Writing about the Jeffrey Epstein saga has the feeling of using an air horn. It calls a great deal of attention to oneself, produces unpredictable and intense results in its audience and really should be saved for moments when it’s absolutely necessary — scaring off a charging bear, preventing a maritime disaster, being Pitbull, etc.
Then you read something like this: “[Speaker Mike Johnson] went on to say, ‘[President Trump] was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.’” And you find yourself pulling open the junk drawer in the kitchen and rummaging for that air horn you bought as a stocking stuffer last Christmas.
When the Speaker then clarified that he was only “reiterating what the victims’ attorney said” — the part about how Trump had cooperated with investigators during the first Epstein prosecution but not the part about how the president had done an “about-face” — then you’ve got to push that little red button.
It would be one thing if the Speaker had a reputation as a liar, but even his fiercest enemies would have to acknowledge that Johnson is known to be a very honest man. Or if Johnson were stupid, it might be reasonable to think that he didn’t know how police informants work. But Johnson, a lawyer and law professor, has proven to be a lot smarter than most in Washington. He keeps passing bill after bill despite having a majority thinner than the ones that ate his three immediate Republican predecessors alive.
The most obvious and unpleasant explanation for why Johnson would say that Donald Trump was undercover for the FBI trying to bring down an international ring of pedophiles is that somebody told him it was true. The list of people who might tell Johnson something like that and whom Johnson would believe well enough to repeat the claim is very, very short. Maybe even just one name long, signed with a flourish…
The obvious part of why it’s not pleasant to write (or read) about the Epstein case is the luridness of all of it. That, of course, is also the largest part of why this story, more than any of the other similarly ripe scandals of the second Trump term, has persisted. The wild buckraking that the president and his family are doing is no less active or ethically profane than it was when the Qataris gave him a jumbo jet and his family was holding soirees for foreign crypto patrons this spring. But sex sells, and the more taboo and shameful the better.
Gen Xers will nod and think of l’affaire du Lewinsky, but even a whiff of sex scandal can turn a boring old corruption story into a scandal with legs. Teapot Dome 100 years ago wouldn’t have wrecked the Harding administration the way it did if it had just been about oil leases. The tawdry behavior of Harding’s Ohio Gang in Washington and the poorly kept secret of the president’s many infidelities let every story about bribes and kickbacks be suffused with a prurience that could really sell newspapers.
Aside from not wanting to to be selling sex, the other reason that Epstein coverage feels distasteful is the degree to which Democrats have glommed on to the story. As Mark Leibovich argued in a recent piece: “The distraction drumbeat not only dilutes the seriousness of Trump’s actions; it also exemplifies the Democrats’ own lame efforts to communicate a potent opposition message.”
Yup.
I’m all for partisans trying to score points and win elections. It’s their job, after all. But I don’t like adding my air horn to either side’s klaxons. And yet, this, like most durable scandals, seems to be more about how it divides the party in power than how it energizes the opposition. Just making a president a lame duck, a scandal isn’t something that the other side does to you. It has to be about how it exercises the home team.
If the Obama administration had run an undercover operation that put illegal abortion pills into Mexico, it would have infuriated Republicans but drawn shrugs from Democrats. But because it was illegal guns that found their way south of the border, enough Democrats joined the opposition to make the administration take notice.
There are a number of reasons why the Epstein story gets so far into the brains of Republicans and why, unlike all of the rest of the scandals with which Democrats and the press have tried to nuke Trump, so many in the GOP are sticking with the story despite the many incentives to put it in the memory hole.
One is that other Republicans have skin in the game here. This is the first of the Trump scandals since the Jan. 6, 2021, sacking of the Capitol that contemplates a post-Trump political world. There’s no more elections for Trump to win, and how his fellow Republicans conduct themselves around this issue will matter not just for the coming midterm elections but in the 2028 primaries.
Not unlike Hillary Clinton during the whole Benghazi debacle, the interests of the current administration are in tension with the folks hoping to be the next ones at bat. And that tension in the Epstein case is understandable because of the centrality of the issues of sex trafficking and pedophilia to the current Republican Party.
