StanChart Sees Weaker U.S. Dollar, Raises EUR/USD Forecast to 1.16

Economic

Forex

Summary:

Standard Chartered (StanChart) revised its forecast for the US dollar, anticipating a weaker performance than...

Standard Chartered (StanChart) revised its forecast for the US dollar, anticipating a weaker performance than previously expected.

The Asia-focused bank now projects that the EUR/USD exchange rate will reach 1.16 by the end of the second quarter of 2025, up from its earlier forecast of 1.06, and will maintain that level through the end of 2025, an increase from the prior estimate of 1.04.

According to StanChart, this revision reflects a broader trend of dollar weakness against other G10 currencies. The bank also indicated a moderate "risk-on" bias for G10 currencies, suggesting that higher-beta currencies might outperform safe havens in the upcoming months.

StanChart’s baseline expectation is that the dollar will be slightly weaker compared to its current spot but will remain essentially stable through the end of the year. Despite recent positive developments from the U.S. administration regarding tariffs and encouraging equity market gains, the dollar has not shown significant strength.

This leads the bank to believe that the adjustment in dollar positions is ongoing and could result in a further decline in the dollar’s value.

The bank also acknowledges uncertainty surrounding its baseline forecast. It notes that President Trump has an incentive to maintain a stable policy environment as the new fiscal package becomes a focal point. Trump may aim for quick tariff deals to support the argument that tariff revenues will positively contribute to the projected revenues in the upcoming fiscal bill.

Economic advisors are likely cautioning that adding a risk premium to U.S. assets could be detrimental without offering any benefits.

StanChart suggests that if the unwinding of aggressive policy takes precedence, the dollar could see an appreciation beyond the bank’s current baseline projections.

Source: Investing

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A Strong Opening Marred by Growing Friction

The U.S. upstream oil and gas sector recorded a total M&A value of $17 billion in the first quarter of 2025, according to Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), marking the second-best Q1 performance since 2018. However, nearly half of this figure stemmed from Diamondback Energy's major deals, including the acquisition of Double Eagle IV and asset transfers to Viper Energy Partners.

Outside of Diamondback's transactions, broader market activity shows signs of strain. Investors are finding it increasingly difficult to locate attractive assets while undeveloped resources command high asking prices. Declining oil prices and weakening equity valuations are further eroding buyer enthusiasm. Although the initial surge suggests temporary robustness, the underlying trend points toward an inevitable slowdown, indicating that high early-quarter M&A volumes were not causally linked to a broader market strength but rather concentrated in isolated large deals.

Oil Price Trends and M&A Volatility

Historical patterns reinforce the strong relationship between oil price fluctuations and M&A activity. Since 2014, there have been 17 quarters where oil prices dropped by more than 5% quarter-over-quarter; in 11 of those quarters, M&A transaction values fell by an average of 30%.

The Permian Basin—America’s premier shale hub—mirrors this dynamic. Land asset values there plummeted by one-third in 2015 and by more than half in 2020 when oil prices collapsed. Notably, 2023 was an exception, as investors maintained activity despite lower prices, sustained by a relatively high average price of $78 per barrel. However, 2025's lower price environment lacks such supportive conditions, suggesting that the ongoing M&A cooling has a stronger causal link to diminished profitability expectations.

Financial Health of E&P Companies: A Buffer Against Immediate Distress

Despite the challenges, publicly listed exploration and production (E&P) companies are now better positioned financially than during previous downturns. Thanks to disciplined debt management, moderate production strategies, and prudent hedging, most firms are prepared to endure a year of lower oil prices.

Nevertheless, EIR warns that if depressed prices persist into 2026, even the healthiest balance sheets will face mounting pressures, potentially forcing companies into asset sales, investment cuts, or mergers for survival. Here, financial resilience appears to delay but not sever the impact of price downturns, illustrating a lagged causal relationship between prolonged low prices and eventual corporate distress.

Market Impasse: Buyers and Sellers at Odds

Andrew Dittmar, principal analyst at EIR, highlighted that the M&A market is entering its toughest phase since early 2020, when COVID-19 devastated oil demand. Sellers are reluctant to accept lower prices for premium shale assets, knowing that high-quality resources are finite. Buyers, having spent aggressively in previous deals, are constrained by tighter financial conditions and unwilling to meet elevated valuations amid falling oil prices.

