Aggregator
Unattended cooking is the reason for 33% of house fires — Are you prepared?
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle slammed for ‘bad planning’ after kids’ school switch | Royals Recap
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle slammed for ‘bad planning’ after kids’ school switch | Royals Recap
Meghan Markle sparks security scare after personal phone number leaks in school WhatsApp group
Meghan Markle sparks security scare after personal phone number leaks in school WhatsApp group
Fed Hikes Rates For First Time Since July 2023, Signals 1 More Hike In 2026
Tl;dr: As the market expected, The Fed hiked rates by 25bps (for the first time since July 2023) despite a trend lower in CPI over the last three months.
Today's decision was unanimous and the 'Dots' signal one more hike in 2026.
The Fed members increased their GDP outlooks, lowered their unemployment forecasts, but hiked their inflation outlooks...
The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.
Quick reminder:
-
In 2024, the Powell Fed cut 50bps 2 months before the presidential election with core CPI at 3.3%
-
In 2026, the Warsh Fed hikes 25bps 2 months before the midterms with core CPI at 2.4%
* * *
Since the last FOMC Meeting on July 29th, a lot has happened amid the supposed Summer doldrums, the dollar is lower while the anti-fiat trades (gold, bitcoin) and crude are all significantly higher with bonds the worst performers...
Stagflationary signals abound as inflation data has surprised to the upside while growth data has surprised to the downside since the last FOMC
But, the market is all-in, betting on a 25bps hike today - 95% versus 70% at the last FOMC, with a lot of noise in between. Dec odds are up from 40% to 70%. The market is pricing in 3.5 hikes into September of next year as the peak of the cycle...
So, before we get the decision, putting things in context, if Warsh were to hold rates here, it would be BY FAR the greatest surprise The Fed has ever hit the market with...
The Fed has historically always gone when market pricing is this high. That’s on top of a substantial hawkish repricing that has recently taken two-year yields to their highest since 2024 and pushed the 10-year through 5% to levels unseen since 2007.
So, what did he do? StatementAfter three dissents (in favor of a hike) in July, the Eccles Building establishment appears to have won the tug of war against The White House, with The Fed hiking rates 25bps (as fully priced in by the market)
-
*FED UNANIMOUSLY RAISES BENCHMARK RATE 25 BPS TO 3.75%-4% RANGE
-
*FED: RATE HIKE WILL SUPPORT `TIMELIER' RETURN TO 2% INFLATION
In June, 9 members saw at least 1 rate-hike in 2026:
-
3 hikes - 1 (Jun)
-
2 hikes - 5 (Jun)
-
1 hike - 3 (Jun)
-
No rate change - 8 (Jun)
-
1 cut - 1 (Jun)
Now in September, with 1 hike in the books, these are the number of hikes/cuts left in 2026
-
2 more hikes - 4
-
1 more hike - 12
-
No rate change - 2
-
No one sees rate-cuts
So the median dot suggest one more rate hike in 2026...
1 member sees four rate-cuts in 2027 and 3 see 2 cuts
-
1 hike in 2027 - 8
-
No rate-change in 2027 - 6
-
2 cuts - 3
-
4 cuts - 1
Only 18 of 19 officials submitted their 'dots' with some suggesting Warsh himself did not contribute again.
SEPThe Fed members increased their GDP outlooks, lowered their unemployment forecasts, but hiked their inflation outlooks...
Full RedlineKey changes:
-
Addition of "domestic spending has been resilient"
-
Capital investment reduced from "strong" to "robust"
-
Adds that "Today's policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal"
The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.
We haven’t seen one of those this century so far.
Jim Reid at Deutsche Bank catalogues that there were a few of those in the 1980s and 1990s.
Outside of them, "the shortest cycle on record remains the four hikes of 1986-87."
* * *
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 15:30Mamdani hires ‘gay communist’ who railed about abolishing police for $185K adviser role
Former Blue Jays pitcher, Fullerton, CA native, dies suddenly at 45
Haunting images show charred aftermath of NBC helicopter with station’s logo
Mat Barzal could miss start of season in Islanders injury blow
The Fed's Mortgage Policy Made Homeownership Cost More
Authored by Antón Chamberlin via The Daily Economy,
The median household in Miami earns about $62,000 annually; homeowners with a mortgage have monthly housing costs pushing $2,900. Annualized, this equals more than half the median household income. In Los Angeles, the numbers come in at $82,000 and $3,500 for 51 percent. New Yorkers are paying 49 percent, and New Orleanians are paying 47 percent of their annual income on housing.
Elena Berd via Shutterstock.Different coasts, different housing markets, different incomes, regulations, and supply constraints. And all of these cities illustrate a national reality that seems beyond dispute: housing has become extraordinarily expensive.
Lest these cities appear cherry-picked, let us consider Harvard's 2026 State of the Nation's Housing report. Existing-home sales are at a three-decade low. Meanwhile, median new and existing home prices exceed $400,000. Prices for the latter are now 54 percent higher than in 2020, nearly five times median household income.
Financially, mortgage rates sit above 6 percent. By late 2025, the monthly cost of the median-priced home reached roughly $3,100, requiring an annual income above $120,000 to afford it, compared with about $1,700 and $66,000, respectively, in early 2020.
This bleak picture is obviously the product of many factors. One, however, was the Federal Reserve's intervention in the housing market. During the COVID lockdown era, the Fed entered the mortgage market on a massive scale, helping push borrowing costs to historic lows. But its intervention did more than simply lower mortgage rates. It also affected households differently, creating benefits for those already in the housing market while making entry more difficult for those who were not.
The Fed's mortgage-backed-security (MBS) purchases helped capitalize cheap credit into higher home prices, which enriched current homeowners, all the while increasing the costs of entry for prospective buyers. Then, when the Fed raised rates to fight inflation, those same outsiders faced both higher prices and higher financing costs.
Beginning in March 2020, the Fed purchased trillions of MBSs, with Agency MBS holdings rising 93 percent in about two years, reaching $2.7 trillion by mid-2022. The Fed's immediate objective was seemingly achieved. Mortgage rates fell to historic lows, which the Dallas Fed explicitly laid at the feet of the Fed's MBS purchases.
Economic consequences, however, as Bastiat and Hazlitt showed for decades, extend beyond the short-run and the targeted groups. Cheaper mortgages increased households' purchasing power and contributed to greater housing demand, placing upward pressure on prices in a market where supply could not quickly adjust. Once inflation arrived, the Fed raised rates, causing this double whammy for would-be buyers. This had important distributional consequences.
At its peak, the Fed owned 32 percent of the entire agency MBS market. These purchases resulted in MBS prices rising and their yields falling, causing mortgage spreads to tighten. This tightening pushed mortgage rates down, allowing buyers to finance larger principal balances. Expanded borrowing opened up possibilities for buyers, further fueling housing demand. With the housing supply unable to sufficiently catch up to the new demand, the financial benefits were met with higher prices on the existing housing supply.
These results were not uniform, however. As with other exercises of monetary policy, where money enters matters.
The Cantillon Effect Comes HomeAs Nicolás Cachanosky explains, new money does not enter an economy everywhere, and certainly not simultaneously. Fed actions consist of particular injections at particular points, then following particular paths. It is punctiliar by nature, and this results in changing relative prices, which benefit earlier recipients before prices have adjusted to the intervention. In this context, the relevant "early recipients" do not necessarily receive literal new money, but the injection in question occurs in financial markets closely connected to mortgage credit.
Households can be divided into at least two groups: incumbent owners and prospective buyers, both of whom experience the Fed policy differently. Incumbent owners already possess an appreciating asset, with the potential to refinance at the initial lower rate, seeing their home equity rise. Prospective buyers, by contrast, possess no appreciating asset; therefore, they see their desired homes become more expensive. The same appreciation that increases an incumbent homeowner's net worth increases the price of entry for everyone still trying to buy.
Beginning in 2022, the Fed changed direction. But tightening does not just unwind the past. Homeowners who had purchased or refinanced at historically low rates could keep those mortgages, while new buyers faced even higher rates. The Fed noticed this "lock-in" effect. By June 2024, more than 90 percent of its MBS holdings had coupons below 4 percent.
The Fed's policy can be broken down into two segments, then. During the easing period, low rates and rising prices fed equity gains for homeowning incumbents. Then, the tightening led to a lock-in of those owners at the previously lower rates, as outsiders saw higher rates. And, of course, first-time buyers typically possess neither asset: the equity nor the existing low-rate mortgage to offset these higher financing costs.
A Federal Reserve study from 2023 documented this phenomenon. A one-percentage-point increase in mortgage rates reduced the share of low- and moderate-income homebuyers by about 7.5 percent, with low-income buyers falling by 16 percent. These effects were even larger for first-time buyers. There was also little evidence of larger down payments to counteract the rising rates, suggesting that many could not substitute savings for the higher monthly payment. Evidence also suggests that loose monetary policy passing through to mortgage rates negatively affects family formation and fertility rates.
In total, then, we see the following. Lower rates create unequal access to cheap credit, and the subsequent higher rates affected buyers disparately. The Fed changed not only the cost of financing a house, but the composition of participants in the market. Interest rate policy altered who could buy.
America now has expensive housing, huge mortgages, fewer purchases, declining homeownership, and a growing segment of the population crowded out. At the very least, the Fed exacerbated this from 2020-2022. The broader lesson here is that monetary policy does not change interest rates or prices in isolation. Money always enters particular markets, changes particular relative prices, and creates particular winners and losers. In this instance, the Fed inflated the price of a scarce asset (appreciation for current homeowners). Once the subsidy was removed, the wealth redistribution it caused did not reverse. The consequence is our current state - not just housing inflation, but a higher price of entry.
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 15:25"Calm Before The Storm?" UBS Warns Of Stock Market Turbulence As Midterms Loom
"This may be the calm before the storm," UBS chief economist Arend Kapteyn wrote in a note on Wednesday morning.
Kapteyn is referring to a historically turbulent stretch for equity markets ahead of midterm elections, which threatens to amplify the seasonal rise in market volatility.
"Indeed, since 1928, these have been the most volatile months of the calendar, with volatility increasing in both election and non-election years before falling sharply thereafter," Kapteyn continued.
Since 1950, the president's party has lost an average of 25 House seats and three Senate seats in midterm elections, Kapteyn said.
For this election, Kapteyn cited betting odds close to 50-50 for Democratic control of the Senate, asserting there was little reason to expect less uncertainty or volatility in the months ahead.
Bank of America's Michael Hartnett expects a market rout if Democrats sweep. Traders worry that Democrats have already signaled regulatory safeguards and data center moratoriums that could stymie the AI bubble. We detailed these threats in a note titled "If Dems Win The House: Data Centers, Nuclear, Venezuela Oil Deal Likely Targets."
Meanwhile, JPMorgan's Andrew Tyler recently shared his base-case with clients: Across the 23 midterm cycles since 1934, the sitting president's party has lost roughly 27 House seats and about 3 Senate seats on average. Applied to a 218-seat Republican House majority and a 53-47 Senate, history says Democrats take the House and Republicans hold the Senate. And while betting markets give Dems an 85% chance of taking back the House, the chance Republicans keep the Senate is a very tight 53% according to Kalshi.
Polymarket suggests the market is pretty sure the Dems will sweep...
Kapteyn added more color on equity vol trends:
The S&P's performance mirrors this volatility pattern. During midterm election years, the S&P 500 has typically declined between late August and early October, but by March of the following year it has recovered and delivered an average return of roughly 14% (with a median return of 16.4%).
The only exceptions were 1978, during the inflation shock, 2002, following the tech bubble burst, and 2018, amid trade-war tensions and Fed tightening. By contrast, the average return over the same period in other years is less than 5%. With betting odds of Democratic control of the Senate still close to 50-50, there is little reason to believe uncertainty (and volatility) will be lower this year than in past midterm election years
Kapteyn then questions: "The calm before the storm?"
* * * Perfect EDC flashlight...
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 15:05US Announces South Africa Visa Curbs Citing Racism Against Afrikaners
Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Department of State announced Tuesday new visa restrictions against some foreign nationals in South Africa who are alleged to be involved in discrimination and incitement of violence against minority groups in the country.
A State Department news release said the policy will target any individual involved in racially motivated crime, uncompensated land seizures, government-sponsored discrimination, and race-based legislation against the Afrikaner community, a white South African group of Dutch, German, or French descent, and any other minority ethnic or racial groups in the nation.
U.S. President Donald Trump has alleged on several occasions that a "white genocide" is happening in South Africa, which the country's President Cyril Ramaphosa has denied.
"As [Trump] has made clear, the South African people are being failed by a government that is destroying its economy through an obsessive pursuit of racial grievance against the Afrikaner minority," State Secretary Marco Rubio wrote on X.
"The South African government has consistently failed to adequately address rural crime, violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and race-based discriminatory policies against Afrikaners and other minority populations."
Rubio added that the alleged behavior will not go unchecked and that actions against minority groups in South Africa undermine peace, economic stability, rule of law, and are incompatible with the foundations of America's foreign policy.
"Those responsible for these injustices have no place in the United States," Rubio said. "We once again strongly urge the South African government to quickly address these egregious actions."
The state secretary referenced Trump's executive order, titled Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, signed in February 2025.
That directive pulled $440 million in yearly funds that went to South Africa over similar concerns.
The executive order highlighted Ramaphosa's signing of the Expropriation Act, which is facing a legal challenge. Trump said the legislation enabled the government to seize Afrikaners' agricultural property without compensation.
"The United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation," Trump said in his order.
The president directed the State Department and Homeland Security to prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement, for Afrikaners.
On May 12, dozens of Afrikaners arrived in the United States after they were granted refugee status.
About a week later, Ramaphosa flew to Washington, where the two world leaders held a tense meeting in the Oval Office.
Trump confronted Ramaphosa with allegations of mass violence against Afrikaners, and the South African leader denied that any killings or violence are taking place.
In a dramatic moment, Trump instructed his staffers to "turn the lights down."
He showed a several-minute-long video showing crowds at rallies calling for white South African farmers to be shot, which was followed by scenes of what Trump described as burial sites for Afrikaners.
"These are burial sites right here. Burial sites of over 1,000 white farmers," Trump said, speaking over the video. "Each one of those white things you see is a cross."
Ramaphosa looked away from the video, said he'd never seen it before, and wanted to know where it was filmed.
"I mean, it's in South Africa," Trump responded.
Relations between D.C. and Pretoria, the South African capital city, have been at an all-time low, as Trump and other administration officials criticized the country's policies. Trump has also imposed high tariffs on South Africa.
Before Ramaphosa's visit to the White House last year, Rubio skipped a G20 meeting hosted in Johannesburg, South Africa.
"South Africa is doing very bad things," Rubio wrote on X, explaining his absence. "Using G20 to promote 'solidarity, equality, & sustainability.' In other words: DEI and climate change. My job is to advance America's national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism."
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 14:45Watch Live: Fed Chair Warsh Explains Why He Hiked Rates Into Stagflation
The FOMC just (unanimously) hiked rates for the first time since July 2023 despite recent inflation prints slowing...
Additionally, recent macro surprises are clearly signaling stagflation - the central banker's nemesis...
So, a hike for credibility... but Warsh’s biggest challenge will be communicating his outlook without reverting to forward guidance, even as markets seek clarity on whether today’s likely move is one-and-done, or the start of a broader tightening cycle.
With investors forced to extract more signal from his language, the press conference carries outsized front-end risk.
In a note to clients, BMO notes two-year yields have moved an average 14bps across his five public appearances as chair so far.
The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.
We haven’t seen one of those this century so far.
Jim Reid at Deutsche Bank catalogues that there were a few of those in the 1980s and 1990s.
Outside of them, "the shortest cycle on record remains the four hikes of 1986-87."
While all the talk is about the 'unanimous' decision today with the great majority of dots signaling at least one more hike this year... The Fed is extremely divided next year with four members see at least 2 rate-CUTS (policy error much)...
Quick reminder:
-
In 2024, the Powell Fed cut 50bps 2 months before the presidential election with core CPI at 3.3%
-
In 2026, the Warsh Fed hikes 25bps 2 months before the midterms with core CPI at 2.4%
Will Trump comment?
Watch the FOMC press conference live here (due to start at 1430ET):
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 14:25