Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: This article covers the Senate’s nomination hearing for Fed Chair Nominee Kevin Warsh, so you know it touches on politics. Please keep in mind as you peruse it that we favor no party nor any politician, assessing developments solely for their potential market and/or economic effects. This hearing and statements from it will get a lot of scrutiny in the coming days, especially in light of President Donald Trump’s spat with existing Fed head Jerome Powell, which many cast as a threat to its ability to set monetary policy free of partisan politics. Warsh’s comments here are interesting on a couple of fronts. One, he reiterated a view that the Fed should be free to set policy without influence from the White House or any politician. But he also said this doesn’t extend to non-monetary policy matters (likely a move designed to give oxygen to the Department of Justice’s investigation into the renovation of the Fed’s offices). And, most interestingly, “Warsh’s speech also features a familiar criticism he has brought in recent years, namely that the Fed on multiple occasions has overstepped its boundaries and reached into areas such as climate change and social inequality. ‘The Fed must stay in its lane. Fed independence is placed at greatest risk when it strays into fiscal and social policies where it has neither authority nor expertise.’” This is a sensible point. The Fed’s independence is intended over monetary matters only, which affect the broad economy via its influence on credit. It has no demonstrated ability to influence matters at the more microeconomic level, like wealth inequality. It seems sensible to us that Fed officials stay out of politicized matters if they wish to retain apolitical standing. But will this stance remain if and when Warsh becomes the next Fed head? We really have no idea, as Fed officials often say one thing in hearings, only to forget everything they knew when in office.

MarketMinder’s View: This article centers on several publicly traded companies, so please note MarketMinder doesn’t make individual security recommendations. Their mention is coincident to our highlighting a broader theme: Oil and gas producers continue adapting to wartime disruptions in ways that will secure more long-term supply while curbing the Strait of Hormuz’s relevance. For context, many of these companies have dialed back investments in exploration projects in recent years, opting to stay lean after overextending themselves during the shale boom and getting caught out when oil prices plunged, leaving them with high fixed costs and less revenue to cover them. But it seems high oil prices and the desire to reduce a regional chokepoint’s importance have incentivized them to ramp up drilling again while distancing themselves from potential disruptions in the Middle East. Producers are targeting new drilling sites “in Africa, South America and the eastern Mediterranean that could refill their reserves for the next decade.” We see a couple of investor takeaways here. One, as previously noted, this shows how high oil and gas prices help strengthen producers’ balance sheets and incentivize new production. Just as we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global producers are ramping up supply to fill the shortfall. Two, while today’s investments may take years to come online, they point to a future where oil supply is more diverse and geopolitically stable, much as Europe’s investments in natural gas import terminals did in 2022. This is something investors ought to keep in mind when these conflicts begin. While headlines focus on worst-case scenarios, there are potentially positive outcomes, too. For more, see today’s cover story, “Easing Hormuz’s Grip for the Long Term.”

MarketMinder’s View: Inflation in the Great White North accelerated to 2.4% y/y in March, slightly cooler than analysts’ estimates but still faster than February’s 1.8%. And as the title notes, much of this acceleration stemmed from higher gas prices tied to the Middle East conflict. “Gasoline prices jumped by 21.2% on the month, according to Statistics Canada’s report on Monday, marking the largest increase on record as the Middle East conflict drove up oil prices globally.” However, natural gas prices’ -18.1% m/m fall helped offset some of the pain here by dampening the rise in overall energy costs. As we noted with February’s reading, Canada’s hefty domestic oil and gas industry helps shield them from global price shocks, which came in handy in March. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s temporary pause on federal fuel excise taxes until September 7 should help ease energy costs, too. Pair this with core inflation’s (which excludes food and energy) 1.9% y/y rise in March, and it appears Canada, like the US, isn’t suffering from higher oil and gas prices’ bleeding into other categories. Outside of this, while we don’t think central bank moves are possible to predict, it is interesting that sentiment expects a rate hike this year even as the Bank of Canada “has signaled it plans to look through the short-term impact of the oil shock.” This strikes us as more evidence investors are fighting the last war, in this case central bankers’ rapid U-turn toward aggressive rate hikes in 2022.