PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2025

[CHOSEN]

Actuar de forma neocolonial con la Europa invadida no es nuevo.
No es por Trump.
Yo mismo -y no soy el único- explicaba en 2020 cómo los EEUU ya solo pueden competir en pharma y defensa, que de ahí venía la IMPOSICIÓN de adquirir (transferencia de riqueza obtenida vía impuestos) sus productos a los socios europeos. La vacuna rusa obtenida por métodos tradicionales se puso en el mercado 6 meses antes que la farsa anglo, meses durante los cuales supuestamente los europeos estuvieron muriendo a millares.
¿O no?

Pero claro.
Es mucho mejor hacer como que las cosas no pasan.

Lo de rellenar los arsenales -transferencia de fondos- era tan evidente (mercado cautivo) que solo puede "sorprender" a la prensa pagada por USAID y a los del QR. No es secreto que USA exige el 2% de los presupuestos bajo amenaza de activar en el continente su red de islamistas suicidas. ¿Porqué atentan aquí en vez de hacerlo allí, con un fusil de asalto comprado en el supermercado? Que cosa mas extraña.

Trump dejó la 1ª presidencia en medio de una cruenta guerra económica con China.
El despliegue de la red 5G Huawei estaba vetado a todos sus socios europeos.
El covid fue solamente un velo (maestro dixit) que pausó el devenir de la historia, tiempo durante el cual se redoblaron los esfuerzos de EEUU por obtener una posición de ventaja estratégica en su FUTURA guerra contra China, la cual en respuesta retransmitía la construcción de hospitales... solamente para dejarlos vacíos.

Y en España ocupados en FIESTAS CON PUTAS mientras la plebe dejaba de visitar a sus padres.
 

[Derby]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/government-should-not-act-like-a-startup-or-business-by-mariana-mazzucato-and-rainer-kattel-2025-04

Governments Are Not Startups, Mariana Mazzucato and Rainer Kattel

By trying to running the state like a private business, Elon Musk and other anti-government types are creating a mess that someone else will have to clean up. Governments and businesses serve vastly different purposes, answer to different constituencies, and operate on entirely different timelines.

LONDON – Around the world, governments are trying to reinvent themselves in the image of business. Elon Musk’s DOGE crusade in the United States is quite explicit on this point, as is Argentina’s chainsaw-wielding president, Javier Milei. But one also hears similar rhetoric in the United Kingdom, where Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden wants the government to foster a “test-and-learn” culture and move toward performance-based management.

The problem is that governments and businesses serve vastly different purposes. If public policymakers start mimicking business founders, they will undermine their own ability to address complex societal challenges.

For startups, the highest priority is rapid iteration, technology-driven disruption, and financial returns for investors. Their success often hinges on solving a narrowly defined problem with a single product, or within a single organization. Governments, by contrast, must tackle complex, interconnected issues like poverty, public health, and national security. Each challenge calls for collaboration across multiple sectors, and careful long-term planning. The idea of securing short-term gains in any of these areas doesn’t even make sense.

Unlike startups, governments are supposed to uphold legal mandates, ensure the provision of essential services, and enforce equal treatment under the law – more important today than ever. Metrics like market share are irrelevant, because the government has no competitors. Rather than trying to “win,” it should focus on expanding opportunities and promoting the diffusion of best practices. It must be long-term minded, while achieving nimble and flexible structures that can adapt.

Introducing a new digital health app within a weak health-care system may offer incremental improvements, but it will not address underlying systemic issues, like a shortage of medical workers or geographic challenges. Worse, if startup logic is applied to public services, it could lead to piecemeal solutions that exacerbate existing inefficiencies. For example, a city might create an app to report potholes, gaining quick wins in citizen engagement. However, this doesn’t help the city to consider more sustainable transportation systems and lower carbon emissions that impact citizens’ health.

The process by which governments learn to deliver better outcomes is profoundly different from that of a startup. Rather than blindly embracing startup culture, governments should examine past efforts to modernize and reform public services. There are several lessons to be learned.

First, the public sector needs a new foundation in economics. The prevailing model’s emphasis on “efficiency” too often confuses outputs (how many school meals were subsidized?) with outcomes (how nutritious and sustainably or locally sourced were the meals?), and it rests on an overly simplified public-private dichotomy. The result is an overreliance on superficial heuristics like cost-benefit analysis, which does not necessarily measure progress toward desired systemic outcomes.

