Connect with us

Business

December Fed cut: FOMC members in for ‘rare, suspenseful’ meeting

Published

on



If the market doesn’t seem sure whether or not to expect a base interest rate cut next month, it’s not alone—members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) themselves may have little clue which way the vote is going to go.

In the run-up to this week, the mood was one of disappointment that the FOMC wouldn’t deliver a final cut for 2025, an action many analysts had priced in since this summer. A week ago, investors hedged their bets at a 50/50 likelihood of a base rate cut to 3.75 to 4%, from its current position at 4 to 4.25%.

But the tides changed quickly, based on both data and comments from members of the FOMC, and at the time of writing, CME’s FedWatch barometer places an 81% probability of a cut early next month.

A key part of the shift came after comments from the New York Fed’s John Williams, who joined voices like Trump appointee Stephen Miran and Governor Chris Waller in advocating for a cut. This, analysts warned this morning, may need to be taken with a pinch of salt: Members will be asking whether their peers are truly dovish, or are ruffling feathers in order to catch the eye of President Trump and secure a nomination for Fed Chairman next year.

Data isn’t making the path much clearer. The first payroll report after the end of the government shutdown painted a pallid picture of the jobs market. Powell called it a “low hire, low fire” environment. The unemployment rate remained relatively stable at 4.4%, and the jobs market added a relatively small 119,000 roles in September.

Offsetting the tepid employment outlook, which forms one part of the Fed’s mandate, is the inflation question. Members of the FOMC are mindful that inflation remains comfortably ahead of its 2% target, a trend that is likely to come into even greater focus during a period of high consumer spending.

This combination means holiday spending data holds more levity than usual; in fact, it is “crucial,” wrote Professor Jeremy Siegel, Emeritus Professor of finance at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Writing for WisdomTree yesterday, where he is senior economist, Professor Siegel added: “Real-time credit-card reads and retail commentary will reveal far more about underlying consumer momentum than backward-looking payroll reports that remain distorted by the shutdown. Strong spending will tilt the Fed toward a December pause; soft spending makes the December meeting genuinely live.”

As such, “this is the most uncertain FOMC meeting in years because the committee itself doesn’t yet know the answer,” added Professor Siegel, “Powell prefers to signal decisions well in advance, but the data simply is not speaking loudly enough.”

Williams signalling an openness to a cut is “groundwork” from the dovish camp, the professor added, while hawks are insisting the data is not strong enough either way to prompt action: “It sets up a rare, genuinely suspenseful meeting—one where investors should expect volatility around both the statement and the new dot plot.”

A question of motivation

Goldman Sachs’s chief economist Jan Hatzius shares the opinion of President Williams, arguing that the payroll data for September is weak enough to motivate a cut. In a note released Sunday, Hatzius wrote: “His view is likely consistent with that of Chair Powell—who almost certainly wrote down three cuts in the September dot plot—and a majority of the 12 voting FOMC members, though not necessarily a majority of all 19 FOMC participants.

“With the next jobs report now scheduled for December 16 and CPI for December 18, there is little on the calendar to derail a cut on December 10.”

However, with Chair Powell due to step down next year—much to the joy of President Trump, who has repeatedly criticised him for refusing to cut the base rate—it may be hard to separate the through doves from those auditioning for the role.

As UBS chief economist Paul Donovan said this morning: “U.S. Federal Reserve Governor Waller, who President Trump is considering as a candidate for Fed Chair, supported Trump’s calls for more rate cuts yesterday. Waller advocated a December rate cut, which got markets somewhat excited, although Waller justified this with suggestions that the U.S. labor market might perhaps be in trouble.”

Donovan countered that a higher inflation rate is being accommodated by U.S. households saving less, suggesting a level of confidence in the jobs market. “If Waller is right,” Donovan added, “the U.S. economy is at quite significant risk, and this should be a major concern for financial markets.

“If, however, this call is merely a subtly-disguised cry of ‘Pick me! Pick me!’ aimed at Trump, then markets will focus on the benefits of monetary accommodation and not the mooted risks it is purportedly offsetting.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX to offer insider shares at record-setting valuation

Published

on



SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at a valuation higher than OpenAI’s record-setting $500 billion, people familiar with the matter said.

One of the people briefed on the deal said that the share price under discussion is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion, though the details could change. 

The company’s latest tender offer was discussed by its board of directors on Thursday at SpaceX’s Starbase hub in Texas. If confirmed, it would make SpaceX once again the world’s most valuable closely held company, vaulting past the previous record of $500 billion that ChatGPT owner OpenAI set in October. Play Video

Preliminary scenarios included per-share prices that would have pushed SpaceX’s value at roughly $560 billion or higher, the people said. The details of the deal could change before it closes, a third person said. 

A representative for SpaceX didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The latest figure would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion.

The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier reported that a deal would value SpaceX at $800 billion.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, Echostar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that launches satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it is aiming for an initial public offering for the entire company in the second half of next year.

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

U.S. consumers are so strained they put more than $1B on BNPL during Black Friday and Cyber Monday

Published

on



Financially strained and cautious customers leaned heavily on buy now, pay later (BNPL) services over the holiday weekend.

Cyber Monday alone generated $1.03 billion (a 4.2% increase YoY) in online BNPL sales with most transactions happening on mobile devices, per Adobe Analytics. Overall, consumers spent $14.25 billion online on Cyber Monday. To put that into perspective, BNPL made up for more than 7.2% of total online sales on that day.

As for Black Friday, eMarketer reported $747.5 million in online sales using BNPL services with platforms like PayPal finding a 23% uptick in BNPL transactions.

Likewise, digital financial services company Zip reported 1.6 million transactions throughout 280,000 of its locations over the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend. Millennials (51%) accounted for a chunk of the sizable BNPL purchases, followed by Gen Z, Gen X, and baby boomers, per Zip.

The Adobe data showed that people using BNPL were most likely to spend on categories such as electronics, apparel, toys, and furniture, which is consistent with previous years. This trend also tracks with Zip’s findings that shoppers were primarily investing in tech, electronics, and fashion when using its services.

And while some may be surprised that shoppers are taking on more debt via BNPL (in this economy?!), analysts had already projected a strong shopping weekend. A Deloitte survey forecast that consumers would spend about $650 million over the Black Friday–Cyber Monday stretch—a 15% jump from 2023.

“US retailers leaned heavily on discounts this holiday season to drive online demand,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement. “Competitive and persistent deals throughout Cyber Week pushed consumers to shop earlier, creating an environment where Black Friday now challenges the dominance of Cyber Monday.”

This report was originally published by Retail Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.