Global central banks talk harsh new economic realities in Tokyo
TOKYO (Reuters) -It's Japan's version of the Fed's Jackson Hole symposium, without the trail hikes or views, and this year's gathering of global central bankers in Tokyo will focus on two uncomfortable realities: flagging economic growth and sticky inflation.
The Bank of Japan and its affiliated think tank host a two-day annual conference that kicks off on Tuesday and includes prominent U.S., European and Asian academics and central bankers.
While most of the speeches are academic in nature and closed to media, this year's theme looks at "New challenges for monetary policy", specifically how central banks should deal with persistent inflation, downside economic risks, volatile markets and U.S. tariffs.
Those conflicting headwinds, much of it a result of U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, are creating speedbumps for many central banks, regardless of whether they are raising and cutting interest rates.
The BOJ, for example, remains on track to continue raising interest rates and steadily taper its bond purchases, a stark contrast to its rate cutting peers, but recent global developments have raised questions about the pace of such moves.
"While the BOJ may be forced to stand pat for a while, it doesn't need to ditch rate hikes altogether," said former BOJ official Nobuyasu Atago. "It just needs to communicate in a way that when the environment looks right, it can resume rate hikes."
Officials from the Federal Reserve, including New York Fed President John Williams, European Central Bank, Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia are among participants of the conference, which takes place at the BOJ's headquarters in central Tokyo.
At last year's meeting, participants took stock of their experience battling economic downturns by discussing lessons learned from using various unconventional monetary easing tools.
They also discussed whether Japan - an outlier that kept interest rates ultra-low even as other major central banks hiked aggressively - could emerge from decades of deflation and low inflation with budding signs of sustained wage hikes.
While concerns this year centre on tariff-induced economic downturns, the conference's session topics indicate policymakers still sensitive to risks of being caught with persistent, too-high inflation.
One session features "reserve demand, interest rate control, and quantitative tightening." Another will debate a paper published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in December titled "Monetary Policy and Inflation Scares."
That paper explains how large supply shocks, such as one caused by the COVID pandemic, can lead to persistent inflation, warning of the dangers central banks face assuming that they can look through cost-push price pressures.
ERRATIC POLICY
That could be a compelling message for major central banks that face a similar dilemma exacerbated by a global trade war and Trump's erratic trade policy.
Initially thought to be on course for more rate cuts, the U.S. Federal Reserve has been forced into a waiting game with officials warning last week of creeping inflation due to tariffs.
While the European Central Bank is expected to cut rates again in June, the case is growing for a pause beyond that as inflation challenges creep up on the horizon, according to Reuters' conversations with policymakers.
"Tariffs may be disinflationary in the short run but pose upside risks over the medium term," ECB board member Isabel Schnabel, an outspoken policy hawk, told a conference at Stanford University on May 9, in an explicit call for a pause.
The BOJ, too, faces the challenge of balancing domestic inflationary pressure and growth risks from U.S. tariffs.
Trump tariffs forced the BOJ to sharply cut its growth forecasts on May 1, signaling a pause in its rate-hike cycle that still leaves short-term interest rates at a meagre 0.5%.
And yet, Governor Kazuo Ueda has signaled readiness to resume rate hikes if underlying inflation stays on course to durably hit its 2% target.
Japan's core consumer inflation hit a more than two-year high of 3.5% in April as food prices surged 7% in a sign of the pain rising living costs are inflicting on households.
"It's clear the BOJ has failed to achieve its mandate of price stability," said Atago, who is currently chief economist at Rakuten Securities Economic Research Institute.
"Inflation will always be among worries for the BOJ, which is probably already behind the curve in dealing with domestic price pressures."