Governments also need to improve how they account for the long-term value of public investment. For example, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is right to shift the focus from the public sector’s net debt to its net financial liabilities, which better recognizes the return on public investments by including illiquid assets (government loans) and other financial liabilities (monetary gold). But Reeves’ scheme still does not reflect the value of non-financial assets (like government ownership of infrastructure and housing), and its short-term horizon prevents it from creating an incentive structure for longer-term investments.

A second lesson is that diversity is an asset, not an exercise in political correctness. Over the past century, the public sector strived for universality and uniformity: services should be as good and as accessible in small towns as they are in wealthier cities. But how those services are delivered also matters. Creating an adaptive, outcomes-focused public sector requires a more diverse workforce, ongoing training, multiple analytical perspectives, and a portfolio of interventions (since there are no silver bullets).

Third, the public sector needs to strike a balance between its political, policymaking, and implementation capabilities. Governments are more than administrative machines; they require political leadership, a sense of purpose, and the ability to adjust policies. Too often, public-sector reform focuses on technocratic efficiency, while neglecting the need to articulate and execute on a vision that will win public support.

Some municipal leaders have been pioneering new models. Rather than focusing on the politics of grievance, for example, mayors from Barcelona to Bogotá have been elected on platforms of urban transformation. Their success underscores the importance of balancing political vision with feasible implementation.

More broadly, to equip the public sector with the capacity it needs to address contemporary challenges, governments – and what one of us has called “entrepreneurial states” – must cultivate six capabilities that will enable them to learn, adapt, and adjust. The first is strategic awareness: an ability to identify emerging challenges and opportunities proactively. The second is agenda adaptability, so that priorities can be balanced while responding to crises. The third is coalition-building and partnerships, so that the public sector can foster collaboration across sectors and with communities.

The fourth capability is self-transformation: the continual updating of public agencies’ skill sets, organizational structures, and operational models. This presupposes a fifth capability: experimentation and iterative problem-solving in public-service delivery. And, lastly, the public sector needs outcomes-oriented tools and institutions.

Building such capabilities across the public sector requires rethinking public-service training, competency frameworks, and organizational models. Above all, however, it means rethinking how we measure and assess the public sector’s work. That is why we at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) are creating a Public Sector Capabilities Index, to evaluate government capabilities at the city level. Such tools can identify gaps in skills or resources, while linking capability development to better outcomes.

Governments should not be run like startups, because they serve vastly different purposes, answer to different constituencies, and operate on entirely different timelines. Rather than chasing a Silicon Valley mirage, policymakers should focus on building the structures and capabilities that enable governments to be responsive, resilient, and effective. (Alongside our work at the IIPP, others, like Jennifer Pahlka and Andrew Greenway at the Niskanen Center, have offered further visions of what this could look like.)

Reform must be rooted in a deep understanding of public-sector dynamics, rather than in the desire to mimic unicorns chasing the next big disruption – too little too late. And yes, we are learning in real time that disruption alone is a recipe for disaster.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/0a3e8e7f-0298-4a2c-a6d5-327c83bc8f60

US dollar’s haven status under threat, fund managers warn

Erratic policymaking and rising trade barriers are jeopardising confidence in the currency



For decades, the relative stability of the US economy has allowed the dollar to function as the world’s reserve currency © AP

The US dollar’s status as a haven for global capital could come under threat from erratic policymaking and rising trade barriers, fund managers have warned.

On Friday the currency fell to a three-year low against the euro, extending a slide that started last week after President Donald Trump announced steep “reciprocal” tariffs on US trading partners.

The moves triggered alarm among investors, who warned of a “tectonic shift” for the global economy if the dollar could no longer be relied upon to provide a refuge during periods of market volatility.

“There is [now] a very good case for the end of American dollar exceptionalism,” said Bob Michele, chief investment officer of JPMorgan Asset Management, with $3.6tn under management.

For decades, the relative stability of the US economy has allowed the dollar to function as the world’s reserve currency — held by central banks around the globe.

That has permitted the US to borrow at low cost and finance “twin deficits” in the country’s current account and its government budget. 

