Gold Eases After Three-Day Rally Ahead of Fed-Watched Jobs Data
Bullion traded near $3,345 an ounce after gaining more than 2% earlier this week, as markets shifted focus to the incoming payrolls report that's forecast to show 106,000 jobs were added to the economy in June, which would mark the fewest in four months. Separate data from ADP Research on Wednesday showed employment at US companies fell for the first time in over two years, prompting traders to boost bets on at least two rate cuts before 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
High-Yield Savings Account Rates Today: July 21, 2025
Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. Savings account yields are much higher than a few years ago Top rates may fall if the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates Online banks tend to offer the best yields available Rates on savings accounts are the same compared to one week ago. You can now earn up to 5.84% on your savings. Shopping for an account where you can save for a rainy day or retirement? Here's a look at some of the best savings rates you can find today. Related: Find the Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2025 Traditional savings accounts, called "statement savings accounts" within the banking industry, were notorious for paying meager interest in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Rates have been on the rise in recent years, and you can earn even more if you know where to look. For instance, online banks and credit unions often pay much higher rates than brick-and-mortar banks. The highest yield on a standard savings account with a $2,500 minimum deposit amount within the last week has been 5.84%, according to data from Curinos. If you spot a basic savings account with a comparable rate, you've done well for yourself. Today's average APY for a traditional savings account is 0.22%, Curinos says. APY, or annual percentage yield, accurately represents the actual amount your account will earn during one year. It factors in compound interest, which is the interest that builds up on the interest in your account. High-yield savings accounts generally pay considerably more interest than conventional savings accounts. But the catch is you may have to jump through some hoops to earn that higher rate, such as becoming a member of a credit union or putting down a large deposit. On high-yield accounts requiring a minimum deposit of $10,000, today's best interest rate is 4.88%. That's about the same as last week. The average APY for those accounts is now 0.23% APY, unchanged from a week ago. On high-yield savings accounts with a minimum opening deposit of $25,000, the highest rate available today is 3.94%. You'll be in good shape if you can nail down an account offering a rate close to that. The current average is 0.24% APY for a high-yield account with a $25,000 minimum deposit. Whether you're looking for a traditional savings account, high-yield savings account or MMA, you'll want to keep a few things in mind. A high interest rate is important, but it's not the only factor when picking an account to hold your savings. Another major consideration is whether the account has a minimum deposit - and whether you can meet that requirement. You'll also want to watch out for fees. Savings accounts can come with monthly maintenance fees, excess transaction fees (if you ignore limits on withdrawals), and other pesky charges that can eat into your returns. And before you apply for an account, explore a financial institution's reputation and safety. You should trust your bank or credit union and feel like you're in good hands. Check the reviews, see what people have to say about customer service and find out how the institution responds to consumer questions. Search for an account that's insured by the FDIC or, in the case of credit unions, the NCUA. Those federal agencies provide up to $250,000 in insurance per depositor and per bank for each account ownership category. That's tough to say—it depends on the path of inflation and the overall economy. The highest interest rates in recent memory were seen in 1980 and 1981, when the federal funds rate skyrocketed above 19%. That was in the face of runaway inflation that had prices rising at an annual rate of more than 14%. In the early 1980s, a three-month CD went as high as 18% compared to around 5% today, according to the Federal Reserve. Savings rates would eventually fall as inflation slowed and the federal funds rate came back down. Curinos determines the average rates for savings accounts by focusing on those intended for personal use. Certain types of savings accounts —such as relationship-based accounts and accounts designed for youths, seniors and students—are not considered in the calculation. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) The best high-yield savings account pays 5.84% now, according to Curinos data, so you'll want to aim for an account that delivers a yield in that ballpark. But rates aren't everything. You want an account that charges few fees, offers great customer service and has a track record of being a stable institution. Savings yields are variable and can change depending on economic conditions or a bank's particular financial need. Usually rates are influenced by the federal funds rate, meaning that a bank tends to raise or lower its rates along with the Fed. Online banks and credit unions tend to offer the best yields because they can pass along savings from low overhead while also striving to attract new customers.
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
Stablecoins Won't Inflate The Money Supply. Here's Why.
