ADVERTISEMENT

Deustche Bank Predicts US Recession

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
37,337
52,574
113
The Federal Reserve's fight against inflation will spark a recession in the United States that begins late next year, Deutsche Bank warned on Tuesday.
The recession call -- the first from a major bank -- reflects growing concern that the Fed will hit the brakes on the economy so hard that it will inadvertently end the recovery that began just two years ago.
"We no longer see the Fed achieving a soft landing. Instead, we anticipate that a more aggressive tightening of monetary policy will push the economy into a recession," Deutsche Bank economists led by Matthew Luzzetti wrote in the report.

That forecast is driven by red-hot inflation, with consumer prices rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Hopes that inflation would rapidly cool off have been dashed, in part because of the war in Ukraine.

Inflationary pressures have broadened out, raising concern that the Fed will have to rapidly raise interest rates to get prices under control. Deutsche Bank pointed to how energy and food commodity prices have spiked since Russia invaded Ukraine.
"It is now clear that price stability...is likely to only be achieved through a restrictive monetary policy stance that meaningfully dents demand," the Deutsche Bank economists wrote.

Although Deutsche Bank cautioned there is "considerable uncertainty" around the exact timing and size of the downturn, it's now calling for the US economy to shrink during the final quarter of next year and the first quarter of 2024, "consistent with a recession during that time."
The good news is Deutsche Bank is not forecasting a deep and painful recession like the past two downturns.
Rather, the bank expects a "mild recession," with unemployment peaking above 5% in 2024. That would still translate to considerable layoffs. During the Great Recession unemployment peaked at far higher levels of 14.7% in 2020 and 10% in 2009.

 
The Federal Reserve's fight against inflation will spark a recession in the United States that begins late next year, Deutsche Bank warned on Tuesday.
The recession call -- the first from a major bank -- reflects growing concern that the Fed will hit the brakes on the economy so hard that it will inadvertently end the recovery that began just two years ago.
"We no longer see the Fed achieving a soft landing. Instead, we anticipate that a more aggressive tightening of monetary policy will push the economy into a recession," Deutsche Bank economists led by Matthew Luzzetti wrote in the report.

That forecast is driven by red-hot inflation, with consumer prices rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Hopes that inflation would rapidly cool off have been dashed, in part because of the war in Ukraine.

Inflationary pressures have broadened out, raising concern that the Fed will have to rapidly raise interest rates to get prices under control. Deutsche Bank pointed to how energy and food commodity prices have spiked since Russia invaded Ukraine.
"It is now clear that price stability...is likely to only be achieved through a restrictive monetary policy stance that meaningfully dents demand," the Deutsche Bank economists wrote.

Although Deutsche Bank cautioned there is "considerable uncertainty" around the exact timing and size of the downturn, it's now calling for the US economy to shrink during the final quarter of next year and the first quarter of 2024, "consistent with a recession during that time."
The good news is Deutsche Bank is not forecasting a deep and painful recession like the past two downturns.
Rather, the bank expects a "mild recession," with unemployment peaking above 5% in 2024. That would still translate to considerable layoffs. During the Great Recession unemployment peaked at far higher levels of 14.7% in 2020 and 10% in 2009.


Probably because DB recognizes how much the Western economies have been dependent on the Russian mob money over the past decades. And when that spigot gets shut off, it's going to echo through the world economy.

Not really fundamentally different than how the 2009 recession played out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
DB has an axe to grind with US regulators, even if the Fed isn’t the primary regulator for it. For a while it was easy to poach talent from DB because their employees were fearful that DB would rather close shop in the US than deal with regulators

I would put more weight behind it if it came from one of the more conservative-in-approach lenders like a Northern Trust, RBC, TD/Schwab, etc.
 
DB has an axe to grind with US regulators, even if the Fed isn’t the primary regulator for it. For a while it was easy to poach talent from DB because their employees were fearful that DB would rather close shop in the US than deal with regulators

I would put more weight behind it if it came from one of the more conservative-in-approach lenders like a Northern Trust, RBC, TD/Schwab, etc.

‘It’s coming. The federal reserve has really done a number on the economy and are about to put us in a recession. The federal reserve themselves is not optimistic. That should tell you all you need to know. I still can’t believe they waited thus long to stop qe. Should have been backing off last July at the latest.
 
Wasn’t DB pretty much the only bank that would bail out business man extraordinaire Donald J Trump years ago? I do think the bubble will pop at some point, but they don’t have a lot of credibility with me either.

Ever since Trump poured gas on the fire the stock market has been a massive bubble trading at way too high compared to earnings, it will reset at some point. At some point, the sugar rush ends…
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Probably because DB recognizes how much the Western economies have been dependent on the Russian mob money over the past decades. And when that spigot gets shut off, it's going to echo through the world economy.