But a simultaneous sell-off in equities, bonds and the dollar in recent days, prompted by the president’s aggressive trade agenda, point to a loss of faith in US assets among international investors, money managers said.

“Trump’s chaotic tariff policy undermines the United States’ position as a safe haven,” said Bert Flossbach, the co-founder and chief investment officer of Flossbach von Storch, Germany’s largest independent asset manager.

“There is certainly a possibility that increased policy uncertainty in the US could lead to shifts in the dollar’s use in the global economy,” said Brad Setser, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Edward Fishman, author of Chokepoints, a book on US economic warfare, said that in addition to Trump’s tariffs, the president’s threats to the rule of law and the Fed’s independence may also be damaging the dollar’s allure.

He predicted that over time this could result in a shift to a “multi-polar” system in which currencies, including the euro, play a larger role.

The dollar slump is particularly unusual because global financial stress typically strengthens the currency, as investors rush to dollar-denominated assets such US Treasury bonds that are perceived to be havens.



Economists also said that the currency of any country that imposed import duties was expected to strengthen.

Mike Riddell, fixed income portfolio manager at Fidelity International, said the recent sharp move higher in longer-dated government bond yields, coupled with a weaker US dollar, looks like “good old capital flight”.

However, economic advisers to the US president have in the past emphasised the costs that have come with a strong dollar.

Stephen Miran, chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued before the president’s inauguration that the dollar’s status as a world reserve currency had artificially inflated the exchange rate, undermining the global competitiveness of US manufacturing.

Economists have disputed Miran’s argument and raised concerns that his reasoning could lead the Trump administration to take further steps to depress the value of the dollar.

Michael Krautzberger, global CIO of fixed income at Allianz Global Investors, said: “The more the conflict escalates, people think, what could be the next steps?”

[asustadísimos]

LA U. E. NO ES TAN NADA COMO DECÍS LOS PROANGLO VERGONZANTES.—

La UE es una unión perfecta en dos ámbitos:
• aduanero
• monetario

Dos ámbitos, qué curioso, donde se dilucida la continuidad del anglo como imperio depredador, no generador.

Todo análisis que no tenga en cuenta esto te hace perder tu tiempo, un tiempo precioso dada la velocidad de los acontecimientos.

Los Estados miembros de la UE no tienen por sí solos competencia para acordar absolutamente nada con EE. UU., China, Rusia, &c. en las materias:
• aduanera
• monetaria

El Sr. Sánchez, de ronda asiática, no va al cien por cien en calidad en presidente del Gobierno español, sino como mandatario cualificadísimo de la UE; cualificadísimo porque es el rojo que sale cuando la derecha política dominante en la UE (Lagarde, De Guindos, Von der Leyen, Dombrovskis, Kaja Kallas y las 3 M, Merz, Macron y Meloni) dice: «a ver, que salga el rojo»; y porque, encima, es el presidente de la Internacional Socialista, se lleva divinamente con Frank-Walter Steinmeier (jefe del Estado alemán) y habla el inglés más que suficiente (cada día más) que hace falta para todos estos menesteres; para más inri, el actual presidente del Gobierno de RU, recadero de los EE. UU. ante la UE, también es rojo.

El Sr. Sánchez no está donde está por casualidad. El Sr. Sánchez tiene toda la pinta de acabar de presidente de la Comisión Europea, cuando el Partido Popular Europeo pierda el favor de la mayoría natural electoral europea, lo que ha empezado a suceder en este histórico 2025. Las pensiones van a ganar la guerra que le plantea el desprestigiado rentismo inmobiliario.

EE. UU. está haciendo lo único que puede razonablemente hacer para estirar la hegemonía del dólar después de las palizas recibidas en los últimos tiempos —la última, DeepSeek—: recogerse en sus cuarteles de invierno para recuperar fuerzas alejándose de los vicios (las 4 sobrevaloraciones: inmuebles, Bolsa, Deuda y dólar) y ponerse a dieta de caldito de ave (repatriación activa y pasiva) y pescadilla hervida (aranceles y reconciliación con el dinero). Y para esto no vale la derecha, menos aún unos derechistas heterodoxos adictos a los pelotazos usurarios con criptos o derivados —ya no se puede ni con Bolsa ni con inmuebles—.