President Donald Trump signs the GENIUS Act, a bill that regulates stablecoins. With the recent passage of the GENIUS Act, the United States has taken its first major legislative step toward regulating dollar-backed stablecoins. The bill, signed into law by President Trump on July 18, lays out a framework that requires stablecoins to be fully backed by low-risk, liquid assets such as short-term U.S. Treasurys or cash equivalents. Issuers must meet licensing standards, comply with regulatory oversight, and undergo regular audits. The intent of the law is to integrate stablecoins into the existing financial ecosystem without destabilizing it. As stablecoins have moved into the regulatory mainstream, a debate has ignited among economists. Will the adoption of these digital tokens expand the money supply and unleash inflation? Will stablecoins diminish the Federal Reserve's control over monetary policy? Senator Elizabeth Warren even warns crypto can 'blow up our entire economy.' On these counts, fears are overstated. A closer look reveals that stablecoins are unlikely to fuel inflation, nor do they significantly alter the role of central banks, though the Federal Reserve's role has been evolving in recent years for other reasons. To understand why stablecoins will not expand the money supply in any meaningful sense, one must revisit a critical development in U.S. monetary policy that took place during the 2008 financial crisis. At that time, the Federal Reserve received authority to pay interest on reserves held by commercial banks. This change made bank reserves held at the Fed essentially interchangeable with short-term government debt. Both now yield comparable rates of interest and both are considered nearly risk-free. This change has had sweeping consequences. It neutered much of the traditional mechanism of monetary policy, whereby the Fed manipulates the supply of base money to steer short-term interest rates. Now, the modern Fed still targets interest rates, but it also allows reserve accounts to pile up by restricting lending through the payment of interest to banks. The Fed now swaps interest-bearing central bank liabilities (reserves) for other interest-bearing securities (such as T-bills), having little to no impact on broader monetary aggregates. Meanwhile, the Fed tends to be more of a follower of market interest rates than a director of them. In essence, the Fed has become a passive balance sheet manager rather than an active creator of credit and liquidity. The Structure of Modern Money While some may lament the decline in central bank control, it has corresponded with an unprecedented era of macroeconomic stability. Since the introduction of interest on reserves, the U.S. has not experienced a demand-induced recession. The 2020 recession was due to a pandemic, not insufficient demand due to monetary factors. This is a near-unheard-of achievement in recent economic history, and it explains why the interest-on-reserves policy should be viewed as one of the greatest policy successes in recent memory. With this context in mind, concerns that stablecoins will destabilize the money supply look misplaced. Under the GENIUS Act, stablecoin issuers are required to back their liabilities 100 percent with safe, liquid assets. Since these assets consist of U.S. Treasurys and central bank reserves, which are already functionally equivalent in today's environment, the issuance of stablecoins merely transforms one form of existing money-like instrument for another. In other words, stablecoins repackage already-existing base money and close substitutes into tokenized forms of money that facilitate faster and cheaper payments. They do not constitute a net expansion of government financial liabilities and private credit. Some might point out that unlike reserves or T-bills, U.S. stablecoin accounts won't pay interest (at least for now). This is an important difference, but not one that fundamentally alters the monetary picture. True, the assets and liabilities of stablecoin issuers are not perfectly interchangeable. The non-interest-bearing nature of most stablecoins makes them less attractive as a store of value than their underlying reserves. But for some transactional purposes, like cross-border payments, stablecoins may still be preferred at times for their technical attributes. From a macroeconomic standpoint, what matters is that their issuance neither injects new money into the economy nor changes the overall purchasing power in circulation. Modern money creation is primarily driven by the credit decisions of commercial banks responding to market demand. This is a legacy of fractional reserve banking. However, stablecoin issuers under the new regulatory regime will not operate a fractional reserve model. Their 100 percent reserve backing ensures that they do not multiply credit in the traditional banking sense. As such, they do not contribute to the 'pyramid' of credit that some monetary theorists warn about. The Real Source of Risk The GENIUS Act actually tightens the relationship between money and its underlying assets, making the monetary system arguably more conservative. This does not mean there are no risks associated with stablecoins. If confidence in the U.S. government's creditworthiness were to erode, there could be runs on stablecoins. For example, if Treasurys are no longer viewed as risk-free, stablecoin issuers might face liquidity crises. Investors who try to redeem Treasurys for U.S. dollars might see the value of Treasurys decline. This would make it harder for stablecoin issuers to meet redemptions, as users demand cash for their tokens. At some point, the Federal Reserve might have to step in to act as lender of last resort, providing liquidity to ease the credit crunch. The real risk in this scenario relates to the creditworthiness of the U.S. government, not from stablecoins themselves. As long as U.S. debt is viewed as reliable, stablecoins should remain safe and continue to expand without fueling inflation. They may increase economic activity by facilitating new kinds of transactions, but they are unlikely to cause broad-based price increases or liquidity crises. Indeed, the larger risk to monetary stability today is not private stablecoin issuers but Congress. As the Fed's policy toolkit has been constrained, fiscal authorities have become the de facto 'conductors' of aggregate demand. The inflationary surge and subsequent reversal during the Biden administration demonstrated the extent to which spending bills and stimulus programs can now drive price levels. Thus, the stablecoin debate must be seen in proper perspective. It is not about whether the private financial system will usurp the Federal Reserve. That transition, to an extent, already happened in 2008. Instead, the focus of discussion should be on integrating this new technology into an evolving monetary system in a manner that is transparent and secure. The GENIUS Act succeeds on this front. It creates a clear regulatory path for stablecoin issuers and embraces innovation without sacrificing financial stability. The law could certainly be improved upon. Perhaps stablecoin issuers should eventually be allowed to pay interest, or, more controversially, to hold fewer safe reserves and engage in more traditional lending. These issues are worthy of debate. But for now, the policy direction is sound. Stablecoins are not a threat to the money supply. They are a reflection of how that supply has changed in recent years. So long as investors understand this, there is little reason to fear stablecoins' ascent.