In the same way that the Iran-Contra scandal undercut a core strength of the Reagan administration — the release of the American hostages held in Tehran and a we-don’t-negotiate-with-terrorists attitude — Trump’s very shady behavior around the Epstein case hits hard for a movement that celebrated “Sound of Freedom” and frequently labels political enemies as “groomers.”
I will still be sparing in the use of the Epstein air horn, but one gets the feeling that it’s going to have to stay out on the counter for a good while longer.
We’re heading toward the final weeks of 3Q25, and while some investors have been cautious, the backdrop is far from bleak. Despite softer jobs data and September’s reputation as a difficult month for stocks, the major indexes remain near record highs. The S&P 500 has climbed 10% year-to-date, while the NASDAQ is up 12.5%.
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
What’s fueling much of this resilience is growing confidence that the Federal Reserve will pivot back to rate cuts this month. That potential shift in policy is being seen as a major tailwind, offering markets a solid catalyst and reinforcing optimism that easier monetary conditions could keep the rally alive.
Mike Wilson, chief US equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, sums up the situation: “At Jackson Hole, Chair Powell appeared to confirm what the bond market was pricing – a September start to Fed rate cuts… While the bond market is already pricing ~5 cuts by year-end 2026, our work shows that equities typically deliver strong performance during Fed cutting environments. Further, valuation tends to remain supported when the policy rate is being reduced and earnings growth is above the long-term median. This is our expectation for stocks over the next 12 months.”
This overall upbeat market outlook has the Morgan Stanley stock analysts scanning the markets for their top picks to round out 2025. Using the TipRanks platform, we took a closer look at three of those picks and found that the trio enjoys strong support from the rest of the Street. Let’s dive in.
Chewy(CHWY)
The first Morgan Stanley pick we’ll look at is Chewy, an online retailer founded in 2011 and working in the pet supply business. The company went public in 2019, and today has a market cap of ~$17.6 billion.
The pet supply market is a niche business, but a substantial one, encompassing everything from food and toys to veterinary medicine and services to boarding and training, and pet owners are seeking these goods and services for every critter imaginable: cats and dogs, birds and guinea pigs, assorted rodents, exotic fish, lizards, and turtles. Chewy has organized its online retail site to make these products easy to find, no matter what animal a pet owner has. The company even offers goods and services for livestock such as horses and chickens.
In recent years, Chewy expanded from basic pet supply goods – think food, bedding, cat litter, and the like – to add veterinary and pet pharmaceutical care to its service lineup. Chewy’s veterinary network features clinics in South Florida, Atlanta, Denver, and the Austin, Dallas, and Houston areas in Texas. Vet services frequently lead to prescriptions, and pharmacy services are available for a wide range of creatures, from the most common dogs and cats to horses and exotic pets.
Altogether, Chewy offers more than 130,000 products and services through its website and network, backed up by conventional 1-2 day delivery. The company has proven to be popular with consumers, and at the end of fiscal 2024 it boasted approximately 20.5 million active customers.
In its last quarterly report, covering fiscal 1Q25 – the quarter ending this past May 4 – Chewy continued to show strong revenue gains. The top line of $3.12 billion was up 8.3% year-over-year and beat the forecast by over $40 million; at the bottom line, the non-GAAP EPS of 35 cents was up 4 cents from the prior year and came in a penny better than expected. The company will release its fiscal Q2 results on September 10.
Morgan Stanley’s Nathan Feather sees a clear path for Chewy to continue making gains, and writes of the stock: “We see a high likelihood of a FY25 revenue guidance increase as the implied 2H decel doesn’t appear to be supported by intraquarter trends. In addition, the pet macro is showing early signs of life with improving web traffic, search interest, and shelter data; if pet household formation or pricing picks up in 2H25, a return to 10%+ revenue growth appears on the table. There is heavier debate on the potential for a FY25 EBITDA guidance raise; we believe it is more likely than not given historical conservatism and the misunderstood magnitude of one-off SG&A costs in 1Q set to roll off through the year.”
“Taken together,” the analyst summed up, “we are tactically positive into the print. CHWY remains our Top Pick with improving share gains, a compelling margin inflection, and emerging clinic bull case.”