Para las estabilizaciones, el Capital paga a las izquierdas, que son las que tienen caudal político-social para negociar derechos adquiridos —no para mezquinamente ganar 'deals'—. Houston, tenemos un problema.

[asustadísimos]

BIEN PUDIÉRAMOS ESTAR ANTE UNA GUERRA CIVIL ESTADOUNIDENSE ENTRE 'YONQUIS' NECESITADOS DE TIPOS DE INTERÉS BAJOS Y PERSONAS RECTAS CON EL DINERO.—

Mal rollo para todo dólar el Día de la Liberación, liberación, ja, ja ja.

A partir del ridículamente histórico día 02/04/2025, la 'rentabilidad', entre comillas, del dólar (el índice de su valor) y la rentabilidad del T-Note tienen dinámicas radicalmente contrapuestas.

Pro memoria: El índice del dólar se elabora indexando la serie del tipo de cambio promedio del USD frente a seis divisas.

No se están deshaciendo posiciones en el activo financiero público estadounidense a largo plazo para tomarlas en otro, el propio dólar, también estadounidense, pero sin vencimiento. En ese caso, las dos curvas del gráfico subirían.

Por otra parte, cae la Bolsa estadounidense, pero no con gran volumen de transacción —por ahora—, por lo que no se necesitan muchos dólares al contado.

Porque cae la cotización del activo financiero público a 10 años, se le exige más rentabilidad en las nuevas emisiones. Presión al alza de los tipos de interés, pues. Pero la recesión-en-sentido-amplio indica que hay que bajarlos. Y es lo que quieren los superendeudados que ocupan la autoridad fiscal. Mal asunto.

¿Pero por qué cae tanto el dólar? ¡Esa es la noticia! El proceso cuantitativo de pérdida de confianza en el dólar se ha tornado cualitativo. El mundo ha roto a no querer dólares.

El gráfico muestra la dinámica radicalmente contrapuesta de dos cosas que debieran marchar de la mano. Pero no es así, Y no lo es por culpa del bono, sino por la del dólar. El gráfico es tan expresivo que se convierte en una una señal de alarma.

Ustedes ya saben lo que nosotros pensamos: el equilibrio eraceroísta del EUR/USD es 1.6000.

La debilidad dólar recién evidenciada realimentará a la baja la cotización de los bonos. Y esta, de nuevo la del dólar, aunque el proceso irá amortiguándose. La cuestión es que parará con el dólar mucho más abajo de lo que desearían la autoridad fiscal de EE. UU., por una razón sencillísima: no hay munición de tipos de interés para sostener los activos financieros públicos estadounidenses —el nivel de tipos de interés no tiene margen para subir—.

Además, la 'yihad' arancelaria dirigida contra el mundo determina un escenario general de menor nivel de tipos de interés que el actual.

¡Qué contradicciones más inmensas!

Qué delicia, ¡mmm!

El día 28/02/2025 será recordado como el Día del Desamparo del Despacho Oval.

Pero el día 02/04/2025 no será recordado como 'The Liberation Day' sino como el Día-de-mierda del listo del Ladrillo, las cripto y los derivados financieros, el día de:
— la Declaración de Guerra Santa Arancelaria
— el Proteccionismo Imperial
— la Inflación Rerrara
— el 'USEXIT' o Aislamiento de EE. UU.
— el Caos en Wall Street
— la Recesión Global
— #TrumpTariffMadness
— #TradeWarFail
— la 'Liverasióóón'

Libertad y liberación son palabras rojas de las que gusta apropiarse la derecha política para legitimar sus tejemanejes individualistas y estafas con activos ficticios o facturas falsas.

¿Osará la Fed, en la reunión del Fomc el próximo 6-7 de mayo, bajar los tipos de interés, para regocijo de los superendeudados residentes?

A nosotros nos da igual lo que decida el Fomc. Solo nos importa lo que se diga. Y eso se sabrá, primero, porque sus miembros lo dejarán caer en las ruedas de prensa. Pero se sabrá con pelos y señales el día día de la publicación de las actas, aproximadamente, el 20/05/2025.

El 20/05/2025 será recordado como Día de la Suelta. Quedará oficializada la recesión-en-sentido-amplio estadounidense y debiera aparecer en escena la planificación. Hasta ahora todo ha sido deslavazado, en su doble sentido, insustancial y desordenado. 

