 50% off during Amazon Prime Day (July 8-11) and Walmart Deals (July 8-13).
What happens with prices after the summer sales events is anyone's guess. Retail executives, including at Walmart, and major consumer brands have warned that tariff-fueled price increases are likely as the year wears on and the inventories they've built up dwindle. Some analysts are already seeing signs of those hikes picking up, particularly at department stores, CNBC reported last week.
To reduce some of the guesswork for shoppers, NBC News is tracking online price levels for dozens of items at Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and Home Depot to determine when and how much they may fluctuate throughout the rest of the year.
Rather than sweep up hundreds or thousands of items across these retailers' sprawling e-commerce marketplaces, the tracker zeroes in on a basket of 230 items that tend to be purchased less frequently than, say, groceries or household staples. They range from appliances like dishwashers and toasters to jewelry, smartphones and running shoes.
The NBC News Price Tracker is powered by the e-commerce price-tracking platform Bright Data, which is monitoring 27 to 61 items for each of the five retailers.
The Price Tracker can't identify what causes prices to rise or fall, so it's impossible to determine whether any changes reflect retailers passing along tariff expenses to shoppers. But the tool can help consumers plan their purchases at a time when goods from certain countries, such as China, or with specific components, like steel or aluminum, are disproportionately subject to steeper levies.
The summer sales period offers something of a starting line, coinciding with broader trade policy changes and representing the last major discounting spree before back-to-school shopping around Labor Day, followed by early-bird holiday sales leading up to Black Friday.
Since Bright Data began tracking prices of 230 items for NBC News on March 2, about 29% of them saw price hikes, with an average increase of nearly 6%. Home Depot and Target saw the most price hikes, affecting 39% and 37%, respectively, of those tracked since March. And over roughly the last month, price increases have been more common than reductions: In all but one week since May 30, twice as many products increased in price than decreased across the four major retailers.
(A Home Depot spokesperson said the company hasn't taken tariff-related pricing actions and attributed any price swings to routine promotional cycles. Target didn't comment.)
So far, there are few signs of broad-based pricing changes that clearly correspond to tariff policy moves.
'It's been hard to draw a line connecting the dots between things that have been said, things that are happening in the world, and certain items that we know are manufactured in those areas,' said Jennifer Burns, Bright Data's director of public relations and communications.
But a few patterns are emerging in the run-up to this month's discounting sprees:
Kitchen appliances: It might not be the best time to make major upgrades in the kitchen. Prices on larger appliances like freezers, stoves and ovens are up, particularly at Home Depot, where 39% of the items we tracked increased in price. The highest individual price increase was 53.1% on a freezer and refrigerator unit. At Best Buy, prices took a sharp dive from mid-April to mid-June but have since rebounded to slightly above their springtime levels.
Water bottles: The prices of three popular stainless-steel water bottles — by Hydro Flask, Stanley and Owala — are each ticking up at Amazon and Walmart, potentially a sign that the 25% tariff on global steel is having an impact. (Owala declined to comment; Hydro Flask and Stanley didn't respond to requests for comment.)
Electronics: Smartphones saw a sharp price spike, increasing by an average of 15% at Best Buy, but other gadgets such as speakers, headphones and accessories like charging docks stayed flat across the five retailers. (A Best Buy spokesperson said the retailer offers high-quality tech at a range of competitive price points that can fluctuate for reasons including sales, seasonality and device upgrade cycles.)
Apparel: Clothing price changes vary by retailer. In May, Walmart warned shoppers could start seeing tariff-driven price hikes within weeks, and apparel is one of several areas where that may be happening. Of the six clothing items NBC News is tracking at Walmart, four saw price hikes — together rising by an average of more than 57% over the past month. Four of the six Walmart toys NBC News tracked got pricier, up 37% during the same period. At Amazon, by contrast, just one of seven toys saw price hikes, and all six apparel purchases held flat. (A Walmart spokesperson said the company aims to 'keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can.' An Amazon spokesperson said the retailer offers industry-leading low prices across hundreds of millions of items and pointed to CEO Andy Jassy's recent remarks on CNBC that the company has 'so far not seen prices appreciably go up.')
Beauty and jewelry: These prices largely haven't changed, despite 30% tariffs on goods imported from China, where many such products are made.
Economists warn that consumers haven't felt the full weight of tariffs at checkout just yet.
'I expect the inflation associated with tariffs to be felt later this year,' the National Retail Federation's chief economist, Jack Kleinhenz, said in a press release last month. 'Consumers remain very price sensitive, and those costs are likely to weigh heavily on consumer budgets.'