Ueda delivers a keynote speech at the outset of the conference on Tuesday, followed by a lecture by Agustin Carstens, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Next Job: Selling Skeptical Americans on His Economy
Six months into his comeback term, Donald Trump has taken full ownership of the US economy. For better or worse, his party must now sell it to voters. The president has hailed the world's 'hottest' economy – and found others to blame for any wobbles. When Friday's jobs report showed a dramatic slowdown in hiring, he fired the head of the agency that published it. He's pinned some frustrations on his predecessor Joe Biden, and continues to berate the Federal Reserve for what he considers too-high interest rates.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Drugmakers are pouring billions of dollars into new US manufacturing. It still won't achieve all of Trump's tariff goals
Prescription drugs Tariffs Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow Ever since President Donald Trump started promising to slap tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, drugmakers have unveiled a flurry of commitments to build or expand US manufacturing operations in the coming years. AstraZeneca is investing $50 billion to expand its drug manufacturing in the US. Johnson & Johnson is pouring $55 billion into domestic production and research. And Eli Lilly said it will spend $27 billion to build four new manufacturing plants here. In total, the planned investments exceed $250 billion, according to two industry analysts. Trump is wielding the threat of tariffs to get drugmakers to increase their domestic production, which he says will strengthen national security. He's also pushing pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices, one of his longstanding goals. But the pharma companies' moves are not expected to decrease the United States' reliance on foreign sources for key pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs, experts say. Nor are they likely to result in lower costs for American consumers. Still, the White House regularly touts the steady drumbeat of commitments as proof Trump's strategy is working. 'Another win for American manufacturing. @AstraZeneca's $50 billion pledge to expand U.S. manufacturing and R&D shows our tariff strategy at work,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted on X in late July. 'The investment will bring high-paying jobs to Virginia, Indiana, Texas, and across the country while hardening our supply chains. Reshoring pharma production is one of our top priorities.' But it's just not that simple. The pharmaceutical industry is a global web, with ingredients and finished drugs being manufactured in a multitude of locations around the world. The economics of brand name and generic drug manufacturing vary widely, and the price that the US consumer ultimately pays is determined by multiple players and factors. Both American and foreign drugmakers already produce many medications in the US and have been investing in their operations here for years. The prospect of tariffs certainly has prompted some brand-name manufacturers to shift more production to the US. However, some of the investments were already in the works before Trump took office, and other commitments may never be fulfilled, analysts say. Johnson & Johnson's $55 billion investment announcement in March, for instance, included the building of a North Carolina facility that was originally unveiled in October. 'They are just reiterating it because they're probably trying to make sure that the president is aware that they have manufacturing here and that they are listening to him,' Evan Seigerman, senior biopharma analyst at BMO Capital Markets, said of pharmaceutical companies. 'They're playing ball. It's all about the deal with President Trump.' Generic drugmakers, however, are not making the same types of commitments – largely because they can't afford to, as their profit margins are much thinner. While certain generic medicines are made in the United States, including sterile injectable drugs, oral liquid medications and controlled substances, the majority of drugs in pill or capsule form are produced abroad, primarily in India. But two generic drug manufacturers have announced domestic investments in recent months, according to the Association for Accessible Medicines, a trade group for the generic and biosimilar drug industries. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA said it would invest $1 billion by 2030 to expand its manufacturing and research and development capabilities in several US locations, while Amphastar Pharmaceuticals said it would quadruple its production in the next three to five years. They both manufacture sterile injectable drugs, among other products. Other companies are more hesitant. 'We're not sure the market will support it if we build it,' said John Murphy III, the industry association's CEO, noting that reimbursements are so low that companies may not get returns on their investments. Much of the national security concerns center on generic drugs, which account for more than 90% of US prescriptions and are also critical to medicine administered in hospitals and doctors' offices. A sizeable share of the supply chain for certain generic medications comes from abroad and could be disrupted during geopolitical crises, a risk that's been repeatedly flagged by a bipartisan group of senators. Blanket tariffs, however, won't spur more domestic manufacturing of these drugs, said Erin Fox, associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah Health. 'It's highly, highly unlikely we will see generic production expand in the US without significant incentives for these companies,' she said. 