Si el dólar baja con el bluf arancelario-libertario, excusamos decir lo que bajará cuando se oficialice que, en efecto, esto era un farol.

Pro memoria: Según el DRAE, bluf significa tres cosas:
• Montaje propagandístico destinado a crear un prestigio que posteriormente se revela falso.
• Persona o cosa revestida de un prestigio falto de fundamento.
• Fanfarronada, acción intimidatoria hecha por quien no cuenta con los medios para cumplir su amenaza.
Las tres cosas encajan como un guante con lo que ha pasado esta semana.

Esto está yendo deprisísima.

[tomasjos]

Los pobres españoles no podían invertir en otra cosa que en el inmobiliario, según Cinco Días - que por otro lado dice cosas que decimos aquí y ve venir la tormenta, eso sí, controlada en lo que al sistema financiero al sol respecta -

https://cincodias.elpais.com/opinion/2025-04-12/detras-de-la-crisis-de-la-vivienda-invertir-en-ladrillo-o-cuando-no-hay-alternativa.html

[CHOSEN]

Pudiera ser que en EEUU la situación social se agravase por ausencia de alguna de las izquierdas y sus formas.
¿Cómo amortiguar si no hay mecanismos para ello?

https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2578.msg205423#msg205423

[Benzino Napaloni]

Los pobres españoles no podían invertir en otra cosa que en el inmobiliario, según Cinco Días - que por otro lado dice cosas que decimos aquí y ve venir la tormenta, eso sí, controles en lo que al sistema financiero al sol respecta -

https://cincodias.elpais.com/opinion/2025-04-12/detras-de-la-crisis-de-la-vivienda-invertir-en-ladrillo-o-cuando-no-hay-alternativa.html

Hace poco en Menéame he tenido una "discusión" con un señor que decía que los malvados comunistas no eran quiénes para decidir cuántos bares se pueden abrir en una misma calle. De poco sirvió argumentarle que aunque las administraciones públicas no tienen esa potestad, al menos en España, si abres un bar en una zona saturada de hostelería lo más probable es que tengas que competir por una clientela escasa, y que los márgenes no te van a llegar, con lo que si no quieres cerrar no te quedará otra que las ilegalidades de jornadas superiores a lo declarado, horas extras impagadas, y demás.

Esto al hilo de lo que dice Cinco Días. Si nos empeñamos en los negocietes fáciles y repetidos, el argumento preferido para mantener el tinglado es que "si cae caemos todos y se va todo a la mierda". ¿Y qué ocurre cuando ni ese secuestro es suficiente y viene una realidad dura? Véase pandemia de Covid, véase la crisis financiera de 2008... Pues que efectivamente se va todo a la mierda.

Mientras EEUU apuesta por "uno colorado antes que ciento amarillo", ya veremos con qué plan y qué detalles, aquí somos de "mantenella y no enmendalla". Cinco Días lo sabe perfectamente, y ya está en la fase de "aquí no se toca nada" mientras de puertas para adentro hay sudor frío y "virgencita virgencita".

[asustadísimos]

[Aviso de reedición del comentario anterior...
https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2625.msg241334#msg241334
... para que se entienda bien qué quiero decir, aunque necesito ayuda y las fechas no acompañan (vacaciones de Semana Santa).]

[Derby]

El ladrillo siempre es valor-refugio 

https://www.ft.com/content/142c605d-424b-4ef2-ab5d-1b7e150bbe40

Banks and UK property learn to cautiously cohabit

Surge in lending is likely to be more beneficial for the borrowers than their lenders


Outstanding loans from UK banks and financial institutions to real estate businesses grew almost 10% in the 12 months to February, to £177bn, data shows © Getty Images

British banks do not like talking about commercial property. Offices, retail and industrial buildings left them with big losses during the financial crisis. Actions speak louder than words, however, and lenders have been quietly flocking to the sector in recent months. That should be good news for investors in property companies, and executives who have been protesting that things are not as bad as they are painted.

Outstanding loans from UK banks and financial institutions to real estate businesses grew almost 10 per cent in the 12 months to February, to £177bn, according to Bank of England data. That was the fastest year-on-year growth rate in at least a decade, and far outstripped the lending growth in any other sector of the economy. Data from the largest banks, collected by UK Finance, has similarly shown a sharp increase in lending.



