Looking back to 2012, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – a collaboration of the 12 regional Fed banks and the Federal Reserve Governors in Washington – came together and published a Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy.

This officially rang in the FOMC’s public commitment to maintain inflation at 2 percent. It is based on a yearly change in the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, and is in accordance with The Federal Reserve’s “mandate for maximum employment and price stability.”

Guided by three events in the economy, according to the Brookings Institution, the FOMC was prompted to take a second look at 2012’s existing framework. The first factor, an approximation of the “neutral level” of interest rates, or interest rate levels correlated “with full employment” and inflation targets, kept dropping globally. The “lower neutral rate” is achieved when short-term interest rates, which are controlled by The Fed, stay at levels closer to zero versus higher levels. When this occurs, The Fed has little room to further lower interest rates, and therefore stimulate the economy. The next factor involves inflation rates and anticipation for future inflation rates to stay below The Fed’s 2 percent target. The last factor was unemployment falling to a five-decade low.

The FOMC’s Aug. 27 update reveals that the inflation rate has been lower than the 2 percent inflation target in recent years, despite housing, food, and energy increasing in price for consumers.

When there’s too little inflation, as The Fed explains, it can negatively impact the economy. If inflation remains below The Fed’s “longer-run inflation goal,” it can propel a self-fulfilling prophecy of further declining inflation levels.

As originally explained in 2012 and updated in August, the FOMC’s purpose is to “promote maximum employment,” keep prices stable, and “moderate long-term interest rates.” It also guides individuals and business owners with more information to make decisions, promotes greater “economic and financial certainty” and increases “transparency and accountability.”

The Fed, based on their FAQ section, has said that when inflation runs below 2 percent for an extended period of time, monetary policy will adjust to run above 2 percent for a period of time. Therefore, the FOMC is hoping to ensure that “longer-run inflation” will average at 2 percent.

The FOMC’s monetary policy is a big determinate in keeping the economy stable when the economy and financial systems are put out of balance due to factors such as inflation, long-term interest rates, and employment. The FOMC accomplishes its monetary policy via the “target range for the federal funds rate.”

Looking at the “level of the federal funds rate consistent with maximum employment and price stability over the longer run,” this rate has dropped compared to past average rates. With this in mind, the federal funds rate is generally expected to remain on the lower end of the rate spectrum more so now, versus years back. With interest rates closer to the bottom end, the FOMC believes that inflation and employment perils are more likely to stay depressed.

Based on comments from The Fed in August, the FOMC clarifies its Congressional Mandate regarding price stability and maximum employment, along with determinations on its short-term interest rate and other monetary policy considerations.

Following up on its Congressional mandate for The Fed to ensure maximum employment and price stability, the first thing to focus on is price stability or inflation.

Before, The Fed had a price stability target of 2 percent inflation, based upon the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index. The FOMC called this price stability “symmetric,” meaning that inflation above or below the target is equally concerning.

However, its new stance will now focus on attaining “inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time” after an ongoing time period of tame inflation. Based on comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, this is a flexible form of average inflation targeting.

This end goal of average inflation targeting suggests that when inflation is below the 2 percent target over an extended period of time, the FOMC will adjust its policy to encourage inflation above the 2 percent target to attain balance. However, The Fed didn’t give details regarding the time frame for its new averaged 2 percent inflation target, nor did it specify what actions it will implement to achieve it.

The Fed also made noteworthy changes to its “maximum employment” mandate. When it comes to this measurement, it originally compared the projections of “the long-run rate of unemployment” to the unemployment rate. According to the Brookings Institution, this also can be referred to as “the natural rate of unemployment or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).”

Since live estimates of the NAIRU can be unreliable, it’s no longer being considered. While the Summary of Economic Projections will still include estimates of unemployment statistics by FOMC members, it will unofficially take the place of the NAIRU readings. However, these FOMC members’ long-run estimates of unemployment will have less impact on monetary policy decisions.

How Do Interest Rates Looking Going Forward?

With these two changes to The Fed’s Congressional mandates, many expect monetary policy to be quite loose over the coming years, according to the Brookings Institution. By permitting hotter than normal inflation and low rates of unemployment, there’s a remote chance The Fed will increase interest rates prior to inflation running north of 2 percent for a measurable time period. 