'If we do move production on some drugs to the US because we want to be sure from a national security standpoint, that's fine, but that's going to cost money.' Just what tariffs the pharmaceutical industry will face – and on which products from which countries – remain to be seen. The Trump administration is in the midst of negotiating various trade deals and has yet to release the findings of its investigation into national security implications of drug imports, which is expected to set the stage for tariffs on the industry. In late July, Trump unveiled the framework of a deal with the European Union, which calls for a 15% tariff on pharmaceutical imports – though some generic drugs could be exempt. Trump had been signaling in recent weeks that he would soon announce drug tariffs of up to 200%, but that he would give drugmakers a year or so to expand their domestic production before the full amount kicks in. That would be enough time for some companies to expand existing operations, though building new facilities could take three to five years, experts said. Even so, it's difficult for the manufacturers to make significant longer-term investment decisions amid the uncertainty of both the tariffs and future presidential administrations. Increasing their domestic manufacturing will help brand name drug companies escape tariffs, though they may have to pay some levies if they import pharmaceutical ingredients from other countries. Still, making more drugs in the US doesn't mean that the products will be any cheaper for patients, experts say. For one thing, the cost of production is typically higher in the US, said Stephen Farrelly, ING's global health care sector lead. Plus, the prices that consumers pay are largely governed by the nation's complex health system, which includes manufacturers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, known as PBMs. So whether Americans get a break on the high cost of their prescriptions will also depend on whether the president can achieve his other initiatives, including bringing US prices more in line with those in Europe and reforming the PBM industry, he said. While brand name manufacturers have more wiggle room to absorb some of the increased expenses, many experts believe they will pass along at least some of the added burden to consumers – who could eventually feel it in their out-of-pocket cost at the pharmacy counter or in their monthly insurance premiums. As for generic medicine, shifting more manufacturing to the US would entail higher production costs, which these companies could not afford to cover. Tariffs would be more likely to prompt these drugmakers to pull out of the US market, exacerbating shortages. 'At a time when the administration is clearly looking to still keep the cost down, we don't see a wholesale redistribution of generic capacity towards the US anytime soon,' Farrelly said.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Yahoo Finance Chartbook: 35 charts tell the story of markets and the economy midway through 2025
The US stock market has not only survived one of the most hectic starts to a trading year on record — it's thriving. After falling 19% in a matter of weeks earlier this year, the S&P 500 (^GSPC) is back at record highs, but a sense of unease about the status of this rally persists. There's the perpetual debate about stock valuations, which are historically elevated, as the stability of the artificial intelligence growth story remains in question for some investors. The potential fallout from President Trump's tariff and immigration policies — and their impact on US economic growth — has emerged as the top concern among economists who are still questioning the resilience of the US economy. But the fifth volume of the Yahoo Finance Chartbook also presents a calming explanation for why stocks have inflected higher in a V-shaped pattern after April brought one of the worst three-day stretches since World War II. Corporate profit expectations are picking up, particularly in areas that have been bid up the most in the market. By some measures, the US consumer remains in solid shape. And even after a roaring rally, several strategists argue investor sentiment is far from peaking. Trump has also dialed up the pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates, but this edition of the Chartbook shows the central bank taking less of a starring role in this market moment. When and how the central bank adjusts its policy seems a less pressing question than what has prompted stocks to climb this year's wall of worry and what forces could prompt investors to keep climbing. Debating stocks at record highs | Another economic turning point | A shifting investing landscape Click here to download YF Chartbook vol. 5 The following commentary has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Debating stocks at record highs Mike Wilson, chief investment officer, Morgan Stanley "[This] chart shows the earnings revisions breadth for the S&P 500. It leads actual earnings estimates, and as you can see, we are currently experiencing one of the strongest V-shaped recoveries in history, rivaling the COVID rebound in 2020, the last time we were so out of consensus on the market. Many market participants do not appreciate how strong this very fundamental driver has been over the past several months, which helps to not only justify the rally to date, but also why we remain bullish on the next 6-12 months." Ben Snider, senior equity strategist, Goldman Sachs "Despite the recent new record highs notched by the S&P 500, investor positioning data show no sign of exuberance. The GS