After a downturn that has lasted for years, this is doubly encouraging for property companies. An uptick in borrowing highlights a growing appetite for deals and investment. Equally importantly, the ample supply of credit is a reassuring sign that providers of capital finally believe property groups’ claims that the industry has turned a corner.

That has been a slog. Even though fears of workforces being forever remote have eased, interest rates have begun to fall and property values have hit a floor. If banks — especially high-street giants such as NatWest and Lloyds that were burned by bad loans in 2008 — are becoming more enthusiastic, it suggests they are no longer quite so worried about falling property prices. It will take more than that to close the gap between asset valuations and market capitalisations for listed groups such as Great Portland Estates and British Land, but the vote of confidence can only help.

That said, it is not clear how far this burst of lending reflects real excitement on the part of lenders, or if property is just the best of a bad bunch. After all, the surge in real estate loans has coincided with tepid demand elsewhere. Overall lending to non-financial businesses rose less than 3 per cent in the year to February, with declines in several sectors including retail, construction and accommodation and food service.

Most big British banks would like to be in expansion mode right now, but that is hard to do when many potential borrowers are too nervous to take risks. Rising demand for real estate loans is better than nothing — returns are decent, but high capital requirements and intense competition put a cap on how big a boost it can provide.

For the property companies, it must be nice to feel wanted. But given their respective starting points — most banks’ valuations, as a multiple of their net assets, are higher than those of property businesses — the surge in lending is likely to be more beneficial for the borrowers than their lenders.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/3eb48a07-7cb0-4a44-9159-eb5b402c2fec

Trump excludes smartphones from reciprocal tariffs

Tech including routers and selected computers get reprieve after a week of turbulence in US markets


iPhones on display at Apple’s Fifth Avenue store in New York © Bloomberg

The Trump administration has excluded smartphones from its steep “reciprocal” tariffs as it battles to calm global markets by tempering its approach to the multifront trade war launched by the president. 

According to a notice posted late on Friday night by Customs and Border Patrol, which is responsible for collecting tariffs, smartphones, along with routers and selected computers and laptops, would be exempt from reciprocal tariffs, which include the 125 per cent levies Donald Trump has imposed on Chinese imports.

The reprieve follows a week of intense turbulence in US markets after Trump unleashed a trade war on “liberation day” on April 2, rattling global investors and triggering a stock market rout and sell-off in the $29tn US Treasury market.

The exemption is the first sign of any softening of Trump’s tariffs against China, which he ratcheted up over the course of the last week even as he paused the steepest “reciprocal” tariffs. He retained tariffs of 10 per cent on most trading partners.

The Trump administration had already exempted several sectors from its reciprocal tariffs, including semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, but the president has signalled that he plans to apply tariffs to those sectors.

US Customs and Border Protection referred inquiries about the order to the US International Trade Commission, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear if smartphones imported from China would still be hit by a 20 per cent levy that was not part of the reciprocal tariffs that Trump started unveiling against China on April 2.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

[asustadísimos]

[A los inmobiliarios ahora les tocaría decir que con ellos no va lo que está pasando. Pero nadie se cree nada. El inmobiliario huele a muerto. Estamos cansados de tanta mala hostia.]

[Derby]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/04/11/us-bond-market/

Freak sell-off of ‘safe haven’ US bonds raises fear that confidence in America is fading

This could be bad news for consumers in need of a loan — and for Trump, who had hoped his tariff pause earlier this week would restore confidence in the markets.


The Treasury Department building is seen, March 13, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

By BERNARD CONDON and STAN CHOE, AP Business Writers

NEW YORK (AP) — The upheaval in stocks has been grabbing all the headlines, but there is a bigger problem looming in another corner of the financial markets that rarely gets headlines: Investors are dumping U.S. government bonds.

Normally, investors rush into Treasurys at a whiff of economic chaos but now they are selling them as not even the lure of higher interest payments on the bonds is getting them to buy. The freak development has experts worried that big banks, funds and traders are losing faith in America as a stable, predictable, good place to store their money.