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), the spread of the coronavirus will impact the world’s economy. Whether it’s a Reuter’s poll from economic experts projecting growth in China slowing to 4.5 percent in Q1 of 2020, in contrast to China’s Q4 GDP of 6 percent; or the International Energy Agency (IEA) saying world desire for oil will be lower due to the coronavirus; or global companies reducing or temporarily closing their Chinese factories, change is on its way. Based on this data, what does the global economic outlook entail?

In order to understand how the coronavirus might impact global economies, it’s important to put this in context of other global events. Based on a February 2020 Monetary Policy Report from The Federal Reserve, there’s a mixed outlook for recent and projected economic activity. While the Fed notes that oil prices have increased over the past six months of 2019, in part due to OPEC members cutting production and brief tensions with Iran in January 2020, The Fed attributes more recent drops in oil prices to the coronavirus and associated lowered global demand.

Due to China’s already slowing economy, the IEA is projecting 435,000 fewer barrels of oil on an annual basis during Q1 of 2020, the worst in a decade. Looking at statistics from the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), airlines are expected to see revenue losses of between $4 billion and $5 billion in the first three months of 2020. With the coronavirus impacting China, thereby reducing outbound travel to Japan and Thailand, losses could be as big as $1.29 billion and $1.15 billion for each respective country.  

The Fed explains that in 2019, manufacturing has been challenged both globally and domestically. Citing the industrial production (IP) index, the first six months of 2019 saw declines in both domestic and global activity. For 2019, U.S. production dropped by 1.3 percent for durable and non-durable goods. This is attributed to trade issues with China, soft economic growth worldwide, less than aggressive investment from businesses, declining oil prices that lower continued production by crude producers and production issues with Boeing’s 737 Max airplanes.

However, despite the manufacturing slowdown in China, the United States’ manufacturing base shouldn’t see the same impact from the coronavirus. The Fed says that factoring in purchasing materials for production on the input end, and transporting, wholesaling and retailing products post production, the drop of 1.3 percent on the industrial production index equates to a 0.5 percent drop in U.S. GDP. For context, compared to the U.S. manufacturing employing 30 percent of workers 70 years ago, it presently employs 9 percent of workers.     

One way to see how the coronavirus might play out is to look at how SARS impacted China in 2003. Based on data from the National Bureau of Statistics in China, it took three months, during Q1 of 2003, where China’s economic growth dropped to 9.1 percent, from 11.1 percent. While a much smaller economy, on a global scale, in future quarters China was able to grow at an annualized rate of 10 percent, per Refinitiv. However, economists note that if SARS didn’t impact China, there could have been another 0.5 percent to 1 percent increase in annual growth.   

Another comparison with SARS is China’s retail sales. Refinitiv shows that May 2003 retail sales dropped to 4.3 percent. This is compared to between 8 percent and 10 percent for retail sales figures in March 2003 and July 2003, showing how serious the impact SARS made, but also China’s resiliency.

While the Chinese economy impacts the global economy today more than when SARS hit, it also has a more responsive economy and a larger middle class. Only time will tell as to the coronavirus’ impact, but based on past experience, it should only be a matter of time before China’s (and the global) economy bounces back to greater economic output. 

According to a Jan. 16 press release from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, within the first six months of 2020, the federal department will begin issuing a 20-year Treasury bond. This is the U.S. government’s attempt to maintain and support the federal government’s ability to borrow into the future. This action will also have an impact on the markets going forward, especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy.  

The Federal Reserve’s many purposes include promoting stability and growth in the economy by keeping prices stable and healthy employment levels. The ways The Fed does this is by influencing short-term interest rates, being active in Open Market Operations (OMO) and impacting reserve requirements.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis details that along with providing banks with loans from the federal funds market to support adequate reserves and liquidity, it’s important to understand how Open Market Operations function.

Much like individuals and institutions can buy or sell securities, The Fed can buy or sell securities, including U.S. Treasury bonds. The buying and selling are the operations portion. The open market refers to the fact that The Fed doesn’t transact directly with the U.S. Treasury, but works on the open market via auctions through the Trading Desk of the New York Fed.