Feather puts an Overweight (i.e., Buy) rating on Chewy’s stock, and his $50 price target points toward a one-year upside of 18%. (To watch Feather’s track record, click here)
Overall, CHWY shares have a Strong Buy consensus rating, based on 22 recent analyst reviews that include 17 Buys and 5 Holds. The stock is priced at $42.33 and the $47.68 average price target implies an upside potential of 13% in the year ahead. (See CHWY stock forecast)
EQT Corporation (EQT)
Next up is a leader in the US hydrocarbon energy sector, EQT. This company traces its roots to 1888, and is one of the largest natural gas producers in the gas-rich basins of the Appalachian region. EQT has extensive land holdings in three states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia – and taps into the resources of the vast Marcellus Shale.
The company’s largest holdings, totaling over 100,000 net acres, are in Pennsylvania, where it has an extensive presence in the southwest corner of the state and smaller holdings in the north-central area. In West Virginia, EQT holds 600,000 net acres, mainly in areas abutting the neighboring corner of Pennsylvania. And finally, in Ohio, the company is developing the Utica Shale in Belmont County, and holds 150,000 net acres across the Ohio River from the West Virginia holding. EQT makes extensive use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques to maximize the efficiency of its wells and to tap resources located as much as 6,000 feet below the surface.
In addition to its natural gas production activities, EQT also has extensive assets and operations in the midstream sector. This is a vital element of the natural gas industry, making up the infrastructure that transports gas from the wellheads and stores it for later use and export. EQT’s midstream assets include gathering, storage, and pipeline infrastructure across the Appalachians.
EQT generated high operating revenues in its last reported quarter, 2Q25, of $2.56 billion. This figure was up an impressive 167% year-over-year, reflecting both strong sales and strong pricing. EQT’s non-GAAP EPS, at 45 cents, marked a decided turnaround from the 8-cent-per-share loss reported in 2Q24. The current figure beat the forecast by 5 cents per share. The company’s free cash flow in the second quarter of this year came to $240 million, compared to a $171 million loss one year earlier.
This large-scale energy player – EQT has a market cap value of $32 billion – is covered by 5-star analyst Devin McDermott. In his note for Morgan Stanley, McDermott points out EQT’s ability to expand production and generate cash.
“We expect shares to continue to re-rate as management executes on further deleveraging, delivery of ‘upside’ synergies (which are advancing ahead of plan), and strategic growth (including execution on recently announced midstream & power opportunities). We believe EQT’s leading cost structure ($2.00 breakeven, falling to $1.80-$1.90 over time) and vertical integration are key differentiators vs. peers, supporting resilience in downcycles and outsized FCF generation during high price periods. These characteristics underpin an attractive risk-reward to play tightening and more volatile gas markets over the coming years… [We] reiterate EQT as our Top Pick within US E&P,” McDermott noted.
These comments support the analyst’s Overweight (i.e., Buy) rating, while his $69 price target suggests an upside of 34% in the next 12 months. (To watch McDermott’s track record, click here)
The 19 recent analyst reviews here include 13 Buys and 6 Holds, for a Moderate Buy consensus rating. EQT shares are priced at $51.60 with an average target price of $63.89 to indicate a 24% one-year upside potential. (See EQT stock forecast)
Nu Holdings(NU)
Last up is Nu Holdings, a fintech that operates in the Brazilian banking sector. The company’s customer face is Nubank, a São Paulo-based online bank that offers customers in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia a wide range of financial services, including digital bank accounts, access to personal loans, credit cards, and even cashback rewards. In addition, the bank’s customers can make use of a crypto investment platform that can support as many as 20 crypto coins.
Those are valuable services, made more so by the convenience of digital access, and in the 12 years since its founding, Nubank has leveraged that convenience to attract more than 122 million customers. The company’s presence is especially strong in Brazil, where some 60% of adults are Nubank customers, and where the company steered over 20 million Brazilians to their first credit card – in just five years.
All of this makes Nubank one of the world’s largest online banking platforms. This success is reflected in the company’s recent share gains – the stock has outperformed this year and gained 42% year-to-date – and in its market cap of $71 billion. More importantly, the company’s success can be seen in its last set of quarterly results, for 2Q25.