“The fear is the U.S. is losing its standing as the safe haven,” said George Cipolloni, a fund manager at Penn Mutual Asset Management. “Our bond market is the biggest and most stable in the world, but when you add instability, bad things can happen.”

That could be bad news for taxpayers paying interest on the ballooning U.S. debt, consumers taking out mortgages or car loans — and for President Donald Trump, who had hoped his tariff pause earlier this week would restore confidence in the markets.

What’s happening?

A week ago, the yield on the 10-year Treasury was 4.01%. On Friday, the yield shot as high as 4.58% before sliding back to around 4.50%. That’s a major swing for the bond market, which measures moves by the hundredths of a percentage point.

Among the possible knock-on effects is a big hit to ordinary Americans in the form of higher interest rates on mortgages and car financing and other loans.

“As yields move higher, you’ll see your borrowing rates move higher, too,” said Brian Rehling, head of fixed income strategy at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. “And every corporation uses these funding markets. If they get more expensive, they’re going to have to pass along those costs customers or cut costs by cutting jobs.”

Treasury bonds are essentially IOUs from the U.S. government, and they’re how Washington pays its bills despite collecting less in revenue than it spends.

To be sure, no one can say exactly what mix of factors is behind the developing bond bust or how long it will last, but it’s rattling Wall Street nonetheless.

Bonds are supposed to move in the opposite direction as stocks, rising when stocks are falling. In this way, they act like shock absorbers to 401(k)s and other portfolios in stock market meltdowns, compensating somewhat for the losses.

“This is Econ 101,” said Jack McIntyre, portfolio manager for Brandywine Global, adding about the bond sell-off now, “It’s left people scratching their heads.”

The latest trigger for bond yields to go up was Friday’s worse-than-expected reading on sentiment among U.S. consumers, including expectations for much higher inflation ahead. But the unusual bond yield spike this week also reflects deeper worries as Trump’s tariffs threats and erratic policy moves have made America seem hostile and unstable — fears that are not likely to go away even after the tariff turmoil ends.

“When the issue is a broader loss of confidence in the United States, even a much fuller retreat on trade might not work” to bring yields down, wrote Sarah Bianchi and other analysts at investment bank Evercore ISI. “We’re not sure any of the tools remaining in Trump’s toolkit will be sufficient to fully staunch the bleeding.”

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment, but U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the yield spike is not unusual or worrisome, pinning the blame on professional investors who had borrowed too much and needed to sell.

“I think that it is an uncomfortable but normal deleveraging that’s going on,” he told Fox News Thursday, adding that it “happens every couple of years.”

The influence of the bond market

Trump acknowledged that the bond market played a role in his decision Wednesday to put a 90-day pause on many tariffs, saying investors “were getting a little queasy.”

If indeed it was the bond market, and not stocks, that made him change course, it wouldn’t come as a surprise.

The bond market’s reaction to her tax and budget policy was behind the ouster of United Kingdom’s Liz Truss in 2022, whose 49 days made her Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister. James Carville, adviser to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, also famously said he’d like to be reincarnated as the bond market because of how much power it wields.

The instinctual rush into U.S. debt is so ingrained in investors it even happens when you’d least expect.

People poured money into U.S. Treasury bonds during 2009 Financial Crisis, for instance, even though U.S. was the source of the problem, specifically its housing market.

But to Wall Street pros it made sense: U.S. Treasurys are liquid, stable in price and you can buy and sell them with ease even during a panic, so of course businesses and traders would rush into them to wait out the storm.

Yields on U.S bonds quickly fell during that crisis, which had a benefit beyond cushioning personal financial portfolios. It also lowered borrowing costs, which helped businesses and consumers recover.

This time that natural corrective isn’t kicking in.

What’s causing the sell-off?

Aside from sudden jitters about the U.S., several other things could be triggering the bond sell-off.

Some experts speculate that China, a vast holder of U.S. government bonds, is dumping them in retaliation. But that seems unlikely since that would hurt the country, too. Selling Treasurys, or essentially exchanging U.S. dollars for Chinese yuan, would make China’s currency strengthen and its exports more expensive.

Another explanation is that a favored strategy of some hedge funds involving U.S. debt and lots of borrowing — called the basis trade — is going against them. That means their lenders are asking to get repaid and they need to raise cash.