Assuming there’s a modification to the federal funds rate’s target range by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the directive starts the reaction to either purchase or sell government securities to meet the new target. The OMO is one way the Fed adjusts its two-pronged mandate of promoting employment and maintaining target inflation.       

If the Fed wants to stimulate the economy, it can do so through Treasury bond purchases. This occurs when the Fed makes a deposit into the seller’s bank account via the Trading Desk. This purchase increases the reserve balance of the bank offering the Treasury bond for sale, which increases the bank’s ability and willingness to lend.

In the opposite scenario, the Fed can reduce the amount of money available that banks can use for lending. This time the Fed sells government securities, prompting banks to remove money from their bank accounts, reducing the amount available for lending. As pressure on the federal funds rate increases, rates will go up, making loans cost more for borrowers and incentivizing savings.

During the financial crisis, the FOMC engaged in quantitative easing (QE) after it brought the federal funds rate to near zero. This approach consisted of buying longer-term U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) through open market operations. As the St. Louis Fed explains, in exchange for the Fed buying these securities, banks receive a credit that increases their reserve balances above reserve requirements. While this was far more prevalent during the financial crisis, the 20-year U.S. Treasury bonds will undoubtedly make QE easier to re-engage in.

While the government may benefit from the direct investment and its ability for the Fed to guide the economy, there are a few potential risks for those who invest in U.S. Treasury bonds. Compared to many other investments, Treasury bonds have lower yields, which are even lower when inflation runs high. Another risk is that when rates rise, the value of the Treasury bond goes down, creating less attractive debt if the owner wants to sell it.

The Jan. 16 press release noted that more details on the 20-year bond will be available in the U.S. Treasury’s quarterly refunding statement on Feb. 5. Only time will tell the level of interest among investors and how effective this instrument will be in creating further cash flow for the U.S. Treasury.

When it comes to 2020 and energy prices, the world’s energy market will face many known and unknown variables. How and what types of events that will ultimately play out are unknown but, according to industry and government experts, there are some variables that are projected to lead to lower global prices overall.

Based on a Dec. 10 short-term energy outlook publication from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), there will be a mix of pushes and pulls on the price of crude oil and associated refining products. Market prices in 2020 for Brent crude oil is expected to average around $61, compared to 2019’s $64 average price per barrel. Looking at West Texas Intermediate (WTI) quotes, the EIA sees this type of crude settling, on average, at about $5.50 per barrel lower than Brent crude oil in 2020. The EIA bases its lowered price forecast on greater supplies of oil globally, especially in the first half of 2020. 

The agency’s data shows that in September 2019, America exported more than 90,000 net barrels per day of products from and crude oil itself. This is coupled with domestic export projections of 570,000 net barrels per day in 2020, in contrast to average net imports of 490,000 barrels per day in 2019.

According to EIA’s projections, U.S. crude oil production will grow by 900,000 barrels per day in 2020, compared to 2019’s production, resulting in 13.2 million barrels of daily production in 2020. This growth is compared to 2019’s production gains of 1.3 million barrels per day, and 2018’s 1.6 million barrel per day growth. The decrease in production, attributed by the EIA, is due to increased rig efficiency and well level productivity, despite the number of rigs dropping.

The EIA believes that OPEC and its “+” oil producing states will go beyond announced oil production cuts on Dec. 6, further cutting production through March 2020. The original cuts of 1.2 million barrels per day, announced in December 2018, have been modified to reducing production to 1.7 million barrels per day. The EIA expects the major global producers to keep production curtailed through all of 2020, due to increasing global oil inventories.

Fuel Standard’s Impact on Oil Prices

Through implementation of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Jan. 1, 2020, is ushering in new standards for allowable levels of sulfur in bunker fuel. This fuel will be required to contain no more than 0.5 percent sulfur content, compared to current allowable levels of 3.5 percent of the bunker oil’s weight. In reaction to the new standards, the EIA expects American refineries to increase operations by 3 percent in 2020 versus 2019’s production. It’s expected to increase wholesale margins in 2020 to 57 cents per gallon, on average, with it spiking to 61 cents per gallon. This is compared to 45 cents a gallon in 2019.