In that quarter, Nu Holdings showed a quarterly top line of $3.67 billion – a company record – and reported that its net income, at $637 million, had grown by a factor of three over the past two years. The company’s customer base expanded by 4.1 million in the quarter, for a 17% year-over-year gain.
This relatively new online bank has caught the attention of Morgan Stanley analyst Jorge Kuri, who notes Nubank’s successes: its high-end tech, its fast-growing customer base, and its attractive services and pricing, to support his upbeat outlook.
“We believe Nubank is uniquely positioned to build one of the largest and most valuable banking franchises in Latin America, supported by world-class technology, exceptional customer satisfaction, market-leading pricing, and strong unit economics. We think the market continues to significantly underestimate Nubank’s ability to scale profitably – especially through deeper cross-sell in Brazil. Our granular, bottom-up model – built by product and by country using detailed unit economics and TAM assumptions – suggests Nubank could reach a US$100 billion valuation by 2026… Nubank is our Latam financials Top Pick,” Kuri stated.
Based on this stance, Kuri gives NU shares an Overweight (i.e., Buy) rating, with an $18 price target that implies a potential one-year gain of 22%. (To watch Kuri’s track record, click here)
The Street is similarly bullish here. This stock’s 14 recent analyst reviews split 11 to 3 in favor of Buy over Hold, for a Strong Buy consensus rating. The average price target, at $17.24, and current trading price, at $14.74, together suggest a 17% upside for the year ahead. (See NU stock forecast)
To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.
Spurs lost 22 of their 38 league matches last season, accumulating only 38 points as they finished 17th – their worst finish in the Premier League.
They conceded 65 goals, with only Wolves and the relegated trio of Leicester, Ipswich and Southampton shipping more.
But Postecoglou led the club to a first major trophy in 17 years with a 1-0 win over Manchester United in the Europa League final.
The victory secured Champions League football, but it was not enough to keep Postecoglou in a job and he was sacked by the club 16 days later.
Spurs, who appointed Thomas Frank as his successor, said Postecoglou would be remembered for delivering “one of the club’s greatest moments” in becoming only the third manager to win them a European trophy.
Tottenham finished fifth in his first season in charge before he kept his promise to provide silverware in his second year.
Postecoglou was initially praised for the attacking style he implemented, but he was forced to defend himself from criticism for sticking to his principles and had to contend with a catalogue of injuries to key players.
A dozen Senate Democrats on Tuesday laid out the key principles they hope to see in a bill regulating the cryptocurrency market.
The framework, put forward by Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and other crypto-friendly Democrats, offers up their view on the central issues underpinning market structure legislation.
“The framework is a substantive road map to guide what we hope will be robust and fruitful bipartisan negotiations and ultimately, a bipartisan product,” they said in a statement. “Achieving a strong, bipartisan outcome will require time and cannot be rushed. We look forward to working on this with our Republican colleagues.”
Senate Republicans released their own discussion draft in July, which they updated last week. However, they have yet to score any Democratic support.
The Democrats’ framework calls for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to have exclusive jurisdiction over non-security crypto markets. It also suggests regulators should issue guidance about how longstanding securities laws apply to digital assets.
This underscores the main motivation for the bill, which aims to provide clarity on when the CFTC oversees crypto markets, versus the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
“[Q]uestions about digital assets’ place in the U.S. regulatory framework have hobbled both innovation and consumer protection,” the senators wrote Tuesday. “New businesses confront uncertainty about where their products fit in our regulatory system, and the growth of digital assets has highlighted gaps in the existing financial rulebook.”
“Meanwhile, investors have been left vulnerable to scams and fraud, with inadequate protections from misconduct,” they continued.
The framework calls for the SEC to integrate digital assets and their platforms into the existing regulatory framework, while creating an “appropriate and effective” oversight regime for decentralized finance protocols and platforms.
The senators would also like to see digital asset platforms registered as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, which would require them to follow certain record-keeping and reporting rules meant to combat money laundering.
While many of these principles aren’t too far off from those put forward by Republicans, several that focus on President Trump’s actions are likely to face pushback.