Equity Sentiment Indicator combines nine measures of positioning in US stocks across investor groups, including hedge funds, mutual funds, and retail investors. Today, the indicator stands at a 0, reflecting a neutral stance in US stocks on average across investors. While valuation multiples sit at elevated levels relative to history, constrained positioning indicates room for the recent equity rally to continue." Binky Chadha, chief global strategist, Deutsche Bank "While equity markets have recovered completely from their Liberation Day sell-off, equity positioning is only back up to neutral. Equity positioning tends to align with earnings growth but is currently still below what we expect for Q2 and we look for a typical earnings season rally. Both the company analyst consensus and DB forecasts see earnings growth dipping in Q3 as the full impact of tariffs hit, before picking up again. Our outlook out to year-end sees a rise in equity positioning as one of the drivers of further upside for equity prices." Venu Krishna, head of US equity strategy, Barclays "Heading into 2Q25 earnings season, Big Tech is once again trading at ~29x [forward earnings]. ... While this seems high at first take, the group is still trading ~2 turns below where it started the year because Big Tech is one of the only segments of the S&P 500 where an improved YTD earnings outlook is available at a better YTD price. US equity upside has broadened in 2025 — the percentage of SPX constituents beating the index has risen to the highest level in about 2 years — but most of these gains have been fueled by multiple expansion. Big Tech is the rare exception. ... With [the second quarter of 2025] poised to be the first quarter to see material impacts from incremental tariffs, Big Tech retains an outsized role in keeping overall SPX performance healthy, and we believe the group is well-positioned to do so." Read more: Live coverage of corporate earnings Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist, Stifel "While it's absolutely true Big Tech is much more profitable than the late-1990s Bubble, … the over-valuation is the same." Tom Lee, head of research, Fundstrat "Over the past five years, the market has survived six black swan events. If this were a company that had survived six near-extinction events and continued to prosper, its stock would be assigned a higher multiple. However, the equal-weight S&P 500 P/E has actually declined from 17.6x (pre-COVID) to the current 16.9x. If the market is truly indestructible, there's still plenty of room for multiples to rise." Savita Subramanian and Jill Carey Hall, BofA Securities equity and quant strategy "While the S&P 500 screens as statistically expensive on most valuation metrics we track, comparing today's multiple to prior cycles is apples to oranges, in our view, given the mix shift within the index. The S&P 500 has shifted from low-margin, asset- and labor-intensive industries (70% manufacturing in 1980) to high-margin, innovation-oriented industries (50% of the index today)." Keith Lerner, co-chief investment officer, Truist "A key question for the second half of the year is whether market leadership will broaden. Small- and mid-cap stocks remain well below prior highs, partly due to weaker earnings. A shift would likely require both economic improvement and broader earnings growth. Until trends improve, we continue to favor large-cap equities with a growth tilt." Citi equity strategy team led by Scott Chronert "This reporting season is critical for Small/Mid Cap and more cyclical sectors as earnings growth has been paltry for more than two years. However, Wall Street analysts have continued to model an uplift in fundamentals only to be continually disappointed. Good results this quarter and conviction in forward estimates are critical for investors to believe the return to positive EPS growth is near and for US stock market performance to broaden." Richard Bernstein, CEO, Richard Bernstein Advisors "Several points are worth noting in this chart: Nasdaq surges ahead of Dow Jones Utilities only during more speculative periods and bubbles. Utilities have underperformed Nasdaq by less than 65bp/year, even when including the current speculative Magnificent 7/AI period. Because such a large proportion of return comes from dividends, Utilities have achieved their returns with considerably lower volatility and beta. The DJ Utilities Index has a beta of only 0.5 to the Nasdaq during the 50+ year period, implying its risk-adjusted returns are superior to those of Nasdaq." Max Grinacoff, head of US equity derivatives, UBS "Valuations continue to price in AI-led 'profitability exceptionalism.' The US [equity market] is clearly 'expensive' to bonds unless growth expectations are met." Callie Cox, chief markets strategist, Ritholtz Wealth Management "Right now, investors are giving AI the benefit of the doubt. Tech may be the most globally exposed sector of the S&P 500, yet people are willing to pay above-average multiples for the piece of what's shaping up to be a compelling story for the next decade. "The issue here is that the AI trade works until it doesn't ... We're not in a recession yet, but tariffs and a host of other pressures could cause the job market to buckle. Tech's expectations are exceptionally high, and reality may involve a steep drop in market value. This is why portfolio balance is so important — you're implicitly correcting the big imbalance between stock performances for your own investments." Nicole Inui, head of US and Latin America strategy, HSBC "Market breadth (% of companies outperforming the S&P 500) is getting narrower and hitting low points more often. This pattern of concentrated market performance was also seen in the late nineties and early 2000s. Back then, the S&P 500 tended to correct following points of narrow market breadth over the near term. However, in recent years, the market has rallied even as market breadth narrows, [a] testament to the quality of the large-cap stocks leading the rally." Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist, Charles Schwab "A lot is made of the 'cash on the sidelines' story when observing assets in money market funds; however, as a share of total equity market value, it's significantly more subdued." Sam Ro, editor, TKer "Over 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and 5-year periods, the S&P 500 on average has generated positive returns. But as this data from JPMorgan Asset Management shows, investing specifically at all-time highs has actually generated higher average returns over these time horizons." Another economic turning point Greg Daco, chief economist, EY "We estimate that roughly a quarter of the monthly CPI advance in June can be attributed to a tariff-induced impulse. Prices for household equipment and furnishings, appliances, window and floor coverings, and toys experienced their largest gains since the early 2020s, while prices for computers, audio and video equipment, and apparel posted notable gains. "As of June, the average tariff rate was 15%, yet effective customs duties imply a realized rate closer to 10.1%. Strategies used by companies to avoid passing on cost increases to consumers — inventory front-loading, using bonded warehouses and foreign trade zones, reducing margins — are not eternal. As such, we should expect a muggy inflation summer." David Mericle, chief US economist, Goldman Sachs "We estimate that tariffs have boosted consumer prices by 0.2% cumulatively so far but think that the largest effects are still ahead of us. Tariff effects are likely to push core inflation back above 3% over the next year, despite an underlying trend that we see as steadily moving back to 2%. We expect tariffs to have only a one-time effect on the price level rather than igniting persistent high inflation and consequently expect inflation to resume its decline toward 2% down the road as the tariff effects drop out of the year-over-year calculation." Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Michael Reid, senior US economist, RBC Capital Markets "This chart looks at the relationship between wages and profits and their respective shares of GVA [gross value added] (i.e., the contribution to GDP). This is an important relationship because wages represent the largest share of GVA, which has fallen below 50% for most of the last decade. At the same time, profits' share increased to all-time highs. Our concern is that tariffs will start to add pressure to margins (i.e., corporate profits will be squeezed if businesses absorb some of the tariffs and/or we see demand destruction). The result will likely be cost-cutting in the wages space (i.e., layoffs) to bolster profits." Mark Zandi, chief US economist, Moody's "Labor force growth is slumping. Given the new population controls, measuring labor force growth is tricky, but by my calculation, it's at a standstill. Behind this are the severe restrictions on immigration. This time last year, the foreign-born labor force was growing 5%. It's now declining. The native-born labor force remains moribund. The implications of a flagging labor force are disconcerting. It means serious disruptions to businesses that rely on immigrant labor, ranging from construction and agriculture to hospitality and retailing. It also means higher inflation, just when the higher tariffs are set to push up prices. The economy's real potential GDP growth — that pace of growth consistent with stable inflation — is also lower. It is currently closer to 1% than the 2% we have come to think of as typical. Think of what this means for everything from asset returns to our already dire fiscal outlook." Thomas Ryan, North America economist, Capital Economics "After curbing unauthorised immigration at the Southwest border, the Trump administration is now steadily increasing detentions and deportations. This crackdown is starting to impact labour supply: The foreign-born share of the labour force fell to 19.1% in June, down from a peak of 19.8% in March. That marks a decline of over 1 million people, at least partly due to stepped-up ICE enforcement. A recent large boost to ICE's budget in the One Big Beautiful Act suggests this trend will persist, keeping unemployment low even as job growth slows. That, in turn, supports our expectation that the Fed will hold interest rates steady this year." Nancy Vanden Houten, lead economist, Oxford Economics "Foreign-born workers made a huge contribution to labor force growth as the US emerged from the pandemic, helping to restore balance to the labor market and ease wage and inflation pressures. ... We think the trend will come to an end, however. The foreign-born share of the labor force declined in the second quarter of 2025. The labor force data for foreign-born workers can be noisy, so we shouldn't read too much into one quarter of data. Also, foreign-born workers typically don't enter the labor market immediately upon arriving in the US, so there still may be some growth related to those who arrived over the past few years. But we expect the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policies to result in a much lower pace of immigration over the next few years than we previously anticipated, and before too long, that will translate into slower growth in the foreign-born share of the labor force." Aditya Bhave, head of US economics, BofA