Stocks: Was That The Bottom On Monday? (Ed Yardeni)

(…) The Middle East conflict is the latest test of the US economy’s resilience. If the war wraps up within the President’s 2-3-week timeline, the economy should pass its latest test.

Consider the recent batch of upbeat economic data:

(1) Initial unemployment claims dropped last week to 202,000, confirming that layoff activity remains at historically low levels. The four-week moving average fell to its lowest reading since the start of the year. Continuing claims edged higher, but the four-week moving average declined to the lowest since September 2024.

(2) According to the Challenger layoffs report, US employers announced 60,620 planned job cuts in March, up from 48,307 in February but down a striking 78% from the 275,240 recorded a year ago. Of the announced planned cuts, 25% cited artificial intelligence as the reason, up sharply from just 7% in January.

(3) The recent streak of better-than-expected economic indicators has pushed the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index into solidly positive territory since the start of this year. Economic activity was strengthening, not weakening, when the war began.

(4) But what about the Atlanta Fed’s latest downward revision in Q1’s real GDP growth rate to only 1.6%? We blame it on the weather. February 2026 was arguably the worst February we’ve seen in at least a decade.

Ed’s rear view mirror omits that retail sales, up 0.6% MoM in February in spite of bad weather, have been pretty weak overall, in real terms, since November. My own calculations say real sales are up 0.4% annualized in the last 3 month (Dec-Feb).

Goldman Sachs is even more negative: “Based on the details of the PCE and CPI reports, we estimate real retail sales declined at a 1.3% three-month annualized rate through February.”

Energy prices have surged since the war began, and the Cleveland Fed’s Inflation Nowcasting model shows headline CPI might have jumped 0.84% MoM in March and 3.25% YoY, a sharp step up from 2.4% in February.

Data: Platts; Chart: Emily Peck/Axios

Dated Brent price: the price of physical crude bought in the North Sea for prompt delivery within 10 to 30 days. Physical shortage is here.

• What betting markets say about a ceasefire:

Source: Macrobond

Indeed Job Postings have turned back down so far in March :

Firms weren’t willing to hire even before this crisis began:

“That lack of pricing power goes hand-in-hand with a jobs market that is in a much more fragile position than it was at the start of the Ukraine war. The US hiring rate (new hires as a share of total existing employees) fell again in February’s data released this week and is now not dissimilar to where it was in the financial crisis.” (ING)

Source: Macrobond

Trump Overhauls Metal Tariffs Altered rates on finished products made with steel, aluminum and copper could effectively raise costs for many imports

The Trump administration said Thursday it would reshape its tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper products, altering duties on finished products to help simplify compliance. The net effect of the changes could effectively raise costs for many imports.

Under a presidential proclamation issued Thursday, finished products made with imported steel, aluminum and copper will be tariffed at 25%.

The 25% tariff will apply to the entire value of a finished product—known as a derivative product—containing steel, aluminum or copper. That will replace the current 50% duty, which only applies to the value of the metal used in a product.

The 50% tariff will remain in place for commodity-grade steel, aluminum and copper products—goods that are mostly made of the respective metals. Some goods could be reclassified as commodity products if they are made almost entirely of the metals.

Additionally, products that don’t contain a significant amount of steel, aluminum or copper—less than 15% by weight—won’t receive a levy under the metals tariff regime. Instead, those products will be subject to President Trump’s separate, 10% global minimum tariff. (…)

Even though the tariff rate will be lower for many goods, the change likely means the cost of the tariffs assessed on many products will be higher. That is because of duties being charged on the full value of imported products rather than just their steel or aluminum content.

Despite that, a senior administration official told reporters Thursday the administration didn’t anticipate the changes would raise costs for consumers.

The move could also mean the U.S. government will take in more money under the steel and aluminum tariffs, which are imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That could help partially offset the lower tariff revenues that the government has collected since the Supreme Court invalidated many of Trump’s other levies in February.

The changes are meant to make compliance easier for companies that have struggled to measure the value of the steel and aluminum content in complex manufactured products. (…)

No cost for consumers but more money for the government. US magic!

