logo
The crumbling greenback

The crumbling greenback

Globe and Mail2 days ago
As of mid-2025, the U.S. dollar has dropped over 12% against a basket of currencies that matter (see chart of Dollar Index), More striking, the fallout in 2025 represents the sharpest decline in over 50 years.
Economists have posited several reasons for the dollar's decline. Slowing U.S. growth, stubborn inflation and ever-changing trade policies top the list. And in many ways these factors are interrelated.
President Trump's erratic trade policies that focused on countries where the U.S. had a trade deficit likely caused the initial decline. That is not surprising because the currency market is the first to feel the initial impact of major policy shifts.
In this case, U.S. companies imported excess supply to front-run tariffs, causing the trade deficit to widen, which by extension, increases demand for foreign currencies. Since currency markets are circular in nature and a zero-sum game (what is good for one country is bad for another), increasing demand for foreign currencies reduces demand for the domestic currency, which leads to currency depreciation. That said, this is likely a short-term phenomenon that will stabilize once the markets have clarity on the end game for tariffs.
When we reach the tariff end game, we will have a better understanding about how this policy shift will impact U.S. inflation and growth which will have a more lasting impact on the trajectory of the U.S. dollar.
The inflation/growth components are most worrisome for the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), which is why the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has been reluctant to cut interest rates. If excess tariffs cause inflation to rise (something we have seen in the last two monthly reports from the U.S. Department of Labor) in an environment where growth is slowing, the result is stagflation. That scenario limits any policy moves the Fed has in its playbook. Raising rates to combat inflation will slow economic activity, while lowering rates to stimulate activity will lead to higher prices. A classic catch-22!
U.S. debt mountain
There is also concern about the mountain of U.S. debt. The tax-and-spend bill that was signed into law on July 4 will add between US$3 trillion and US$8 trillion in new debt depending on which side of the political spectrum the numbers are being calculated. That is on top of the current US$31.5 trillion in debt, which eventually – no matter what additional debt numbers you choose to believe – will make interest payments on the debt the largest single expense in the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. debt and deficits summon up Thelma and Louise's exit scene over Dead Horse Point.
Concerns about the U.S. debt level is likely why we have seen a surge in gold prices, strengthening foreign currencies, and increased investment in international equity markets. It also draws into question whether the U.S. dollar will continue to be the world's reserve currency.
Leading this charge are Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRICs), which have been amassing their gold reserves in the hope they can compete with the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. This is a longer-term strategy that will not likely displace the U.S. dollar for at least 10 years. But if the fragmented U.S. trade policy continues to act like a leaf blowing in the wind, it could become a serious threat. Should the U.S. dollar lose its reserve status, it will have major implications for U.S. debt levels.
That was likely why Trump threatened Brazil with the imposition of a 50% tariff. Brazil is a country with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. The unhinged position that the tariff threat was related to the former President Jair Bolsonaro's legal woes is simply a Trump deflection. It also provides Trump with the authority to issue the proclamation by claiming it is in the national interest of the U.S.
Richard Croft is Founder, Chief Investment Officer, and Portfolio Manager of R.N. Croft Financial Group Inc.
Disclaimers
Content © 2025 by R.N. Croft Financial Group Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part by any means without prior written permission is prohibited. Used with permission.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with fund investments. Please read the simplified prospectus before investing. Investment funds are not guaranteed and are not covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other government deposit insurer. There can be no assurances that the fund will be able to maintain its net asset value per security at a constant amount or that the full amount of your investment in the fund will be returned to you. Fund values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. The foregoing is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of the writer. No guarantee of performance is made or implied. This information is not intended to provide specific personalized advice including, without limitation, investment, financial, legal, accounting or tax advice.
R N Croft Financial Group Inc. is a Licensed Discretionary Portfolio Management and Investment Fund Management company serving investors and investment professionals across Canada since 1993.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case

Globe and Mail

time23 minutes ago

  • Globe and Mail

Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case

MIAMI (AP) — A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $200 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cell phone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million in compensatory damages, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shockwaves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cell phone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cell phone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.

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