Securities "Going forward, we think tighter immigration policy restrictions will reduce the breakeven pace of employment growth to about 70k (from 125k currently) for the next two years as the immigration supply shock plays out. Hence, we expect the [unemployment] rate to rise modestly, reaching 4.4% in 4Q 2025 and peaking at 4.5% in 1Q-3Q 2026 despite payrolls slowing down to 50k in [the second half of 2025] & 70k in 2026. Chair Powell has argued that the Fed's job is to manage aggregate demand in a manner that meets aggregate supply 'where it's at.' So, with the u-rate rising gradually in our forecast and core PCE inflation likely to reach 3% over the summer, we don't think the Fed will be able to cut rates this year." Ryan Detrick, chief market strategist, Carson Group "Household balance sheets are as in as good a shape as ever, with lower liabilities and higher asset values as a percent of disposable income. Two big reasons driving this are rising home prices and surging stock prices over the last 5 years. This likely says households are in very solid shape as we head into [the second half of 2025]." Thomas Simons, chief US economist, Jefferies "The Philly Fed's survey on consumer credit conditions increased from 31.7% in Q4 2019 to almost 36.7% in mid-Q2 2021. Obviously, this is one of the consequences of the COVID stimulus checks and the forbearance on student loans, and it might be easy to dismiss the surge as temporary and insignificant in the long run. However, the share has since come down to about 35.4%, which [is] off the highs but still well above levels that we were used to before the pandemic. The same Philly Fed survey reports that there are 584 million open accounts, so the increase to 35.4% paying their full balance from 31.7% means that households have 21.6 million fewer open accounts accumulating interest charges. This is a key step on the way to being able to save money and accumulate wealth; a much more optimistic story than what we hear most of the time when it comes to consumer credit these days." Wells Fargo Economics team led by Jay Bryson "There's a repeated refrain that tariffs are not having an impact, and that assessment misses the mark. Consumer spending is not as sturdy as it was initially reported in the first quarter. With two months of data on hand for the second quarter, it is becoming increasingly clear that households are reducing their discretionary outlays. In May, real discretionary services spending fell 0.3% year-over-year. While that is a modest contraction, this measure has only declined either during or immediately after recessions over the past 60+ years." Matthew Luzzetti, chief US economist, Deutsche Bank "One big question at the Fed and fiscal nexus has been whether removing Chair Powell would reduce fiscal costs for the Federal government. In a recent note, we used last week's headlines around President Trump being ready to fire Powell as an event study to answer this question. Taking market moves around these news reports (i.e., a significant twist steepening of the curve) at face value, we find that the cost savings from lower front-end yields would be largely offset by higher long-term yields. Specifically, the Treasury would only save $12-15bn through 2027 if the President fired Powell, even if Treasury delayed coupon increases to skew more issuance towards bills." Liz Everett Krisberg, head of Bank of America Institute "There are several signs that rising costs of living are putting financial pressure on some younger consumers. Looking at Bank of America credit card data on households with a revolving balance, Millennials have seen the largest rise in their utilization rate. However, the good news is that their rates appear to have stabilized over the past year and a half." A shifting investing landscape Campbell Harvey, economist, Duke University "Passive investing has overtaken active investing and shows no sign of slowing down. There are risks to passive investing. Passive investing buys based on only one [criterion] — market capitalization. There is no price discovery. Passive investing does not care if the stock is under- or overvalued. Further, because all stocks are bought or purchased at the same time, this increases correlations, thereby reducing diversification benefits and, at the same time, increases systemic risk — in a crisis, all stocks are dumped at the same time." Read more here. Todd Sohn, technical strategist, Strategas "Defensive sectors are disappearing within the S&P 500 as it becomes more dominated by Tech. Heck, Nvidia is almost the size of Healthcare now! So, investors need to think differently about how to defend and diversify a portfolio at this stage, given the overexposure to large-cap Growth. That's still the core and key player in almost any portfolio, but perhaps look outside the equity box for strategies that can be a shock absorber in volatile environments." Daniel Morris, chief market strategist, BNP Paribas Asset Management "Most investors are aware of the dominance of technology shares in the US equity market. This phenomenon began in the 1990s with the arrival of the internet, received a big boost during COVID lockdowns, and has accelerated further with the onset of AI. Tariffs provide another reason for the sector to dominate. While tariffs may not help the sector, they hurt it less than others in the market due to the higher share of services revenue versus goods. "Investors may not be aware, however, of how dominant technology has been in emerging markets. Since 2008, emerging market technology stocks have outperformed the rest of emerging markets by nearly 500%, compared to a 350% outperformance of the Nasdaq 