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump, And Future Presidents, Will Battle The Fed Until It Reforms
Flags fly over the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) Getty Images President Trump's war against the Federal Reserve isn't unusual, historically. Until our central bank changes its ways, future presidents will also have their battles. It's no surprise that President Trump's intense fight with Fed boss Jerome Powell is generally portrayed as the short-sighted White House bully-battling the heroic head of a crucial, independent institution that's attempting to do what's right to stop inflation. If Trump takes Powell's scalp, most observers warn, terrible things will unfold because of the ballooning national debt. This narrative is wrong. Presidents going head to head with our central bank isn't that unusual. Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton had occasional beefs with Fed bosses. It's unrealistic to think that commanders-in-chief wouldn't be sensitive to the Fed's slowing the economy. The Federal Reserve brings this on itself because of its long-time philosophy that prosperity causes inflation, and the cure for that is depressing economic activity. The real cure for monetary inflation is keeping the dollar's value steady, instead of letting it go up and down like a yo-yo. For a variety of reasons the best barometer for stability is the price of gold, and the second best is a broad index of commodities. When the price of gold fluctuates, it's not the real value of gold fluctuating, but the value of the dollar. When the Fed puts itself in the position of guiding the economy, it shouldn't be surprised when presidents get involved. The current spat between the White House and the Federal Reserve, rowdy though it may appear, is somewhat mild compared to fights in the past. During WWII, the Fed agreed to keep both short- and long-term interest rates low to help the government finance the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But the rate-fixing persisted after the conflict. When the Korean War got underway, the Fed said it was going to stop the fix because inflation would skyrocket. President Harry Truman and his Treasury Department vigorously fought the move. Truman felt it was high interest rates after WWI that had depressed the economy, thereby bankrupting his new haberdashery. The issue was personal. The fight got ugly. Finally, an agreement was reached. Fed independence was reaffirmed and interest rates were allowed to rise. However, the head of the Fed was, in effect, fired and a Treasury Department official put in his place. The expectation was that the official, William McChesney Martin, would continue the low-rate policy. Instead, Martin, who would serve as Fed chairman for 19 years, raised them. Years later when Martin ran into Truman, the former president hissed at him, 'Traitor!' In 1965 Martin got into an ugly battle with President Lyndon B. Johnson. Martin wanted to raise rates because he feared the inflationary effects of Johnson's massive domestic spending and the huge Vietnam War outlays. When Martin wouldn't bend, Johnson ordered him and others to his Texas ranch. Johnson, a large man, got so angry he took Martin by the lapels and threw him against the wall. Martin eventually caved. In the early 1970s, President Nixon, who had taken the U.S. off the gold standard and imposed nationwide price and wage controls, wanted Fed chair Arthur Burns to pursue an easy-money policy to help Nixon win reelection. To make Burns more compliant, Nixon aides planted untrue stories about Burns' wanting a big salary increase while other wages had been frozen. Burns caved and a hideous inflation ensued. In these cases, the Fed was right and the presidents were wrong. But this hasn't always been so. For instance, Reagan had a valid point regarding Paul Volcker's tight-money policy in the mid-1980s. And in his fight with the central bank, Trump is also right. The Fed is playing anti-Trump politics. Hopefully, the president and his team will start making the valid case that the Fed's operating philosophy is profoundly wrong. If keeping the dollar stable and trustworthy were to become the Fed's goal in the future, then it would no longer try to manipulate the economy—and presidents would no longer have a reason to fight it.