The Democrats take aim at concerns about Trump and his family’s growing involvement in the crypto industry, seeking to block elected officials and their family members from issuing, endorsing or profiting from digital assets and establish requirements for reporting crypto holdings.
They would also like to see a requirement that “commissioners from both parties sit at the SEC and CFTC to create a quorum for digital asset rulemakings,” pointing to the president’s recent proclivity for firing Democrat officials at independent agencies.
“These agencies also require Democratic voices, as Congress intended: only a bipartisan regulatory process will produce durable, balanced rules that provide long-term stability and legitimacy for digital asset markets,” they said.
The proposal likely tees up negotiations between the crypto-friendly Democrats and Republicans, who will need at least seven of their colleagues across the aisle to join them in supporting a market structure bill.
The broader crypto market legislation appears to have a more complicated path forward than the stablecoin bill that Congress passed in July.
The GENIUS Act, which created a regulatory framework for one type of digital token known as a stablecoin, had Democratic support from the beginning and ultimately passed with 18 Senate Democrats and 102 House Democrats.
The House’s version of the market structure bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, garnered less Democratic support when it cleared the lower chamber in July, although it still received 71 Democratic votes.
Kin, a digital insurer specialising in homeowners’ insurance, has secured $50m in an “oversubscribed” Series E round, achieving a pre-money valuation of $2bn.
The round was led by QED Investors and Activate Capital.
The contribution of both new and existing investors has brought Kin’s total equity funding to $286m, almost doubling the company’s valuation since the last round.
In addition, Kin secured a $200m debt facility, of which $145m has been allocated to repay previous debts.
Wellington Management led the debt financing component.
The combined equity and debt financing equates to an increase of $105m in available capital for the company.
The funding is expected to support the establishment of an additional reciprocal exchange and facilitate the development of new products.
Kin’s current portfolio includes more than $600m in in-force premiums, properties insured for a total value exceeding $100bn and clients in 13 states.
Kin founder and CEO Sean Harper said: “We built Kin differently. Our unique use of data and expert analysis enable us to better assess risk profiles of specific homes and offer customised protection. We will use this funding round to expand in markets most affected by natural disasters in a way that is sustainable, scalable and customer-focused.”
The company’s direct-to-consumer model, underpinned by proprietary technology and data analytics, is said to enable precise risk assessment and equitable pricing.
Kin, established in 2016, operates in the following US states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
“Kin lands $50m Series E investment at $2bn valuation ” was originally created and published by Life Insurance International, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Kemi Badenoch has said she is “really worried” that the UK might be forced to embark on a 1976-style bailout from the International Monetary Fund.
The Conservative leader told BBC Newsnight that the UK could be forced to go “cap in hand” to the IMF unless the government delivers a plan for economic growth.
She made her remarks as she offered to work with Sir Keir Starmer “in the national interest” to cut welfare spending, saying cuts and growth were needed to help the government out of a “doom loop” of rising taxes and precarious public finances.
A Labour Party source said Badenoch had a “brass neck” for offering such advice, after the Conservative government had “crashed the economy”.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves dismissed the idea the UK would need an IMF bailout during an interview with the BBC last week.
The Labour government of the late Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was forced to apply for a $3.9bn (£2.9bn) emergency loan from the IMF during the 1976 sterling crisis.
That was seen as a seminal event in post-war economic history, which severely undermined the economic credibility of the Callaghan government.
Asked what made her think the UK is heading towards the need for an IMF bailout, Badenoch said: “A lot of the indicators are pointing in that direction.
“Many very well respected commentators and economists are saying this.”
A number of economists, mainly on the right, have in recent weeks raised the prospect of a version of the 1976 sterling crisis repeating itself. Other economists have dismissed this as hyperbole.
Andrew Sentance, a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy, wrote of “eerie parallels” between the position of the current chancellor and that of the late Denis Healey, the chancellor during the 1976 sterling crisis.
But in an article for the Sun last month, Mr Sentance concluded: “The UK may not end up calling in the IMF.”
Governments borrow money from investors by selling bonds – which is a loan the government promises to pay back at the end of an agreed time. The yield on 30-year UK government bonds – which are known as gilts – has been rising for a number of months, although has now fallen back slightly.
Badenoch said there was a “crisis” in UK bond prices.