The Federal Reserve and Oil Prices

According to the Dec. 11, 2019, FOMC statement from The Federal Reserve, there was no modification to the federal funds rate. They based their decision on a yearly measure for inflation, excluding food and energy, along with signs of continued economic expansion, including healthy job creation and continued high rates of employment. However, the Fed indicated that if its goals of fostering a growing economy, maintaining a healthy job market and a 2 percent inflation target fall short, it will take appropriate action to keep supporting economic expansion. Depending on the Fed’s action to lower, increase or maintain its rates, the price of oil would feel the impacts.

While there’s no telling how fiscal policy and geopolitical events will play out in 2020, it looks like the price of oil will head south.

The so-called phase one of a trade deal with China is expected to contain a provision for $40 billion to $50 billion in purchases of American agricultural products by China, according to an October news release from U.S. Sen. John Hoeven (D-ND) With ongoing discussions surrounding the US-Sino trade talks, there are rumors for such a partial trade deal. But how has the recent past impacted both countries’ economies and a mutual desire for better trade deals?

While not directly related but announced during a similar time frame, a November press release from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced Chinese acknowledgment and acceptance of American poultry exports. This stated that China will now accept $1 billion in American poultry and related poultry products, effectively reversing China’s ban.

After a December 2014 avian influenza outbreak, China banned US poultry in January 2015. America exported more than half a billion dollars of poultry to China in 2013, and there has been much interest in restarting exports to China since August 2017. With the USTR citing U.S. poultry exports of $4.3 billion in 2018, this will undoubtedly ensure America maintains its position as the globe’s second biggest poultry exporter.

According to a late October press release from the USTR, there will be a 30-day comment period in November to garner public opinion on continuing tariff exemptions on certain Chinese goods, worth approximately $34 billion. The items currently exempt are set to reverse exclusion on Dec. 28. Additionally, as part of phase one discussions, the United States is expected to not implement tariffs scheduled to take effect on Dec. 15, along with rolling back existing tariffs in stages.

Trade War’s Impact

According to BNP Paribas Wealth Management, the trade impasse between the United States and China has had a measurable negative impact on the world’s economy. BNP cited a 1.2 percent point reduction in growth over the past 1.5 years.

However, the phase one deal is expected to include many provisions, such as $40 billion to $50 billion of US farm product exports to China, along with $16 billion to $20 billion of Boeing aircraft for commercial use to China.

Financial institutions outside of China will be able to establish insurance companies in mainland China, financed by ex-China investments, along with being able to hold shares in the newly created entities. Ex-China lending institutions will be able to create wholly owned banks and conduct business in the Yuan or Renminbi (RMB) currency throughout mainland China without explicit approval from Chinese officials.

These developments, according to the Chinese State Council and China Banking and Regulatory Commission and CNBC, are part of the ongoing discussions to determine how China will increase IP protection and the aforementioned agricultural purchases. Announced on Oct. 11, 2019, the China Securities Regulatory Commission will work on lifting limits on ownership ceilings for ex-China entities, specifically in mutual funds, securities and futures operating in China.

BNP also mentions expectations of Dec. 15, 2019, tariffs to not be implemented, along with expectations for existing tariffs to be relaxed or reduced. In addition to giving American farmers increased sales, this will provide China with more soybeans for domestic consumption, including an ability to help increase the number of the country’s pork livestock population through feedstock. If phase one is agreed to, it’s also expected to help the RMB appreciate. Based on recent data, the RMB has appreciated by three percent since September 2019.   

One noteworthy item that depends on a phase one deal being certified is the expectation that it will positively impact the global economy. The International Monetary Fund dropped its World Economic Outlook gross domestic product projection from 3.2 percent in July 2019, down to 3.0 percent, based on the current trade tensions.

Since there’s great hope for a phase one deal that will encourage mutual and global economic development, there’s confidence that both countries facing economic hardships will find a short-term resolution.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, retail sales came in at a negative 0.3 percent for September, even though it’s still 4.1 percent more than September 2018’s report. The same report followed up on August 2019’s numbers, with a revision by the agency to 0.6 percent, up from 0.4 percent. With the ongoing U.S.-China trade war and tariff uncertainty, how will consumer spending be impacted?