100 index versus the Russell Value. For the rest of developed market equities (primarily Europe and Japan), technology has underperformed. This is not to suggest these indices have not risen, but just that the factors driving the performance are different." Gabriela Santos, chief strategist for the Americas, JPMorgan Asset Management "This chart shows how this year's outperformance of 1,200bps by international stocks may have caught some investors by surprise — but it's a long time coming and just the start. It's a combination of 'push and pull': expensive U.S. valuations pushing investors to diversify and a pull from the rest of the world due to less earnings dispersion. Earnings in the Eurozone, Japan, and pockets of EM have been keeping up with or beating U.S. earnings this cycle, powered by the end of deflation and negative interest rates, a new focus on shareholder returns, and now further turbocharged by fiscal spending. It's not about a global rotation due to the 'end of U.S. exceptionalism' altogether — it's about a 'normalization of U.S. exceptionalism' from near record valuations and weights in portfolios.' Steve Sosnick, chief strategist, Interactive Brokers "While the S&P 500 has put in a nice performance since each of those dates, it has, of course, lagged the tech-heavy Nasdaq. But it has also underperformed other global indices. Among major indices, the DAX and Hang Seng have been the biggest winners, while the FTSE and STOXX 50 have generally kept pace with the SPX. Considering that the dollar has fallen against the Euro and Pound, that improves the relative returns of European markets for US-based investors. While past performance is no guarantee of future results — of course — the recent performance of various non-US markets should remind investors that there are plenty of opportunities outside our borders." Jay Jacobs, head of equity ETFs, BlackRock "Looking at the world through a thematic lens has become a more effective way of trying to digest what's happening and capture return opportunities than looking at it through a traditional sector lens. If you took a very traditional sector-based approach to the world since the beginning of the year, you might see geopolitical fragmentation and some economic uncertainty resulting in a consumer pullback, [so] that you would shift from consumer discretionary into consumer staples. And indeed, ... consumer staples have outperformed consumer discretionary, but it hasn't really fully explained what's going on because one of the challenges is that consumer staples [has] a highly globally integrated supply chain. So if you're concerned about supply chains or tariff risk or other disruptions, consumer staples doesn't offer that much protection." Kathy Jones, chief fixed income strategist, Charles Schwab "This chart shows ten-year Treasury yields and the broad-based Bloomberg Dollar Index. We are watching the divergence in trend between yields and the dollar. Typically, trends in interest rates and the dollar are correlated with high and/or rising yields, leading to dollar strength. However, since April, when the U.S. tariff policy was announced, the dollar has fallen sharply while yields have trended sideways. It suggests that global investors are expressing concerns about U.S. policy by moving out of dollars and/or anticipate policies to weaken the dollar. It could be a structural change that means U.S. yields will remain higher for longer than anticipated, even if the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates this fall. Foreign investors may be more cautious about holding dollar-denominated assets in the current environment. If that continues, it would have a significant impact on the cost of financing the deficit, inflation, and interest rates." Robert Sockin, global economist, Citi "Fiscal performance is challenged in many countries around the world. Countries including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, India, China, and Brazil are expected to run large fiscal deficits even though their debt levels are already high. Italy, Spain, and Canada, meanwhile, are expected to run somewhat more modest deficits, although their debt levels remain elevated. "There is no clearly defined limit for how high debt can go that can be identified in advance. The US and many other indebted countries successfully issue significant quantities of government securities. Still, while markets have shown patience with high levels of indebtedness, we judge that this patience has limits. We saw one example of this in the UK during the fall of 2022 when proposed tax cuts set off a crisis of market confidence. "It strikes us as imprudent to experiment with the limits of market patience, but governments in several major countries nevertheless seem inclined to do exactly that." This project would not be possible without the work of Yahoo Finance Senior Editor Brent Sanchez, who turned Wall Street jargon into a digestible visual presentation of the current market moment. And a special thanks to Yahoo Finance's team of editors who worked on this project, including Myles Udland, David Foster, Nina Moothedath, Adriana Belmonte, Grace O'Donnell, and Brett LoGiurato. Most of all, thank you to all of the experts who contributed their time and thought to this project and helped make this Chartbook such a valuable snapshot in economic time. Josh Schafer is a senior markets reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on X @_joshschafer. Have thoughts on volume five of the Yahoo Finance Chartbook or have a specific question about markets or the economy you'd like to see a Chartbook for? Email him at Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