This growing valuation gap indicates that while both sides acknowledge the strategic value of transactions, price expectations are moving in opposite directions, reinforcing a negative feedback loop that stifles new deals.

Permian Basin Remains a Strategic Focal Point

Despite broader market headwinds, the Permian Basin continues to attract strategic attention. Its stacked geological structure and stable profitability make it one of the few regions where acquisitions can still deliver clear financial returns. The Permian thus remains an exception where oil price downturns correlate less strongly with asset unattractiveness, providing a relative safe zone for investment.

Short-Term Challenges, Long-Term Opportunities

Dittmar emphasized that while current conditions suppress deal activity, they simultaneously create latent demand. Once oil prices stabilize, pent-up capital and strategic motivations could fuel a resurgence in M&A. Private equity funds, having recently raised fresh capital after a retreat during earlier downturns, are poised to re-enter the market aggressively once valuations become more attractive.

Natural Gas: A Bright Spot Amid Market Gloom

The natural gas sector, especially assets linked to Gulf Coast LNG infrastructure, offers a rare growth narrative. Despite short-term weakness due to broader energy sell-offs, long-term demand from LNG exports and data center expansion supports a bullish outlook for gas. In particular, the Haynesville region is attracting notable investor interest, although limited asset availability could drive competitive bidding.

This suggests a sectoral divergence where natural gas assets are increasingly decoupling from the oil-driven M&A slowdown, offering an avenue for investors to reposition.

After a strong start in early 2025, U.S. upstream M&A faces mounting challenges as falling oil prices, asset valuation mismatches, and cautious buyer sentiment reshape the landscape. While short-term activity may stall, opportunities are building beneath the surface, particularly in regions like the Permian and sectors like natural gas. Strategic patience and financial resilience will likely define the next phase of consolidation, setting the stage for a renewed M&A wave once market conditions improve.

Source: Enverus Intelligence Research

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Shifting Tone Among the Federal Reserve’s Dovish Voices

Christopher Waller, often seen as the most dovish member of the Federal Reserve, has tempered expectations for imminent rate cuts. In a recent interview, Waller signaled that the central bank would need to wait until the second half of 2025 to fully assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s new tariff policies on inflation and growth. His remarks further diminish the likelihood of a rate cut at either the May or June meetings, aligning his stance with the broader consensus among Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) members, including Chair Jerome Powell.

Waller's previous downplaying of tariffs’ inflationary effects makes his current caution notable. This shift suggests a growing recognition within the Fed that premature rate cuts could be risky without clear evidence of economic deterioration. While Waller’s updated stance mirrors broader Fed sentiment, the trend suggests a strong correlation between heightened trade policy uncertainty and the Fed’s increasingly cautious monetary policy posture.

The Timeline of Potential Policy Changes

The Fed’s reluctance to cut rates swiftly is underscored by recent comments from other officials. Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack stated that May would be "too early" for a cut, emphasizing the need for patience to stay on course rather than reacting hastily. However, she left open the possibility of cuts in June or July if "clear and convincing" economic weakening emerges.

Market attention now focuses on upcoming data releases, particularly the April jobs report on May 2. Chief economist Tim Duy of SGH Macro Advisors warned that the Fed rarely alters policy based on just one or two employment reports unless the data is overwhelmingly weak. Thus, unless there is a dramatic deterioration in labor market conditions, Duy predicts a rate cut is more likely in September.

Similarly, Diane Swonk from KPMG anticipates the Fed will hold rates steady until at least October, stressing that policymakers will only act once the real economic consequences of tariffs become evident. These forecasts illustrate that although short-term data might show isolated weakness, the Fed demands sustained and broad-based signs of slowdown before adjusting its stance. The pattern here indicates that economic weakening and Fed rate action are correlated but not immediately causal without multiple confirming indicators.

Tariff Policies and Their Measured Economic Effects

President Trump’s current trade measures, including a general 10% tariff on goods from most trading partners (excluding China, which faces heavier duties), are expected to filter slowly through the economy. Waller noted that about one-third of the increased costs could be passed on to consumers, but he dismissed the likelihood of an immediate, severe inflation shock.

Waller also downplayed the potential for near-term major disruptions, suggesting only "mild" economic softening in the months ahead unless more aggressive tariff actions are taken. This view reinforces the Fed’s commitment to a data-dependent approach, awaiting concrete evidence rather than speculating based on initial policy announcements.

The relationship between tariffs and inflationary pressures here appears to be indirect and lagged. Tariffs contribute to cost increases, but their immediate translation into consumer price inflation depends on broader demand conditions, corporate pricing power, and supply chain adjustments.

Political Pressures Versus Institutional Independence

Christopher Waller, a Trump appointee, has maintained a balanced tone despite political pressures. President Trump has openly criticized Jerome Powell for not cutting rates faster but recently reassured markets that he would not move to dismiss Powell prematurely. Waller’s cautious stance suggests an effort to maintain the Fed's institutional credibility and independence in the face of mounting political interventions.

Interestingly, speculation has grown that Waller could become a candidate to succeed Powell when the latter’s term expires in 2026. This possibility may partly explain Waller’s carefully measured approach, emphasizing stability and prudence over political responsiveness.

The Federal Reserve's path toward lower interest rates appears increasingly delayed, as officials adopt a cautious wait-and-see attitude amid complex trade dynamics and modest economic softening. Even traditionally dovish voices now advocate patience, reinforcing the Fed's preference for a robust evidential base before taking action. With summer rate cuts becoming less likely, financial markets must adjust to a longer horizon of elevated interest rates, contingent on the evolving real-world impacts of new trade policies and labor market resilience.

Source: MarketWatch

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Market Recovery Driven by Shifting Presidential Rhetoric

Last week, U.S. equities experienced a notable rebound, fueled by President Donald Trump’s softened stance on two major concerns: the future of the Federal Reserve's leadership and the escalation of the U.S.-China trade war. Trump reassured markets by clarifying that he had "no intention" of firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, a significant shift from his prior criticisms. Simultaneously, he hinted at a potential de-escalation of trade tensions with China. As a result, the S&P 500 gained approximately 4.5%, the Dow Jones rose 2.5%, and the Nasdaq Composite led with a 6.6% increase.

Although these reassurances temporarily lifted market sentiment, equity strategists caution that the rally does not necessarily signal a full recovery from trade-related instability. The pattern suggests that political rhetoric can temporarily influence investor confidence, but underlying structural risks related to tariffs persist, meaning that improvements in market indices are more likely a short-term reaction rather than a fundamental shift.

Economic Growth Outlook Under Scrutiny

One major factor underpinning market anxiety remains the possibility of a sharp slowdown in U.S. economic growth. On Wednesday, investors will receive the first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) figures, providing a broader view of the economy’s momentum. Economists forecast that the U.S. economy grew by only 0.1% year-over-year in Q1, a dramatic deceleration from the 2.4% growth recorded in the fourth quarter of 2024. If confirmed, this would mark the weakest quarterly growth since 2022.

This predicted slowdown aligns with the rising tariff burden, suggesting that protectionist trade policies may be exerting downward pressure on economic expansion. However, while the correlation between higher tariffs and reduced GDP growth is evident, causality requires cautious interpretation, as other factors such as global economic conditions and domestic investment cycles may also contribute.

Key Inflation Indicators Awaited

The same day, markets will also see an update on the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation—the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, which excludes volatile food and energy prices. Projections indicate that core PCE inflation for March will come in at 2.5%, down from February’s 2.8%. On a month-over-month basis, core PCE is expected to increase by 0.1%, a slower pace compared to the 0.4% rise seen previously.

The anticipated moderation in inflation offers important clues for the Fed’s policy outlook. A slower inflation trajectory might ease pressure on the Fed to raise rates aggressively, although policymakers will likely weigh this against employment data and broader economic indicators. While inflation cooling and economic growth decelerating appear to move in tandem, determining direct causality remains complex, as multiple factors—including monetary policy and external supply shocks—could be influencing both.

Labor Market Remains Resilient Amid Broader Economic Softening

Despite growing concerns about economic weakness, the U.S. labor market continues to show resilience. The April jobs report, due Friday, is expected to confirm this trend. Analysts predict that the economy added 133,000 nonfarm jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate is forecast to remain at 4.2%.

In March, the U.S. economy created 228,000 jobs, also with an unemployment rate of 4.2%. This stability suggests that employers, facing policy uncertainty, have largely opted to maintain their workforce rather than engage in broad layoffs. This trend points to a relationship where labor market strength provides a stabilizing force against broader economic deceleration, although it is not sufficient on its own to counteract the drag from reduced trade activity and slowing output.

Corporate Earnings Season Adds Further Insights

Adding to the week’s complexity, around 180 companies from the S&P 500 are scheduled to release quarterly earnings reports, including major players like Apple, Amazon, Coca-Cola, Eli Lilly, Meta, Microsoft, and Chevron. These results will offer valuable perspectives on how tariff volatility and the intensifying competition in artificial intelligence are impacting corporate performance.

Analysts expect that these earnings will reveal uneven impacts across sectors, with technology firms particularly sensitive to shifts in global supply chains and manufacturing costs. The relationship between geopolitical developments and corporate profitability will likely become more pronounced in these reports, reinforcing the broader narrative that external shocks increasingly shape internal financial outcomes.

This week stands as a critical juncture for both investors and policymakers, with economic data releases poised to either reinforce or challenge current market narratives. Although temporary optimism has buoyed markets, the deeper forces at play—including slowing GDP growth, moderating inflation, and a resilient but vulnerable labor market—underscore the fragility of the current recovery. How the Federal Reserve responds to these signals will be pivotal for financial markets heading into the second half of 2025.

Source: Yahoo Finance

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Glendon

Economic

Forex

Risks are high the global economy will slip into a recession this year, according to a majority of economists in a Reuters poll, with scores of them saying U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have damaged business sentiment.

Just three months ago, the same group of economists covering nearly 50 economies had expected the global economy to grow at a strong, steady clip.

But Trump's push to redesign world trade by imposing tariffs on all U.S. imports has sent shockwaves through financial markets, wiping out trillions of dollars in stock market value, and has shaken investors' confidence in U.S. assets as a safe haven, including the dollar.

While Trump has temporarily walked back on the heaviest of tariffs imposed on almost all trading partners for a few months, a 10% blanket duty on all U.S. imports remains, as well as a 145% tariff on China, its largest trading partner.

"It's hard enough for firms to think about July right now where they don't know what the reciprocal tariffs are. Try and plan another year down the road. I mean, who knows what it looks like, let alone five years down the road," James Rossiter, head of global macro strategy at TD Securities, said.

Faced with heightened uncertainties and century-high duties on goods, many global businesses have either withdrawn or cut revenue forecasts.

Showing an uncommon unanimity, none of the more than 300 economists polled April 1-28 said tariffs had a positive impact on business sentiment, with 92% saying negative. Only 8% said neutral, mostly from India and other emerging economies.

Three-quarters of economists cut their 2025 global growth forecast, bringing the median to 2.7% from 3.0% in a January poll. The International Monetary Fund was a tad higher at 2.8%.

Individual economies surveyed showed a similar trend with median forecasts cut for 28 of the 48 economies polled.

Among the others, for 10 economies the consensus view was unchanged and for 10, including Argentina and Spain, the view was slightly upgraded from the previous poll based mainly on domestic developments.

The split for 2026 was nearly the same, suggesting the current downtrend in growth expectations that started with Trump imposing tariffs is deep and not an easy one to fix.

Asked about the risk of a global recession this year, a 60% majority - 101 of 167 - said it was high or very high. Sixty-six said low including four who said very low.

"It's a very difficult environment to be optimistic about growth," said Timothy Graf, head of macro strategy for Europe, Middle East and Africa at State Street.

"We could get rid of tariffs today and it will still have done quite a lot of damage just strictly from the view of the U.S. as a reliable actor in bilateral and multilateral agreements ranging from trade to common defense."

The progress central banks have made over the past couple of years in taming the worst global inflation surge in decades by raising interest rates in quick succession is also expected to stall due to tariffs, which economists agree are inflationary.

"Cutting off your largest trading partner ... is going to do all sorts of wild and not so wonderful things to prices and that's going to have all sorts of negative impacts on real incomes and ultimately demand," State Street's Graf added.

"It's a situation where the possibility we enter a stagflationary environment has always been quite low but I think is now higher."

Stagflation is usually defined as an extended period of no or low growth, high inflation and rising unemployment.

A more than 65% majority - 19 of 29 major central banks polled - were not expected to meet their inflation targets this year with that number dropping slightly to 15 for next year.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

The Disruption of Early Expectations

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency came with promises of an unprecedented economic boom. However, after just 100 days, U.S. financial markets tell a starkly different story. The S&P 500 has dropped approximately 8% since his inauguration, marking the worst stock market performance for a new U.S. president’s first 100 days since Gerald Ford’s turbulent era in 1974.

The decline was surprising to Wall Street, particularly after two consecutive years of over 20% growth and initial optimism for pro-growth policies. Instead of fiscal stimulus, the Trump administration ignited widespread trade conflicts, imposing near-universal tariffs, frequently revising or suspending them across industries. This persistent unpredictability eroded market confidence, leading to extreme volatility across asset classes. Although market declines and volatile trade policy movements are occurring in tandem, the direct cause-effect link is strengthened by investors' explicit reactions to tariff announcements, evidenced by immediate sell-offs following new trade measures.

Escalating Market Volatility and Investor Retreat

Following Trump's election victory, markets initially rallied to record highs, driven by hopes for deregulation and tax cuts. However, these gains rapidly unraveled after April 2, when the administration announced historically high tariffs, causing the S&P 500 to plunge over 10% in just two trading sessions. Although a temporary tariff suspension led to a minor rebound, the market remained directionless, oscillating between recovery attempts and renewed declines.

Recent data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) show that speculative bets against the S&P 500 have surged to their highest levels since December. Key sectors, including consumer discretionary and technology, bore the brunt of the downturn, with companies like Deckers Outdoor, Teradyne, Albemarle, Tesla, United Airlines, and Norwegian Cruise Line suffering significant losses. This pattern highlights a strong causal relationship where tariff-induced cost pressures have directly contributed to the sell-off in consumer and tech stocks, sectors highly sensitive to trade costs and global supply chain disruptions.

As commodity prices climb due to higher tariffs, forecasts suggest American consumers will likely curtail spending, creating a feedback loop that could deepen economic slowdowns. Mark Malek from Siebert emphasized that damaged investor sentiment rarely recovers quickly, further complicating any near-term stabilization efforts.

Investment Trends Reflect Deepening Pessimism

Deutsche Bank reports that equity allocations have dropped to historic lows, while Bank of America warns that foundational conditions for a sustainable market recovery remain absent. Goldman Sachs data indicates a notable exodus of foreign investment from U.S. stocks since March, suggesting global investors are also losing confidence.

This broad withdrawal from equities parallels the rise in policy uncertainty, especially regarding trade strategy. Paul Nolte of Murphy & Sylvest Wealth Management described the administration’s trade objectives as alarmingly opaque, pushing investors into defensive positions. Eric Sterner of Apollon Wealth observed that the resulting ambiguity hampers both corporate investment and hiring decisions, signaling risks to future economic activity even before visible signs of recession emerge.

Corporate Caution Deepens Economic Concerns

Companies are already adjusting to the new climate of uncertainty. Many firms have withdrawn earnings forecasts, revised expectations downward, or prepared alternative scenarios depending on economic outcomes. United Airlines, for example, issued dual forecasts based on whether the economy remains stable or slides into recession.

David Lefkowitz at UBS predicts little to no earnings growth for S&P 500 companies this year, while Mark Malek warns that recession risks increase when corporations shift from hiring to layoffs and spending cuts. Although some investors, like Malek, are selectively hunting for opportunities in heavily sold-off quality growth stocks, they do so with great caution.

Sectoral Shifts and Defensive PositioningIn anticipation of prolonged turbulence, Jim Worden from Wealth Consulting Group recommends prioritizing healthcare, financials, consumer staples, and deeply discounted stocks. James Abate of Horizon Investments similarly sees opportunities in regional banks, suggesting that active managers have a chance to outperform passive strategies in a volatile environment.

Nevertheless, despite these strategic shifts, investor sentiment on Wall Street remains highly defensive. Eric Diton of Wealth Alliance warned that the current phase of market instability is far from over, indicating that deep uncertainty will likely persist well beyond Trump’s first 100 days back in office.

The U.S. economy, under the renewed Trump administration, faces growing fragility as escalating trade conflicts, policy unpredictability, and deteriorating investor sentiment converge. The sharp divergence between initial optimism and current market reality underscores the volatility and systemic risks characterizing this phase. While some sectors may offer pockets of resilience, the broader outlook remains clouded, with little immediate relief in sight.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

Economic

Changing Perceptions of High Tax Burdens

In an environment of escalating tariff threats against the pharmaceutical sector, companies with manufacturing bases and intellectual property registered in the United States are increasingly viewed as stable investment options. Traditionally, corporate executives have been reluctant to highlight high tax payments. However, amid mounting economic uncertainty, a significant shift has occurred: investors now see high tax rates as indicative of supply chain localization, offering a relative shield against looming tariffs.