But fluctuating prices aren't expected to deter people from chasing summer deals. Adobe Analytics, which tracks e-commerce spending, projects consumers will shell out $23.8 billion online from Tuesday to Friday — up $9.6 billion from last year's summer sales.
'You have some consumers who just see really strong deals, and that's enticing enough for them to do that spontaneous purchasing,' said Vivek Pandya, lead digital analyst at Adobe. 'You also have consumers who are cognizant of the broader pricing environment globally, and are kind of trying to stockpile goods in anticipation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Is this the beginning of the end for price-matching policies?
Target is ending its policy of matching competitor prices from retailers such as Amazon and Walmart, effective 28 July. Introduced in 2013, the policy previously allowed price matching with Amazon, and Walmart; under the new rules, only prices will be matched. Retail analysts suggest this change reflects Target's ongoing financial challenges and efforts to improve profitability and margins. The company recently reported a 2.8 per cent drop in first-quarter sales, falling short of Wall Street's expectations. Target has encountered various financial headwinds, including economic uncertainty from a previous administration's tariff regime, rising inflation, and consumer boycotts. Here's why Target is ending its long-running 'price matching' policy this month
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Holes in EU Russia sanctions put attention back on Trump oil threat
LONDON, July 22 - The European Union's latest effort to restrict Russia's oil revenue is unlikely to hurt Moscow's war effort severely, leaving U.S. President Donald Trump's threat of secondary sanctions one of the few remaining economic levers to pressure the Kremlin. The EU on Friday agreed on the 18th package of sanctions against Russia, which foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said was one of the strongest to date. The package lowers the price cap on Russian crude to $47.60 a barrel from $60, meaning shippers and insurance companies seeking to avoid sanctions can't handle purchases made above this level. The new cap, which takes effect on September 3, also includes a mechanism to ensure it is always 15% below average Russian crude prices. A significant new addition is an import ban on refined oil products made from Russian crude. The ban, which would likely kick in next year, seeks to close a loophole created after the EU halted most imports of Russian crude and refined products in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This action led to sharp rises in European imports of fuels, particularly diesel and aviation fuel, from China, India and Turkey. The effectiveness of these initial measures was limited, however, as refiners in those three countries sharply increased imports of Russian feedstock due to the discounts created by the price cap. Ultimately, the biggest loser from the new ban would likely be India, which accounted for 16% of Europe's imports of diesel and jet fuel last year, according to Kpler data. Russian crude also accounted for 38% of India's crude imports in 2024. The new ban would exempt countries that are net exporters of crude, meaning the biggest beneficiaries of the new restriction will likely be Gulf producers with large refining operations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait that could pick up the slack from Indian refineries and export more fuel to Europe. The Western sanctions on Russia's oil sector since 2022 have been carefully crafted to avoid creating a severe energy price shock while still aiming to constrain the revenue of Moscow, the world's third-largest oil exporter. They haven't been overly successful on the latter point. Russia's crude oil and oil products export revenues reached $192 billion in 2024, significantly more than its defence budget of $110 billion that year. That compared with oil export revenue of $225 billion in 2019. While Russia's oil exports declined slightly in June to 7.23 million barrels per day, revenue rose by $800 million from May to $13.6 billion thanks to higher global oil prices, according to International Energy Agency estimates. This partly reflects the fact that Russia has found some workarounds, including developing a vast and opaque network of tankers, insurance and payment schemes that allow it to export its oil above the price cap. The EU's latest package has also placed 105 additional tankers under sanctions for evading the original price cap, in addition to the 342 already sanctioned. But Moscow will likely find ways to evade the worst effects of the new sanctions, perhaps by expanding the shadow fleet or further obscuring the origin of its oil through measures such as mid-ocean ship-to-ship transfers. Moreover, India and China will likely continue buying discounted Russian crude to benefit their domestic markets, while re-routing fuel exports previously bound to the EU to new markets. So even though, on paper, the new price cap could collectively reduce Russia's oil revenue, in reality, the new EU measures are unlikely to choke off Moscow's financial lifeblood. One way to hit Moscow's finances would be for President Trump to implement the "secondary sanctions" he threatened last week, whereby countries that buy oil from Moscow will be hit with 100% tariffs unless the Kremlin reaches a deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days. These secondary tariffs mean any country buying Russian oil would face severe restrictions on its ability to trade with the world's largest economy. Would Trump actually take this drastic step? Trump has expressed significant frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. And given that the multiple rounds of EU and U.S. sanctions on Russia have had a limited impact on Moscow's war chest, secondary sanctions could be one of the few effective tools left. But in a global energy market, this effectiveness is precisely the problem. If this drastic escalation of the West's economic war on Moscow were to severely curtail Russia's oil exports, this would also likely lead to a sharp increase in global oil prices and higher inflation – two things the U.S. president certainly does not want. And that's likely why – despite all these developments – Moscow and oil traders both appear relatively unfazed for now. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Fed reform may move markets more than Powell ouster
LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) - Changing the way the Federal Reserve operates or assesses the economy may have a more durable impact on policy and markets than firing the Fed boss. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added another twist to President Donald Trump's ongoing criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Monday by claiming he wanted to review the entire Fed institution and its performance. In an interview with CNBC, Bessent claimed the Fed's "fear-mongering over tariffs" without significant signs of inflation was justification for considering a root-and-branch review of the central bank's functioning. "What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful," he said. "All these PhDs over there, I don't know what they do." It's not yet clear whether Bessent was merely heaping more pressure on the Fed to speed up interest rate cuts, as Trump has been demanding almost daily, or whether the administration is actually planning to conduct a formal review of Fed operations, analysis and execution. While recent weeks have been filled with anxious noise about Trump attempting to fire Powell, this latest development - possible changes to the way the Fed ticks - could be much more far-reaching and impactful than simply truncating the tenure of one Chair. Of course, the Fed Chair is an important role, and a politically motivated ouster would be a serious challenge to Fed independence. Yet the Fed boss ultimately remains just one vote on the rate-setting board, and the Fed's policymaking structure is partly designed to insulate the central bank from any undue political influence. The Federal Open Market Committee that sets policy is made up of seven Fed board members and five regional Fed bosses, but the FOMC chair and vice chair are voted in by the committee at the start of each year. The Fed Chair typically takes the helm by convention, but not necessity. If a majority of the FOMC members balked at a politically partisan appointee to the top job, they could theoretically vote for a different Chair of the FOMC in an act of defiance. But, regardless, the Chair is still only one vote. Changing the Fed's institutional structure would require Congressional approval, a process likely to be protracted as many Republicans, including strong Trump supporters, may be wary of tampering with the Fed. Moreover, a recent Supreme Court ruling also suggested Fed structures should be left in place due to "a special historical status". But influencing the way the Fed thinks, forecasts and operates is a different matter. To complicate matters further, the Wall Street Journal on Monday claimed Bessent counseled Trump against firing Powell, arguing that the current Fed Chair might sue, or Congress could drag its feet on approving a replacement. Both scenarios could result in a leadership hiatus that would see Joe Biden appointee Vice Fed Chair Philip Jefferson assume the role. Bessent argued the price of removing Powell now was potential market disruption and economic uncertainty for no real gain in influence compared with waiting for Powell's term to just expire in May, the WSJ said. Trump, already battling with the WSJ on another story, dismissed the report as 'fake'. Bessent said the decision was ultimately up to Trump. But the messiness of Powell's removal may be why the administration sees other pressure on the Fed to buckle on rates soon as more fruitful. After all, two Trump appointees to the board - Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman - already arguing for immediate cuts and two more board positions, including Powell's, are likely to come up by this time next year. That would leave a majority on the board being Trump appointees - even though not the FOMC. SGH Macro Advisors' Tim Duy reckons that to reshape the Fed, the White House needs even more seats to shift the board - building a block of Trump nominees sufficient to out-vote the five regional Presidents that make up the rest of the FOMC. Without that, it leaves the Trump team trying to change the DNA of Fed thinking and a major review that shifts standing assumptions, forecasting patterns and public presentations may be significant longer-term. Current favorite to be Trump's pick for the Chair, former Fed policymaker Kevin Warsh, who is a known critic of orthodox Fed analysis, doubts there's a trade-off between jobs and inflation the way it's currently presented and claims rates can move lower if balance sheet policies were tighter. If markets think it's inappropriate to ease now, of course, then inflation expectations may just build on fears of undue political influence and long-term borrowing rates should rise. But it may not be that clean. "The goal appears to be to keep policy rates low while shifting U.S. Treasury issuance to the front end of the curve," wrote SGH Macro's Duy. "While excessively loose policy would be expected to raise long term rates, there is the possibility that Fed and Treasury manage the debt with an eye toward yield curve control." That's a delicate balance that might come off - but guaranteeing the Fed comes on board will not be easy. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters -- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter Morning Bid U.S.