She pointed to UK borrowing costs hitting a 27-year high last week as “yet another indicator” and stressed “we are not growing enough”.
The Tory leader said: “Labour does not have any plan for growth,” adding: “They thought that as soon as they got into power, things would just work because they’re Labour and they believe in their own righteousness.
“That is not working – they need to get a plan to grow our economy, otherwise we will end up going to the IMF cap in hand.”
Dismissing a suggestion she was talking the country down, she claimed that doing nothing “would be a dereliction of duty on my part” and said was instead offering “an olive branch” to the prime minister to work with him.
“If we do get that sort of crisis because of their bad decisions, we’re all going to suffer,” she said.
“There is no benefit for the opposition party in a country that’s doing badly.
“We want our country to do well and we will work with the national interest to get that.”
The Conservatives have two key demands for working with Sir Keir, which are maintaining the two child benefit cap and slashing welfare, although the Tories did not support the government when Sir Keir was forced to water down the welfare Bill by a backbench rebellion in July.
“I’m sure that we’ll be able to come up with some suggestions, and then if we agree to that – it’s not a blank cheque – but if we can find some agreements, then yes, we’ll support it,” she said of the Bill.
“Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives crashed the economy and sent mortgages spiralling,” a Labour Party source said in response.
“The brass neck Kemi has to think she can offer advice on the economy now is astonishing. The Tories haven’t listened and they haven’t learned.”
Count billionaire Ken Griffin as one of those in the business community questioning President Trump’s hostility toward the Federal Reserve.
Griffin, the founder and CEO of Citadel and a supporter of the president, criticized Trump’s “interventions” in central bank policy in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Sunday.
“While the U.S. benefits from a large stock of credibility accumulated over decades, it isn’t limitless,” Griffin wrote in the op-ed he co-authored with University of Chicago Business School professor Anil Kashyap. “If eroded, markets will demand far higher interest rates for longer-term debt.”
Trump has pushed Fed Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates for months, often mocking Powell for the Fed’s inaction. Powell, whom the president appointed to the job during his first term, has opted against doing so since last September.
That is not the only way Trump has inserted himself into the Fed’s affairs. Last month, the president said he was firing board of governors member Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud.
“In a worst-case scenario, if the Fed visibly bows to political pressure and permits inflation to rise unchecked, tens of millions of retired Americans will see their savings diminished,” Griffin and Kashyap added. “Senior voters—tired of bearing the brunt of inflation—could cost the administration dearly in the midterms.”
They also criticized Trump’s firing of former Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Trump dismissed McEntarfer in August after the bureau’s jobs report showed worse employment data in May and June than it previously reported. As her replacement, Trump appointed E.J. Antoni, a loyalist with a history of provocative comments on social media and cable news, according to WIRED and CNN. Antoni’s appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
According to the latest CBS News/YouGov poll conducted earlier this month, 68 percent of respondents believe the Fed should be independent of the executive branch — with 32 percent saying the central bank should take directions from Trump. Additionally, 30 percent of respondents said that Trump should replace Fed board of governors members who disagree with him, while 70 percent said the president should not do so.
“Preserving credibility is essential because it benefits all Americans by keeping the costs of borrowing money lower, supporting sustainable growth, and maintaining global confidence in U.S. institutions. Once lost, it is costly and time-consuming to rebuild,” Griffin and Kashyap said.
LONDON/MILAN (Reuters) -The European Central Bank is set to hold interest rates steady for a second straight meeting on Thursday, with investors watching for any hints that the bank is done with cutting them.
A hawkish tone from ECB chief Christine Lagarde in July dented market expectations for further moves. A U.S.-EU trade agreement followed and the economy is holding up, so Frankfurt has little need to act now.
“Right now they’re quite comfortable staying put,” said Zurich Insurance Group’s chief market strategist Guy Miller.
Here are five key questions for markets:
1/ What will the ECB do on Thursday?
Leave its key rate on hold at 2%.
Inflation has been slightly higher than expected since the last meeting and first-quarter growth was double ECB expectations, while the trade deal with the United States has reduced uncertainty. So policymakers have little reason to either cut rates now or signal what’s next.
“They wanted to be deliberately uninformative about future interest rate decisions. So overall, that’s what we’ll get,” said HSBC chief European economist Simon Wells.
2/ Does the EU-U.S. trade deal change the economic outlook?
At first glance, not much.
The EU’s 15% tariff deal is not far off from the ECB’s baseline 10% expectation, Lagarde says.
Some economists caution the tariff hit to the economy remains uncertain and will increasingly feed through in the months ahead. Further escalation is also a risk.
“I would be a bit more critical or sceptical about the deal than the ECB will probably be in its meeting,” said ING’s global head of macro Carsten Brzeski.
3/ Is the ECB done cutting rates this cycle?
Not necessarily. Several policymakers have not ruled out another move and the ECB is divided on whether inflation will tick lower or higher than expected.
Economists polled by Reuters reckon the ECB is done. Traders see around 70% chance of one more cut, but only by next summer.
Those who reckon the ECB is done say Lagarde set a high bar for further moves and the outlook will need to deteriorate to warrant one. Some expect a hike next given German stimulus.
But a bigger-than-expected growth hit from tariffs, bond market stress, U.S. rate cuts pushing the euro higher and inflation even lower are reasons that cuts could resume, others say. The ECB sees inflation falling well below its target next year.
The central bank’s updated economic projections are also in focus. Economists broadly expect slight upgrades to 2025 growth and inflation projections, but are more divided on next year.
4/ What does France’s political turmoil mean for the ECB?
It’s another source of uncertainty, but too early to influence policymakers’ thinking.
France’s government is likely to lose a confidence vote on Monday as it tries to gather support for unpopular belt-tightening measures.
If markets become more stressed, there may be a renewed focus on whether the ECB might buy bonds using its Transmission Protection Instrument scheme designed to support countries whose debt comes under pressure through no fault of their own – which is hard to say for France.
A snap election could widen the French/German 10-year bond yield spread to around 90 basis points from 76 now, analysts say.
But similar levels last year did not see the ECB deploy TPI and there was no major contagion to other countries that might make it more likely to act.
5/ Is the ECB worried about central bank independence?
For sure. The U.S. administration attempting to remove Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell or governor Lisa Cook would pose a “very serious danger” to the global economy, Lagarde says.
The Fed yielding to demands for lower rates could stoke inflation, and tighter financial conditions spilling over to the euro zone, and push the euro even higher, policymakers and economists warn.
“It’s about financial stability; that’s what would be at risk without an independent Fed,” said Zurich’s Miller.
(Reporting by Yoruk Bahceli in London and Stefano Rebaudo in Milan; editing by Dhara Ranasinghe and Hugh Lawson)
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has entered the contest to be Labour’s deputy leader, becoming the most senior figure to put her name forward so far.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, is so far the only other declared candidate in the race to replace Angela Rayner in the deputy leader role.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Emily Thornberry has said she is considering entering, while Tooting MP, and former deputy leader candidate, Rosena Allin-Khan has ruled herself out.
Candidates have until Thursday evening to get nominations from at least 80 Labour MPs in order to take part in the contest.
They will also need the backing of either 5% of local parties, or three Labour-affiliated groups, including two unions.
Those who clear the bar face a vote by party members, with the winner announced on 25 October.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Sunday called Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a “joke” amid turmoil in Kennedy’s own department.
“You looked at that appearance before Congress, and it just confirms what all of us around this table have known for decades: Robert F Kennedy Jr. is a foolish man, full of foolish and vapid ideas,” Christie said on ABC News’s “This Week.”
“And that was on display again this week in front of Congress,” he added, later slamming the HHS secretary as “a joke” in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.
On Sunday, President Trump defended Kennedy, who has faced rising criticism from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill over his handling of vaccines and other issues.
The president has offered somewhat conflicting messages in recent days about his HHS secretary, defending Kennedy while also defending vaccines.
Kennedy defended his time as the nation’s top health official during a tense Senate hearing last week, snapping back at senators who pressed him on the recent upheaval at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and vaccine policy changes.
During close to three hours of testimony, Kennedy repeated vaccine misinformation, went after the CDC and gave differing explanations on his vision for reshaping the agency.