Current State of Trade and Tariffs

With phase one agreed to, at least in principle, at the end of the meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu on Oct. 11, President Trump agreed to keep tariffs at 25 percent on $250 billion in Chinese imports, instead of increasing the tariffs to 30 percent. Additional tariffs also are threatened to be imposed on Dec. 15 for other goods, depending on future negotiations. However, by then the fourth quarter will be nearly completed, so this will probably lessen the likelihood of reduced U.S. consumer spending during the holiday shopping season.

According to an Oct. 3 press release, the National Retail Federation (NRF) projects that consumer purchases for the 2019 holiday season will come in between $727.9 billion and $730.7 billion. The current holiday spending is projected to grow between 3.8 percent and 4.2 percent compared to 2018. It’s important to note that the NRF’s 2019 projections don’t include restaurants, auto dealerships or gas stations. And the projections are higher despite an average retail sales growth of 3.7 percent over the past five years.

The NRF says that along with interest rate and global economic concerns and a politicizing of the economy, trade is an equally concerning factor for retail sales.   

As the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced an additional 10 percent of tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese imports, effective Sept. 1, the NRF explained that consumer confidence was shaken. A September 2019 NRF survey found that 79 percent of retail shoppers were worried that tariffs will increase the prices of goods they would be buying.

With the USTR reporting on Aug. 23 that $112 billion of Chinese imports will face tariffs of 15 percent, up from 10 percent, on Sept. 1, the NRF explains how it impacts consumer items, especially footwear and apparel. The NRF gives a few examples of how consumers, specifically football fans, will be impacted negatively.

Footballs made in China are now subject to 15 percent tariffs, no longer 10 percent. While sweatshirts, T-shirts and jerseys (for football and all professional sports teams made in China), are subject to a 15 percent tariff – this is still a sizeable cost increase. If these were subject to 25 percent tariffs, research by the Trade Partnership done for the NRF found that it would cost U.S. consumers $4.4 billion extra for this type of apparel.

While it hasn’t happened yet, the $160 billion of Chinese imports currently subject to 10 percent tariffs are expected to be increased to a 15 percent tariff on Dec. 15. While it’s still expected to be implemented at the tail end of Q4, any effects will naturally be felt in 2020.

While there’s no way to determine how tariffs will impact retail sales officially calculated, consumers will certainly take a second look at prices whether or not they make a purchase.

With the United States Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agriculture Service announcing a purchase of 204,000 metric tons of U.S. soybeans by private Chinese importers, there are hopes that the trade war is beginning to dissipate.

Seeing that the last significant purchase of U.S. soybeans by China was in June, professional traders see the September acquisitions as a potential weakening of the U.S.-China trade war. With the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service announcing more than 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans purchased by private Chinese operators on Sept. 13, 16 and 17, there are signs of positive movement between the two nations.

The shipments are expected to leave between October and December from ports in the Pacific Northwest. Looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, soybean futures hit monthly highs on Sept. 16. Coupled with November futures contracts well off their lows, this shows renewed promise. The purchase of soybeans is part of China’s gesture of goodwill to buy other agricultural products, such as pork, during ongoing trade negotiations.

These recent developments are important because China increased tariffs on American soybeans by 25 percent in July 2018 in response to the Trump Administration’s tariffs. On Sept. 1, 2019, U.S. soybeans were subject to another 5 percent in import tariffs by China.

The Context of Soybean Sales

Based on data from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), there was a drop in soy exports from the U.S. to China to $3.1 billion, or 18 percent of U.S. soybean exports for 2018.

The 2018 U.S. soybean export figure to China represents a drop of 75 percent, compared to 2017’s U.S. sales exports of soybeans worth $12.2 billion to China. The large drop in 2018 is also noteworthy against U.S. exports of soybeans to China in 2016 of $10.5 billion. This drop was directly attributable to trade tensions.

It’s important to note that soybeans are America’s biggest agricultural export (16 percent of all agricultural exports) – $20.9 billion annually on average between 2014 and 2018. With China importing more than 50 percent of U.S. soy over the past 60 months, it illustrates why the trade war has been so impactful. In response to the sharp drop in exports to China, 2018 began the quest for U.S. growers of soybeans to counteract the $9.1 billion drop in soy exports to China by finding new buyers in Mexico, the European Union and Egypt.

Similarly, as the Congressional Research Service points out, trade talks are working toward building upon an existing $12.9 billion of U.S. agricultural exports to Japan, as of 2018. Current talks have expectations for an additional $7 billion in U.S. agricultural exports to Japan. Soybeans, along with dairy, wine, beef and pork, are examples of agricultural imports Japan is willing to buy, based on soon-to-be released details from finalized U.S.-Japanese trade talks.  

However, despite maintaining a competitive or even subpar price against competitor nations such as Brazil, it didn’t sway the Chinese to buy more American soy. Much like American farmers and with China’s state-influenced help, there may be long-term, structural changes for future Chinese soybean purchases even if trade tensions subside. However, China also has established new suppliers of soybeans from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia.

While many do expect a trade deal between the United States and China, there could very well be structural and long-lasting changes on how both countries conduct trade for years to come.

According to an Aug. 13 press release from the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), there will be a 10 percent tariff levied against $300 billion of Chinese imports effective Sept. 1. The same press release announced a modification, after hearing from the public and business owners, exempting some of the $300 billion in Chinese imports from the 10 percent tariff until Dec. 15.

Items Subject to the 10 Percent Tariff on Sept. 1

Highlights from the USTR’s list include select types of coffee, fruit, vegetables, insects and bees. Along with dairy products, livestock such as sheep, horses and goats are subject to the 10 percent tariff.

Items Subject to the 10 Percent Tariff on Dec. 15

The USTR pointed out that many of the items recently exempted include consumer goods such as computer displays, select shoes and clothes, LED lamps, slide projectors and playing cards. Other items on the list include notebooks, video game systems, toys, snowshoes and parts, fishing rods and reels, paint rollers and microwave ovens.

2019 Forecast

When it comes to industry experts and associations, it looks like there will be limited impacts from the trade spat between the United States and China, coupled with pressure from government shutdown in the beginning of the year. According to the National Retail Federation (NRF), 2019 is expected to see an increase in spending between 3.8 percent and 4.4 percent – or more than $3.8 trillion.

Initial figures per the NRF detail that retail sales for 2018 increased by 4.6 percent, outpacing the organization’s growth expectations of 4.5 percent. 2018’s figures are compared to 2017’s of $3.68 trillion in retail sales. 2018’s estimates factor in a 10 percent to 12 percent increase in online sales, which is also expected for 2019. One caveat for these projections by the NRF is that it doesn’t include dining, gas stations or auto dealers. GDP is expected to grow about 2.5 percent over 2019.

The NRF explained that due to lower energy costs, specifically tame retail gas prices and low interest rates, there should be minimal negative consumer impact. However, the NRF cautions that while the retail industry has been able to cushion the 10 percent tariffs, if tariffs increase to 25 percent, it will have a greater impact on consumers’ costs and retailers’ profitability.

Based upon recent developments, business earnings will face greater challenges. According to the United States Trade Representative’s Aug. 23 press release, tariff rates for $250 billion worth of Chinese imports currently subject to a 25 percent tariff rate will increase to 30 percent effective Oct. 1. For the $300 billion in Chinese imports described above, those going into effect Sept. 1 and Dec. 15, instead of being subjected to a 10 percent tariff, each batch will be subject to a 15 percent tariff rate.

With the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasting a drop in the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3 by 2020, Daniel Fried explains that there’s no doubt the U.S.-China trade tensions have and will take a toll on the economy. Fried explains how they’ll affect consumer spending and business expenditures:

• The initial impact is that consumers and businesses will have a lowered purchasing power.
• The next impact is that businesses will either slow or decide to divert investments elsewhere, such as realigning their supply chains to mitigate the tariff impacts.
• There’s also concern that while businesses may lose international business, that might be offset by domestic consumption.

With Fried and the CBO projecting the mean income for households will be reduced by $580 by 2020, based on 2019 purchasing power, it’ll certainly make consumers think twice about where and how to allocate their spending. This will likely take a toll on companies’ sales figures and likely future earnings reports.