• Tariffs Strained U.S. Aluminum Supplies. Now the Iran War Is Making It Worse. Recent attacks in the Persian Gulf could further constrain metal supplies

(…) Most aluminum shipments from countries that ring the Persian Gulf have been curtailed since the fighting started in late February. About one-fifth of the imported aluminum in the U.S. comes from the Gulf countries.

Last weekend, Iranian drones and missiles struck aluminum plants in Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, damaging two of the region’s largest producers. A production outage is expected to ripple through depleted U.S. aluminum stocks in the coming months, further putting pressure on prices—which have already been battered by tariff challenges.

“Nothing could be worse. Every time we pass on a price increase to our customers, the price of aluminum goes up even more,” Reitnouer, the CEO of the Reading, Pa. company, said.

Companies that buy aluminum to make everything from soda cans to car hoods have been feeling the pain of more expensive aluminum. At Reitnouer Trailers, rising aluminum prices accounted for nearly all of the 9.5% increase in production costs last year. The company doesn’t buy imported aluminum, but the metal is priced globally, so supply threats like the war in Iran are quickly reflected in its U.S. price. (…)

The delivered price of aluminum in the U.S., with assorted charges and the tariff factored in, is $6,100 a metric ton, up 83% from a year ago. The tariff and other costs besides the metal account for about $2,520, according to S&P Global Energy. The all-in price for Western Europe is about $4,160.

“We’ve become disadvantaged pretty significantly,” said Jeff Lehman, North America president for Norsk Hydro’s aluminum extrusion business. He said Hydro is losing orders to competitors outside the U.S. that can pay the tariff and offer lower prices because their aluminum costs less.

Arizona-based Awake Window & Door is one client that buys long, angled pieces of aluminum from a Hydro plant in Oregon to make frames for large windows and glass walls used in luxury homes. Scott Gates, Awake’s CEO, said the company’s cost for the aluminum feedstock used by Hydro increased by 70% in the past year. Gates said he had hoped the tariff on his foreign competitors’ windows would give Awake an edge as a domestic company.

That is not what happened. “The tariffs haven’t given us a pricing advantage,” Gates said. “Their prices went up, and our prices went up.”

Although Trump’s tariffs were meant to encourage more domestic production of primary aluminum made in smelters, just a few of those facilities are operating in the U.S. High electricity costs have been driving U.S. smelters out of business for decades. About 70% of the primary aluminum consumed in the U.S. comes from Canada.

Stocks of aluminum in the U.S. are estimated at 200,000 metric tons, about two weeks’ worth of domestic consumption, compared with four to six weeks usually. Shipments from Canada plunged last summer when producers there were unable to quickly recover the cost of rising tariffs from U.S. buyers through the market-determined delivery fee on aluminum. (…)

Some Canadian aluminum was diverted to Europe over the summer, and executives expect pressure from dislocated customers of aluminum from the Middle East to lure metal away from the U.S. market.

Meanwhile, domestic aluminum producers like Pittsburgh-based Alcoa have benefited from the higher prices. (…)

“The tariffs aren’t harmful any longer,” Molly Beerman, Alcoa’s chief financial officer, told investors recently.

What’s good for Alcoa ain’t necessarily good for America, is it?

• Middle East Conflict Weighs on Global Food Prices, FAO Says

Global food prices rose in March, driven by higher energy prices and an increase in freight costs linked to war in the Middle East.

An index of food commodity prices created by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization averaged 128.5 points in March, up 3 points from February, as disruptions from the Iran war ripple through food supply chains.

The 2.4% increase in the gauge — which tracks grains, sugar, meat, dairy and vegetable oil costs — marks the second consecutive month of gains, having risen for the first time in five months in February. (…)

Trump Administration Unveils Up to 100% Tariff on Branded Drugs

The U.S. will impose tariffs of as much as 100% on branded pharmaceuticals, the White House said Thursday, though nations or drugmakers that strike deals with the Trump administration or commit to build manufacturing facilities in the U.S. can receive lower levies.

The 100% tariff will apply to patented imported pharmaceuticals from companies that haven’t committed to invest in the U.S. and haven’t entered into “most favored nation” agreements to match their U.S. prices to the lowest they charge in other developed countries, a senior administration official said Thursday.