“They are selling Treasurys and that is pushing up yields — that’s part of it,” said Mike Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. “But the other part is that U.S. has become a less reliable global partner.”

Wells Fargo’s Rehling said he’s worried about a hit to confidence in the U.S., too, but that it’s way too early to be sure and that the sell-off may stop soon, anyway.

“If Treasurys are no longer the place to park your cash, where do you go?,” he said. “Is there another bond out there that is more liquid? I don’t think so.”

[tomasjos]

https://www.ft.com/content/3eb48a07-7cb0-4a44-9159-eb5b402c2fec

Trump excludes smartphones from reciprocal tariffs

Tech including routers and selected computers get reprieve after a week of turbulence in US markets


iPhones on display at Apple’s Fifth Avenue store in New York © Bloomberg

The Trump administration has excluded smartphones from its steep “reciprocal” tariffs as it battles to calm global markets by tempering its approach to the multifront trade war launched by the president.

According to a notice posted late on Friday night by Customs and Border Patrol, which is responsible for collecting tariffs, smartphones, along with routers and selected computers and laptops, would be exempt from reciprocal tariffs, which include the 125 per cent levies Donald Trump has imposed on Chinese imports.

The reprieve follows a week of intense turbulence in US markets after Trump unleashed a trade war on “liberation day” on April 2, rattling global investors and triggering a stock market rout and sell-off in the $29tn US Treasury market.

The exemption is the first sign of any softening of Trump’s tariffs against China, which he ratcheted up over the course of the last week even as he paused the steepest “reciprocal” tariffs. He retained tariffs of 10 per cent on most trading partners.

The Trump administration had already exempted several sectors from its reciprocal tariffs, including semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, but the president has signalled that he plans to apply tariffs to those sectors.

US Customs and Border Protection referred inquiries about the order to the US International Trade Commission, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear if smartphones imported from China would still be hit by a 20 per cent levy that was not part of the reciprocal tariffs that Trump started unveiling against China on April 2.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Estados Unidos vuelve a farolear y se aparta. Estas son las cosas que indican que hay un nuevo hegemon

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-ukraine-hold-tense-talks-mineral-deal-remains-elusive-source-says-2025-04-11/

US, Ukraine hold tense talks as mineral deal remains elusive, source says


Environmental experts of CDM Engineering Ukraine,Yuliia Zazerina and Alina Tatarchuk, test the groundwater level at the Polokhivske lithium deposit that will be developed by Ukrlithium Mining in the Malovyskivsky district of Ukraine’s Kirovograd region, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, February 27, 2025. REUTERS/Thomas Peter/File

WASHINGTON, April 11 (Reuters) - U.S. and Ukrainian officials met on Friday on a U.S. proposal to gain access to Ukraine's mineral wealth, a source with knowledge of the matter said, adding that prospects for a breakthrough were scant given the meeting's "antagonistic" atmosphere.

The strains in the Washington talks stemmed from the Trump administration's latest draft proposal, which is more expansive than the original version, the source said.

"The negotiating environment is very antagonistic," the source said, pointing to the "maximalist" draft submitted by the Trump administration last month.

A Treasury Department spokesperson confirmed the discussions, calling them "technical in nature."

The latest draft would give the U.S. privileged access to Ukraine's mineral deposits and require Kyiv to place in a joint investment fund all income from the exploitation of natural resources by Ukrainian state and private firms.

The proposed deal, however, would not provide U.S. security guarantees to Kyiv - a top priority of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy - for its fight against Russian forces occupying some 20% of its territory.

The source said that one of the "Easter eggs" found in the document was a U.S. demand that the U.S. government's International Development Finance Corporation take control of a natural gas pipeline from Russian energy giant Gazprom across Ukraine to Europe.

The Ukrainian government has hired law firm Hogan Lovells as an outside adviser on the minerals deal, the source said.

Zelenskiy on Wednesday said a minerals deal should be profitable for both countries and could be structured in a way that would help modernize Ukraine.

Top Ukrainian officials including Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko will be in Washington in two weeks for International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, including a Ukraine-focused ministers' meeting on April 25, multiple sources familiar with the plans said.

U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking a deal covering Ukraine's minerals, which include prized rare earths, as part of his effort to end the war and as a way to recover billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance to Kyiv.