Not really fundamentally different than how the 2009 recession played out.

Uhhh you’re not really involved in the finance world are you?
 
‘It’s coming. The federal reserve has really done a number on the economy and are about to put us in a recession. The federal reserve themselves is not optimistic. That should tell you all you need to know. I still can’t believe they waited thus long to stop qe. Should have been backing off last July at the latest.

FRB Dallas is not optimistic, which is par for the course. When it comes from FRB New York, FRB Chicago, or FRB San Francisco, it's time to pay attention.
 
This probably doesn't belong in this thread but it doesn't need a new thread:

The falling birth rate in the United States is a concern long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye
DB, AKA the only bank who would loan Trump money.

They sound smart.
 
It has to happen at some point. We juiced the money supply and reining that in is going to hurt.
That and we have been booming for a while. Recessions are always bound to happen. Hopefully it won’t be a severe and long as the one that hit in 08-09.
 
He's not involved in reality either. He might be the dumbest, craziest poster in this cesspool
I’ve had disagreements with @Joes Place in the past, but I hardly think he’s dumb. There may be instances where politics cloud the view of reality, but there are many guilty of that. I do think bringing Russia into this is silly, as this was a long-forming bubble that was/is bound to burst.
 
Probably because DB recognizes how much the Western economies have been dependent on the Russian mob money over the past decades. And when that spigot gets shut off, it's going to echo through the world economy.

Not really fundamentally different than how the 2009 recession played out.

This is a borderline ridiculous take.

There will probably be a recession, but it won't be because of this. It wouldn't surprise me if Deutsche Bank was affected somehow by Russian money ties. DB is a truly shitty bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Leon Cooperman says the recession in going to happen in early 2023. I trust his forecasts more than anyone's. He's pretty good at forecasting the bears, bulls and reads the economic indicators really well.
 
I’ve had disagreements with @Joes Place in the past, but I hardly think he’s dumb. There may be instances where politics cloud the view of reality, but there are many guilty of that. I do think bringing Russia into this is silly, as this was a long-forming bubble that was/is bound to burst.
Read his comment. It was moronic. Maybe there are topics he has knowledge of. But the vast majority of his comments are not intelligent. Not even close
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway4Prez
This is a borderline ridiculous take.

There will probably be a recession, but it won't be because of this. It wouldn't surprise me if Deutsche Bank was affected somehow by Russian money ties. DB is a truly shitty bank.
Nothing borderline about it.
 
Probably because DB recognizes how much the Western economies have been dependent on the Russian mob money over the past decades. And when that spigot gets shut off, it's going to echo through the world economy.

Not really fundamentally different than how the 2009 recession played out.
Um, no. They undoubtedly agree with the SF Fed report, along with seeing Biden's proposed budget.
 
There seemed to be little good news in Wednesday’s inflation report, with the consumer price index coming in at a 41-year high of 9.1 percent. What was your initial reaction to these numbers?
These were discouraging numbers. Nobody can suppose that inflation is under control when three-month core inflation exceeds six-month core inflation and six-month core inflation exceeds 12-month core inflation. Inflation in today’s report is pervasive and particularly pronounced in persistent components like housing and medical care. Team Transitory was extremely selective last year in failing to recognize housing and medical-care inflation.

President Biden called the new numbers out of date, noting that gas prices have been falling steadily for most of the last month. Others have pointed to data showing that demand in some sectors, like apartment rentals and home sales, may have peaked. But we’ve been hearing this refrain that the worst is behind us for many months. Do you think there’s any validity to it this time?
One of these months it will turn out to have peaked, but core inflation is now running more than three times as rapidly as its target level, and that entirely excludes energy and food commodities. Inflation will come down at some point, but it is unlikely to be a soft landing without economic pain.

You said on Wednesday that we’re not getting out of this without 6 percent unemployment. But many think that even if there is a recession, it could be a mild one. Do you think people are underestimating the possibility of something more severe?
I don’t think there’s any reason to expect a recession of the magnitude that we had after COVID struck or with the financial crisis of 2008. I think the recessions of 1990–1991 and 2001 are better models. But if inflation is to be contained, unemployment is likely to rise to somewhere in the vicinity of 6 percent or more. That would be my uncertain best guess.

The Fed is set to raise interest rates another 0.75 points this month. They’re clearly taking the issue seriously, which they weren’t for some time. Is there anything more that they or Democratic leaders can do at this point?
It is good that, very belatedly, the Fed is moving aggressively with respect to inflation. It would be helpful if they could forecast in a credible way. Their forecast that inflation can be brought down to target levels without unemployment rising above 4.1 percent seems to be extremely implausible. That none of the 19 members of the FOMC expect unemployment at any point to exceed 4.5 percent suggests to me a dangerous level of groupthink.