But the full 100% tariff might apply to only a few drugmakers or none at all. If a company pledges to invest in U.S. drug manufacturing in the coming years, its tariff rate will fall to 20%, the senior administration official said. The company would have to complete the factory by the end of President Trump’s term in the White House, the official said, or tariffs could be increased.

Additionally, if a company that has made a U.S. manufacturing pledge also strikes a most-favored-nation agreement with the Trump administration, its tariffs can fall to zero, the official said.

The tariffs will be effective in 120 days, the official said, during which time large pharmaceutical companies can commit to invest in the U.S. or make MFN deals. Smaller companies will be given 180 days to make investment commitments.

MFN deals have been announced by all but one of the 17 major drugmakers the administration sent letters to last summer demanding lower prices, and the senior administration official said he didn’t anticipate that any drugmaker would ultimately face the 100% tariff. (…)

Outside of the manufacturing commitments and MFN deals, some nations will receive lower pharmaceutical tariff rates based on previous trade agreements their governments struck with the U.S. The European Union, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland will be subject to 15% tariffs on their pharmaceuticals, while the U.K.’s will be 10%. (…)

Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration would exclude generic drugs from the pharmaceutical tariffs after months of internal debate—a detail confirmed by the announcement on Thursday.

The biotechnology industry’s main trade group warned that tariffs would hurt smaller drug developers, which often lack the capital to build dedicated U.S. manufacturing facilities.

“U.S. biotech companies have been eager to expand investments here at home, but tariffs, along with an uncertain policy environment and efforts to force ‘most‑favored nation’ schemes, work directly against that goal,” John Crowley, president of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, said in a statement.

Stephen Ubl, president of the drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said: “Tariffs on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in U.S. investments announced in the last year.”

AI CORNER

Lawmakers in Maine are set to pass legislation freezing construction of large data centers, The Wall Street Journal notes today, as a ban on new facilities of 20 megawatts and above nears passage in the state Senate after advancing through the House of Representatives last month.

The Pine Tree State may soon have company: at least 10 states are preparing similar laws as rising energy costs and scant public support turn the political screws on data center initiatives. “I think Maine is the canary in the coal mine,” Anirban Basu, chief economist for the Associated Builders and Contractors trade group, told the WSJ. “Maine will be the first of many states to have such moratoria.”

Alongside rising political backlash, hyperscalers looking to rapidly build out artificial intelligence infrastructure face increasingly acute capacity snafus. 

Bloomberg relayed Wednesday that, thanks to shortages of key electrical equipment, nearly half of domestic data centers previously scheduled for completion in 2026 are likely to be delayed or cancelled outright. Facilities consuming as much as 12 gigawatts of power were supposed to come online this year, according to market intelligence outfit Sightline Climate but, as the fiscal second quarter gets underway, only one-third of those are now under construction.

AI-related outlays drove planned capital spending across the Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft quartet well above $600 billion this year, compared to $383 billion in 2025 and just $80 billion in 2019. With the unfolding energy shock set to jolt global commerce, a material downshift to those spending plans could catalyze a “really meaningful correction in all equity markets,” Melissa Otto, head of research at S&P Global Visible Alpha, warned Reuters on Tuesday.  “I think if the capex numbers get pulled back. . . that could be a catalyst.” (Almost Daily Grant’s)

Take Hormuz by Force? France and Britain Have Better Ideas

(…) The Old Continent had nothing to do with the US-Israeli war of choice, and yet the fallout is threatening their citizens’ safety, security and prosperity as diesel prices hit a four-year high and terrorism risks rise. Their efforts may even bear fruit. (…)

“The reopening of Hormuz is now very much the focus for Europe in the short term,” says Kristina Kausch of the German Marshall Fund. “There’s no appetite for doing this militarily without the US, so that means reducing Iran’s incentives to keep blocking it.” (…)

Saying “this is not our war” has been smart politics with domestic voters and a fully justified pushback to Trump’s recklessness and bullying. But the US appears to be belatedly realizing that arm-twisting and annexation threats are not the best way to get allies (and their military bases) onside after starting wars in their backyard. And Europe understands that it’s in this struggle, like it or not.

Its economies are at risk the longer the strait is blocked, with German growth potentially halving this year as a result. At the same time, the continent’s Gulf allies are being attacked by Iranian missiles and Russia has emerged as an obvious winner from the surge in oil prices, a loosening of energy sanctions and the depletion of weaponry that might be headed for Ukraine instead. (…)

The big unknown, of course, is the price Iran hopes to extract from agreeing to a durable arrangement for Hormuz, Antonio Barroso of Bloomberg Economics tells me. Tehran might demand an easing of economic sanctions. Its insistence that Israel and the US don’t attack again feels like an impossible demand. Iran says it is drafting a protocol with Oman to monitor traffic through the strait.

China, which also gets much of its energy supplies via the Gulf, could play a key role by offering incentives to Iran to de-escalate. Beijing has been enjoying the harm Trump is inflicting on America’s longstanding security ties, and there might be a chance here to step into the vacuum by helping the Europeans and Gulf monarchies. But would it be willing to offer security guarantees to Iran and expose itself to a possible confrontation with the US down the line? (…)

There might even be some upside for London and Brussels, as the UK and European Union are pushed closer together again by the antics of the White House. (…)

• Pentagon considers diverting Ukraine military aid to the Middle East

Wednesday’s TV Watch Party

(Serge Chapleau, La Presse)

Hegseth Removes Army Chief in Latest Purge of Military’s Top Ranks

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted the Army’s top general Thursday, the latest top military leader removed in a Pentagon that has seen a purge of its top ranks under the Trump administration.

Gen. Randy George’s departure was announced by the Pentagon, which provided no reason for his removal. (…)

With the departure of George, Hegseth has removed most of the leaders of the military services, an unusually high turnover. (…)

Hegseth also replaced the top military lawyers for the services. (…)

Bloomberg reminds us:

Admiral Alvin Holsey, who led US Southern Command, also stepped down unexpectedly as Trump ordered a military buildup in the Caribbean to target alleged drug trafficking boats. US forces in the region eventually participated in a special operations mission to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and helped erect a quarantine to better control the country’s oil resources.

George deployed during the Gulf War and later in Iraq and Afghanistan, building a reputation as an operational commander with deep experience across combat theaters. (…)

Trump Says He Will Finish the Job in Iran The President made his best case so far for attacking the regime in Tehran.

The WSJ Editorial Board

(…) The most important message we heard is that he’s not ending the war until the job is done, and Iran’s leaders would be wise to act accordingly. (…)

Trump assured them that he plans to continue the war to devastating effect if they don’t abandon their nuclear and terror ambitions. He made no offer of a cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the bombing would continue for at least another two to three weeks, though there was also an implicit threat of possible escalation. He threatened to destroy all of the country’s infrastructure, including its oil facilities and electric power production, if Iran’s leaders decide to go down fighting. Taking out power plants could be counterproductive by hurting the Iranian people we want on our side. But Iran should take the threat seriously, especially regarding its oil. (…)

He may be mistaken in his assertion that the Strait will easily open to oil flows once the bombing stops, but he also showed no sign he wants to walk away with Iran in charge of the Strait. (…)

Now let’s hope he sticks to that message long enough for it to sink in with the many audiences he was trying to reach, at home and abroad.

• “little journey”
• “We have all the cards. They have none.”
• Trump has not ruled out deploying US forces inside Iran, but did not refer to any plan for ground troops in Wednesday’s speech.
• “The hard part is done, so it should be easy,” Trump said.
• “In any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally,” “They are going to want to be able to sell oil because that is all they have to try and rebuild,” Trump said. “It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up.”

The Guardian:

(…) Asked about the stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) by Reuters news agency on Wednesday, Trump said: “That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that. We’ll always be watching it by satellite,” he added.

In his address to the nation from the White House on Wednesday night, Trump elaborated: “If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we will hit them with missiles very hard again.” (…)

Nuclear proliferation experts say that if the HEU stock remains under Iranian control at the end of hostilities, it would leave Tehran significantly closer to the capability of making nuclear bombs than the proposed settlement being negotiated in Geneva on 26 February, two days before the war began.

In those US-Iran talks, Iranian officials have said they had proposed diluting the HEU stockpile to low-enriched uranium, and reportedly agreed to keep only a much smaller stock of enriched uranium on its territory.

The Iranian proposal would have also included a multiyear pause in any uranium enrichment and paved the way for a restoration of a comprehensive monitoring regime by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Omani mediators at the Geneva negotiations thought that significant progress had been made, as did the UK’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, who was in Geneva at the time with British nuclear experts.

Another, more technical, round of talks was due to take place the following Monday in Vienna but it never happened, because the US and Israel launched their attack. (…)

The HEU stockpile itself is the consequence of Trump’s decision, in 2018 during his first term, to withdraw from a multilateral nuclear deal agreed three years earlier. That agreement limited the Iranian uranium stockpile to less than 4% enriched. Iran only began making 60% HEU after the agreement fell apart.

“The comment that you can just not worry about the material because you can see it from satellites really fundamentally misunderstands how to manage nuclear risk,” Belcher said. “The issue isn’t just whether we can see the material, it’s whether we can verify, secure and constrain it. And in order to do that, you need diplomacy, inspections and sustained international cooperation.”

• Ahead of Trump’s address, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian took the unusual step of releasing a letter addressed to Americans, arguing that his country had no enmity with the US. He warned that “continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before” and said that attacks on infrastructure — including on energy and industrial sites — directly targeted the Iranian people.
• Experts and organizations like Amnesty International and the ICRC have recently warned that current strikes in the Middle East—including those against Iran’s South Pars Gas Field and regional desalination plants—could be classified as war crimes if they intentionally target civilian survival resources. Attacking infrastructure solely to degrade an adversary’s economy or to influence the population’s will is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols .

Trump is playing the War card (see Judgement Call).

Winning with the War card looks scarily iffy, and tremendously costly, any which way one looks at it.

Not winning with the War card would be a US-made geopolitical catastrophe and, importantly, terminal for him and his legacy.

***

John Mauldin yesterday posted this map from J.P. Morgan:

When the war began, many ships were already enroute to their foreign destinations and are still enroute. The dates near each market show when those shipments will end.

This is important because at that point, the impact will become more than higher prices. Some areas will see physical shortages as the shipments stop arriving.

Source: Carl Quintanilla

• Most deliveries in Africa have already stopped.
• Most deliveries in Asia and SE Asia stopped yesterday.
• Most deliveries in Europe will stop April 10.
• Most deliveries in the USA will stop April 15.

The physical shortages force governments into drastic measures to conserve supplies, curbing economic growth. From the FT:

Middle-income and developing economies have been hit first and worst because of the higher energy intensity of their economies. In Asia in particular, they also lack domestic oil and gas production and have relied heavily on supplies from the Middle East. (…)

Asian economies are at the sharp end of the crisis. According to the US Energy Information Administration, 83 per cent of liquefied natural gas and 84 per cent of crude oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 was bound for Asia. (…)

“One should expect a near-term contraction in those economies that are most sensitive to energy imports.” (…)

Alongside drives for energy conservation, some countries are responding to high prices with FX intervention, as energy importers sell Treasury bonds and gold to pay for oil. Others have used their limited fiscal space to subsidise energy prices, which analysts say is short-sighted. (…)

“In essence every policymaker is choosing between a rock and a hard place,” says Clemens Graf von Luckner, a fellow at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and former economist at the World Bank. “You’re using any fiscal space you have for subsidies, which risks a debt crisis if high energy prices persist. They are effectively forced to bet on the situation in the Middle East reversing.” (…)

Even the European Commission is urging member states to conserve energy, including by encouraging populations to drive less. (…)

In a “downside scenario”, with oil prices averaging $135 per barrel in the second quarter of 2026, global GDP would fall 0.5 per cent by the second year of the shock compared with baseline projections, according to the OECD.

Europe would see a bigger hit of 0.75 per cent, while Asia-Pacific OECD countries would be hardest hit with a reduction of 0.95 per cent. (…)

The US is in relatively good position with its own large oil production and heavy oil imports from Canada needed for mid-Western refineries (it’s nice to have friends, sometimes…).

While the US is a net oil exporter, we still import large volumes of oil from other countries. Do you know where we get it? This chart shows American public opinion vs reality.

Source: True Discipline

Americans seem to believe our economy is ten times more dependent on Saudi Arabian oil than it really is. In fact, over 60% of our oil imports come from Canada. (Bruce Mehlman)

But don’t think Americans are not impacted:

Also, US military actions in Venezuela and Iran are directly impacting China’s oil imports. Iran provided around 1.4 million bpd, or about 13% of total Chinese imports, while Venezuela provided approximately 390,000–560,000 bpd. China has been quiet so far but it should shortly speak up.

Trump is scheduled to meet Xi May 14.

US Manufacturing Expands Most Since 2022, Input Costs Jump

The Institute for Supply Management’s gauge of prices paid for manufacturing inputs climbed another 7.8 points to 78.3, remaining at the highest since mid-2022. Over the past two months, the index has advanced 19.3 points, the most in nearly a decade. (…)

ISM’s measure of factory activity edged up to 52.7, boosted by firmer production growth and flattered by an increase in a gauge of supplier deliveries. The pickup in prices paid and longer lead times likely reflect the impact of trade disruptions related to the conflict. (…)

“In March, 64% of comments overall were negative,” Susan Spence, chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee, said in a statement. “Among the negative comments, about 20% cited tariffs and about 40% the war in the Middle East.” (…)

The supplier deliveries index rose to the highest since May 2022. Beyond energy, the Strait of Hormuz is a choke point for products including aluminum, fertilizer, and even helium, which is used in the production of semiconductors. (…)

The ISM report also showed new orders and backlogs grew at a solid, yet slower pace in March. (…)

S&P Global:

The headline index from the report recorded 52.3 in March. That was an improvement from 51.6 in February and indicative of a moderate rate of expansion.

Higher output and new orders helped to support the PMI in March. In both instances, growth rates were solid. Some firms reported an uplift in demand, linked in part to safety stock building and attempts to secure supply and prices following the outbreak of war in the Middle East.

However, growth was mainly domestically driven. International sales continued to decline as tariffs and shipping challenges weighed on foreign demand.

Firms are hopeful that March’s overall increase in sales will be sustained over the coming months, and with planned uplifts to capital expenditure and R&D also noted, confidence in the outlook remained positive overall.

However, worries over energy prices and tariffs meant expectations softened slightly since February. More uncertainty in the outlook also meant some firms engaged in safety stock building, the net result being solid growth in buying activity. Purchasing overall rose to its joint-greatest degree since June 2025, although inventories of inputs were unchanged in March. (…)

Latest data showed that average vendor times deteriorated to the greatest degree in nearly three-and-a-half years as the war in the Middle East led to noticeable disruptions in transportation and exacerbated stock shortages at vendors.

The war in the Middle East also had a noticeable impact on prices during March, principally by raising global energy prices. Manufacturers added that fuel prices had increased, whilst tariffs also continued to push up costs (most notably for aluminum and steel). Overall input prices subsequently rose sharply, with inflation picking up to its highest level since last August.

Wherever possible, firms increased their own charges in response to greater input costs. Factory gate prices rose at a noticeably quicker rate in March, with inflation reaching its highest in seven months.

Retail Sales

Not much media coverage yesterday amid everything else.

Ed Yardeni: “Retail sales data for February confirm that American consumers are still shopping. Headline retail sales rose 0.6% on the month, while control group sales, which feeds directly into GDP, gained 0.5%.”

But that +0.6% MoM jump came after –0.1% in January and 0.0% in December. Meanwhile, my proxy for retail sales inflation is +0.3% in February, –0.3% in January and +0.4% in December.

Last 3 months annualized: nominal sales +2.0%, inflation +1.6%, real sales +0.4%.

Goldman Sachs is even more negative: “Based on the details of the PCE and CPI reports, we estimate real retail sales declined at a 1.3% three-month annualized rate through February.”

The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker edged down to 1.9% from 2.0% following the release of retail sales data, which reflected a slightly weaker consumer spending contribution to Q1 growth.

Energy prices have surged since the war began, and the Cleveland Fed’s Inflation Nowcasting model shows headline CPI might have jumped 0.84% MoM in March and 3.25% YoY, a sharp step up from 2.4% in February.

Hmmm…