Daniel O’Day, CEO of Gilead Sciences, recently emphasized that the company's 20% corporate tax rate reflects the fact that most of its intellectual property resides in the United States. This contrasts sharply with practices before the Trump era, when many pharmaceutical and biotech firms domiciled IP and manufacturing in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland to minimize U.S. tax liabilities. This relocation allowed firms to funnel profits through lower-tax countries using intra-company transactions, thereby recording minimal profits on American soil despite selling primarily to the U.S. market.

Impact of Policy Shifts on Corporate Strategies

Although the 2017 tax reforms under President Trump aimed to curtail offshore profit shifting, loopholes persisted. In his second term, Trump’s administration has increasingly wielded tariffs as a tool to force companies to bring production back to the United States. Early this month, the U.S. government announced a national security investigation into pharmaceutical imports, signaling a heightened crackdown on foreign-based supply chains.

Companies with more complex supply chains—those spread across multiple jurisdictions—appear to be most vulnerable. Traver Davis of Citigroup noted that firms heavily reliant on imported inputs face steeper risks. There is a discernible trend: the more localized a company's supply and IP structure, the better its insulation against sudden policy shocks. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest a direct cause-effect without accounting for other operational resilience factors like inventory strategies and contract flexibility.

Biotech Leaders Outperform the Broader Market

Investment behavior clearly reflects these shifts. Shares of Gilead Sciences have risen 12% year-to-date, while Vertex Pharmaceuticals, another U.S.-centric biotech, has surged 23%, outperforming the NYSE Arca Pharmaceutical Index, which has only edged up 1%. Vertex stands out even further because it manufactures most of its products domestically and benefits from orphan drug protections, shielding its cystic fibrosis treatments from aggressive price negotiations under Medicare regulations.

According to Akash Tewari of Jefferies, very few biotech and pharmaceutical firms meet the three criteria investors now prize: dominant U.S. revenue, domestic intellectual property registration, and minimal exposure to tariffs or drug price controls. This triple combination forms a critical filter for investment decisions in a volatile regulatory environment.

Complexity Behind Tax Rates and Tariff Exposure

Yet, interpreting corporate tax rates remains complex. Christine Kachinsky of KPMG warned that a company's effective tax rate often masks the nuances of production location, internal transfer pricing, and international tax agreements. A higher tax rate does not guarantee immunity from tariffs, as companies may still import raw materials from abroad. Similarly, a lower tax rate may result from technical tax credits rather than significant offshore exposure.

Thus, identifying firms best positioned to weather tariff shocks requires granular analysis of their entire value chains, not merely their headline tax rates. The relationship between localized production and reduced tariff risk is strong but not absolute, given the intricacies of global supply logistics.

Merck and the Wider Industry Landscape

An analysis by Citigroup projects that operating profits for the top ten pharmaceutical firms could decline by an average of 9.7% by 2026 if new tariff measures are enforced. Merck, headquartered in New Jersey, illustrates the risks vividly. Its best-selling drug, Keytruda, has patents registered in the Netherlands and is produced in Ireland, offering tax advantages but simultaneously increasing tariff vulnerability.

While Merck estimates a $200 million cost impact primarily from U.S.-China trade tensions—not yet including new pharmaceutical-specific tariffs—it is already ramping up U.S. production and leveraging existing inventories to mitigate immediate risks. CEO Rob Davis affirmed that the company’s global supply strategy positions it to absorb short-term shocks, though longer-term adaptation will require deeper shifts toward domestic operations.

Despite corporate adjustments, major unknowns remain. It is unclear whether new tariffs will target raw active ingredients, finished goods, or intercompany transfers. Potential exemptions, implementation timelines, and the possibility of accompanying tax reforms further complicate forecasting. Consequently, precise modeling of tariff impacts on the pharmaceutical industry remains elusive.

Source: WSJ

Nonetheless, companies that have already concentrated production and intellectual property within the United States—and accepted higher effective tax rates—are currently perceived as offering superior defensive characteristics. For investors navigating this volatile environment, these firms narrow the field of viable opportunities significantly.

ConclusionAs global tariff threats escalate, biotech firms with U.S.-based assets are increasingly emerging as critical safe havens for investors. While headline tax rates offer some guidance, deeper analysis of production chains and policy exposure remains essential to accurately gauge risk. In a world where policy uncertainty and trade barriers loom large, localized operations offer a crucial competitive advantage that could define sector winners and losers in the years ahead.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites