logo
Trump's Fed attacks puncture veneer of central bank independence: McGeever

Trump's Fed attacks puncture veneer of central bank independence: McGeever

Zawya2 days ago
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)
ORLANDO, Florida - If U.S. President Donald Trump's public attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have achieved one thing, it has been to thrust the issue of central bank independence firmly into the spotlight. But this raises the question, what does 'independence' really mean?
Central bank independence is widely considered a bedrock of modern-day financial markets. Economists, investors and policymakers almost universally agree that monetary policy should be set for the long-term good and stability of the economy, free from short-term and capricious political influence.
But maintaining that theoretical separation between policymakers and politicians is very challenging in practice.
Ultimately, central banks are creations of – and, to varying degrees, extensions of – their national governments. The legislatures determine their statutes, parameters, goals, and key policymaking personnel.
One need only look at the intertwined and often coordinated responses of countries' central banks and governments to the global financial crisis and pandemic for evidence that complete independence doesn't actually exist.
DE FACTO OR DE JURE
'Independence' has two primary meanings in studies of monetary policy.
Academic studies often refer to 'de jure' independence, essentially legal or institutional independence, and 'de facto' or operational independence. Importantly, de jure independence is no guarantee of de facto independence or vice versa.
Perhaps surprisingly, the U.S. scores pretty low on a de jure basis, mainly because the Fed's statutes have barely changed since it was created over a century ago in 1913.
Davide Romelli, associate professor at Trinity College Dublin, has updated a central bank independence index created by Alex Cukierman, Steven Webb, and Bilin Neyapti in the 1990s. The index, in which 0 is no independence and 1 is total independence, shows the US scoring 0.61. That suggests the Fed is a less institutionally independent body than the European Central Bank, which scored 0.90, and even the People's Bank of China, which scored 0.66.
But on a de facto basis, the Fed would almost certainly rank as higher than the PBOC, given its design, transparency, and accountability mechanisms such as the chair's regular press conferences and appearances before Congress.
And look at how the Fed resisted the clamor to raise interest rates when inflation first exploded after the pandemic as well as its patience in lowering them now given the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. trade agenda. You can argue the wisdom or folly of the Fed's actions in either case, but both episodes put its operational independence on full display.
'BANANA REPUBLIC'
When experts talk about threats to central bank independence, they are usually referring to concerns about de facto independence.
Indeed, this is why Fed-watchers have grown increasingly troubled by Trump's excoriating verbal attacks on Powell over the last six months for not cutting interest rates. If there is a line demarcating political interference, however amorphous, Trump has crossed it.
"The words that Trump uttered are the ones one expects from the head of a banana republic that is about to start printing money to fund fiscal deficits," former Fed Chair and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told The New Yorker earlier this month.
Of course, even if Trump were to replace Powell with a more amenable chair, this would not completely eliminate Fed independence. The Fed chair does not single-handedly set interest rates and represents only one of 12 votes at each policy meeting.
But in many ways he or she is the first among equals, as University of Maryland's Thomas Drechsel shows in a recent working paper.
Analyzing over 800 personal interactions between Fed officials and each U.S. president from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama in 2016, Drechsel found that 92% were with the Fed chair. President Richard Nixon interacted with Fed officials 160 times, reflecting his infamous efforts to influence then chair Arthur Burns, while only six interactions took place during Bill Clinton's two terms.
To be sure, not all meetings or telephone calls involve political pressure, and for purely logistical reasons, it makes sense that the president would prioritize speaking with the head of the monetary policy body as opposed to all its members.
As such, appointing the governor is a key area where a central bank's independence can be damaged. In a 2022 academic paper titled "(In)dependent Central Banks" revised in February analyzing 317 governor appointments in 57 countries between January 1985 and January 2020, the authors noted that as central banks' powers – and perceived independence – have expanded, political incentives to control them have intensified, "especially in an era of growing global populism."
Thus, in many cases, the more power a central bank has to ignore political pressure, the more motivated government leaders are to apply it. If that is a global trend, Trump appears to be at the vanguard.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)
(By Jamie McGeever. Editing by Mark Potter)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GENIUS Act Paves the Way for Regulated Stablecoins
GENIUS Act Paves the Way for Regulated Stablecoins

Arabian Post

timean hour ago

  • Arabian Post

GENIUS Act Paves the Way for Regulated Stablecoins

Arabian Post Staff -Dubai A landmark federal framework for stablecoins became law on 18 July 2025, when President Donald Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U. S. Stablecoins Act. The legislation mandates that stablecoins — digital currencies pegged one‑to‑one to the U. S. dollar or short‑term Treasury bills — must be fully backed by liquid reserves, publicly disclose holdings monthly, and comply with anti‑money laundering and consumer protection rules. The Act clears a path for both banks and approved non‑bank entities to issue payment stablecoins under a dual licensing system, encompassing federal and state oversight. It also creates a formal category for such assets, offering legal clarity that had eluded stablecoin issuers until now. ADVERTISEMENT Despite bipartisan support in Congress — with Senate approval on 17 June and House passage on 17 July — the new law has drawn criticism. Some lawmakers and experts argue it falls short on stricter anti‑money laundering measures and allows big tech firms to issue stablecoins with fewer regulatory hurdles than traditional banks. Trump lauded the Act during the White House signing ceremony, calling it 'a hell of an act' and asserting it will solidify American crypto leadership and support the dollar's global primacy. He noted the GENIUS Act 'creates a clear and simple regulatory framework' capable of unleashing innovation and enhancing payment systems. Stakeholders across finance and fintech are re-evaluating their strategies. Traditional banks are preparing pilot programmes and exploring partnerships to issue or facilitate stablecoins, while crypto firms like Circle and Coinbase, which have backed U. S. stablecoin issuance earlier, have seen share prices rise following the law's enactment. In parallel, the law aims to channel demand into U. S. Treasuries, reinforcing the dollar's global role. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlighted that requiring asset backing in government debt would deepen Treasury markets. Financial institutions are bracing for increased reserve purchases and adjustments in asset allocation strategies. The Act introduces rigorous governance: stablecoin issuers must implement reserve audits, adhere to marketing restrictions—such as avoiding government endorsement claims—and prioritise redeeming customer claims ahead of other creditors in insolvency scenarios. It also extends anti‑money laundering obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act, granting treasury authorities power to freeze illicit funds. Though heralded as a milestone, implementation remains complex. Regulators are expected to issue detailed rules within a year, and the Act's 'effective date' is projected for late 2026, contingent on final regulatory actions or an 18‑month grace period. Global central banks and fintech players are watching closely. Some expect U. S. leadership in regulated digital currencies could spur innovation overseas, while others warn that insufficient guardrails may encourage regulatory arbitrage. Foreign issuers may enter the U. S. market if they meet rigorous Treasury approval, including comparable home‑jurisdiction oversight and U. S.-based reserve management. Market response has been immediate: global crypto valuations have surged past $4 trillion, led by strong gains in bitcoin and ether amidst expectations of broader stablecoin integration. Industry experts suggest stablecoins may soon become mainstream payment tools, with major retailers and tech giants like Google, Uber and Apple exploring adoption. However, voices of caution persist. Critics say the framework could permit big tech to bypass stricter banking regulations, heightening systemic risks, and that consumer safeguards remain inadequate. Transparency International warned the law might provide loopholes exploitable by criminals or hostile regimes. As rule‑making proceeds and industry adapts, the GENIUS Act marks a fundamental shift in U. S. crypto policy — ushering stablecoins from regulatory limbo into a legalised, structured, but contested future.

5 years after COVID, pharma shares languish
5 years after COVID, pharma shares languish

Gulf Today

timean hour ago

  • Gulf Today

5 years after COVID, pharma shares languish

Global healthcare stocks have not been this cheap in decades and fund inflows into the sector are picking up, yet the shares remain in the doldrums, highlighting uncertainty over drug pricing policies since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Pharma companies' earnings outlook is being obscured by concerns over revived "most-favored-nation" drug pricing rules in the lucrative US market and potential 200% tariffs on pharma imports into the US. Money flooded into drugmakers' shares during the COVID-19 pandemic but more recently there has been an exodus as investors shifted into Big Tech, leaving the sector cheap but unloved, reported Reuters. At 15.9 times forward earnings, healthcare trades 11% below its long-term average and 20% below global equities, its steepest discount in 16 years, just above a record discount in 2009, based on LSEG Datastream data. "We've moved from cautious optimism to cautious pessimism," said Stephanie Aliaga, global market strategist at J.P. Morgan Asset Management in New York. "Valuations have gotten even cheaper, but for a reason," she added, referring to intensifying US policy risks. But some investors are starting to look past the Washington policy fog and at long-term positive drivers, such as aging populations, RNA-based therapeutics, and breakthroughs in weight-loss and diabetes drugs, Reuters reported. Alberto Conca, CIO at Swiss wealth manager LFG+ZEST, has been adding exposure to pharma, biotech and medtech in recent weeks, drawn by strong cash-flow yields and the prospect of US rate cuts boosting this rate-sensitive sector. Interest rate cuts typically support healthcare by lowering R&D funding costs and boosting the value of future cash flows. "These are quality companies with good growth and defensive features being priced as if we're heading into an 'Armageddon scenario', which I believe is unlikely," he said. UK-based M&G Investments has also been selectively adding to healthcare, according to its latest allocation report. Healthcare funds have seen net inflows since 2024, more than reversing the outflows from late 2022 through 2023, fund tracker EPFR data shows. Although year-to-date, inflows total $7.2 billion, down 41% from last year. Innovation is accelerating, pipelines are maturing and M&A is showing signs of picking up — yet stock prices are unmoved. Whether that represents a buying opportunity or a value trap hinges on how and when the policy uncertainty clears, investors said. Historically, healthcare has traded at a modest premium to world stocks, thanks to its defensive profile and steady earnings. But that narrative has unravelled under political pressure from Washington and investors' love of Big Tech. Over the past three years, US healthcare has underperformed the S&P 500 by more than 60 percentage points, making it the worst sectoral performer on Wall Street. Its valuation has deepened to a near-record 27% discount, from parity to the S&P in 2023. "Markets don't like uncertainty, and that shows up in valuations," said Eddie Yoon, healthcare sector leader and portfolio manager at Fidelity Investments in Boston. "Being cheap isn't necessarily a reason to buy. You need a catalyst." For now, that catalyst is elusive. The policy uncertainty makes it difficult to forecast future earnings, he said, though he hopes for more clarity by year-end - potentially also paving the way for more M&A in the industry. Talks with the Trump administration have yet to clarify how and when drug prices will fall, executives from Eli Lilly and Merck said at a May industry conference.

Wall St set for mixed start as investors digest Alphabet, Tesla results
Wall St set for mixed start as investors digest Alphabet, Tesla results

Zawya

time2 hours ago

  • Zawya

Wall St set for mixed start as investors digest Alphabet, Tesla results

Wall Street was on track for a mixed open on Thursday as investors digested uneven earnings from megacaps like Alphabet and Tesla and monitored progress in U.S. trade negotiations. Alphabet rose 3.4% in premarket after the Google parent raised its 2025 capital spending forecast by $10 billion to $85 billion, shrugging off trade jitters, while electric vehicle maker Tesla tumbled 6.1% as CEO Elon Musk warned of "a few rough quarters" due to cuts in EV incentives. At 8:43 a.m. ET, S&P 500 E-minis were up 0.5 points, or 0.01%, Nasdaq 100 E-minis were up 42 points, or 0.18%, and Dow E-minis were down 292 points, or 0.65%. UnitedHealth fell 4.5%. The insurer said it is cooperating with the Department of Justice's formal criminal and civil requests following reports of investigations into its Medicare participation. The S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq soared to record closes on Wednesday as investors cheered reports of an imminent trade deal between Washington and the European Union. Meanwhile, the Dow closed over 1.1% higher, just below its all-time peak. An EU spokesperson on Thursday signaled that a deal was "within reach", which, as per diplomats, would result in broad 15% import tariffs on the 27-member bloc. Anticipation of further trade pacts was also reinforced by President Donald Trump's announcement of a deal with Japan on Tuesday, cutting import levies on the Asian country to just 15%. Meanwhile, China and South Korea are racing to strike agreements to dodge Trump's hefty duties. "A U.S. tariff agreement with Japan has increased market confidence that the worst of the global trade conflict could be over, adding to hopes of a deal with the European Union," said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer, UBS Global Wealth Management. Among other stocks, American Airlines fell 3.3% after forecasting a bigger-than-expected third-quarter loss, hurt by sluggish domestic travel demand. IBM slid 6.3% as its second-quarter earnings failed to impress investors, especially due to its lower-than-expected sales in its mainstay software segment. Honeywell slipped 2.8% despite raising its annual forecasts after beating Wall Street expectations for second-quarter results. Shares of ServiceNow jumped 7.4% after the software firm raised its annual subscription revenue forecast. Markets were also monitoring developments after the White House surprised investors that Trump - fresh from stepping up his criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell - would pay a visit to the U.S. central bank's headquarters later in the day. With the Fed widely expected to keep rates steady at next week's meeting, traders are now eyeing a 62% chance of a September rate cut, according to CME's FedWatch tool. A Labor Department's report showed jobless claims for the week ended July 18 stood at 217,000 versus an estimate of 235,000, signalling resilience in the job market. S&P Global's flash PMI data will be released at 9:45 a.m. ET. (Reporting by Nikhil Sharma and Pranav kashyap in Bengaluru; Editing by Maju Samuel)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store