I’m surprised that thinking is so widespread in the Fed even now, after having been quite incorrect about the shape the inflation wave was going to take. You’d think they’d factor in a little more pessimism going forward.
In fairness, the last forecast was not issued yesterday, and we’ll see how they adjust. [Editor’s note: It came out in mid-June.] But it is central in policy to see the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. And I think the Fed has been guilty of substantial and continuing wishful thinking.

You were probably the most prominent voice warning that last year’s stimulus package would lead to higher inflation. To what extent do you think we’re still dealing with the fallout from that? Inflation is a huge problem in Europe and elsewhere, too. If no stimulus package existed, would the macro environment now be that much better?
I think excess fiscal and monetary stimulus is a substantial contributor to our inflation problem. Of course, there were supply shocks, but when the economy’s capacity is limited, it’s desirable to limit demand to that capacity rather than overstimulate the economy. Moreover, in many of the bottleneck sectors, quantity produced had increased rather than decreased, suggesting the importance of demand factors. That makes excessive inflation inevitable, whatever is happening on the supply side. Yes, Europe has high inflation, too, but they also have natural-gas prices seven times higher than we do, are entirely energy-dependent, have suffered a depreciating currency, and have much less flexible labor markets. And in Europe, if you look at core measures of inflation, they are elevated, but not nearly as elevated as core inflation was in today’s report.

The dollar is now about one-to-one in value with the euro, which hasn’t happened in a long time. Isn’t inflation supposed to weaken the dollar? What does it tell us that it is very strong instead?
The strength of the dollar reflects the fact that, despite our macroeconomic mismanagement, we have a very strong economy with immense investment opportunities and great capacity for entrepreneurial innovation. Also, because we have the most serious inflation problem, we’re likely to see the biggest moves toward tight money, which pushes up the value of the dollar.

Going back to last year’s bill — why do you think the Fed and so many other economists failed to anticipate its effects? The 2009 Obama stimulus drew a lot of criticism for being too small. I’m wondering if the maybe-understandable feeling that it was time to go big last year clouded some people’s judgment.
Here’s the issue: Economics is a quantitative science. The Obama stimulus bill was as large as politically possible at the moment but was, from an economic point of view, too small. Perhaps it should even have been twice as large as it was. But relative to the size of the GDP gap, the stimulus enacted in 2021 was perhaps five times as large as the Obama bill. And nobody suggested that the Obama bill should have been five times larger.

Democratic leaders are still trying to pass a pared-down version of their huge spending package. I know you were a proponent of the original Build Back Better legislation. Do you think Manchin’s caution on this new bill makes any sense?
Any country that has an underlying rate of inflation at 9 percent has to be very cautious. The right legislation that increased energy supply, reduced pharmaceutical prices directly, and reduced demand by raising revenue and cutting the budget deficit could improve our economic situation, even at this inflationary moment. But the bill has to be very carefully designed and very different from the very large spending programs that were conceived last year.

So you think those programs would have been unwise?
I’ll leave it at what I just said. Let me add: It would be very sad if the United States, having led the world in an international corporate-tax agreement that would prevent tax shelters from sheltering huge amounts of corporate income, were to knife that international agreement in the back by not passing the necessary implementing legislation. It would also be a lost opportunity if we could not do what was necessary to have a reasonable IRS that would raise hundreds of millions of dollars that are owed but not paid by tax evaders.



 
President Biden called the new numbers out of date, noting that gas prices have been falling steadily for most of the last month. Others have pointed to data showing that demand in some sectors, like apartment rentals and home sales, may have peaked. But we’ve been hearing this refrain that the worst is behind us for many months. Do you think there’s any validity to it this time?
One of these months it will turn out to have peaked, but core inflation is now running more than three times as rapidly as its target level, and that entirely excludes energy and food commodities. Inflation will come down at some point, but it is unlikely to be a soft landing without economic pain.

This is essentially how "energy price spikes" work.

Costs for energy raise costs of lots of other things: INCLUDING even transporting that energy to where people fill up their tanks. (Yet another reason why renewables help level things off, because once you've built the infrastructure, it "costs" the same amount, in perpetuity, to deliver the energy to where it's needed).

Not ALL of the inflation is directly/indirectly from gas/energy pricing, but quite a lot of it. Tacked onto the supply chain problems from Covid, it's been a double-hit.

We won't have energy-related inflation once we have energy sources that are immune from conflicts - domestic based renewables. And, yes, once we have full coverage from things like solar, they will be able to recycle most of the minerals needed that come from mining, today.

GOP doesn't want to play the long game on this for two reasons: 1) they get a shit-ton of financing from the fossil fuels industries and 2) long-game means you are going to have lower returns on renewables investments early on, and they are programmed for quarterly, short-term gains, irrespective of the better outcomes that arise over the long term
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT