The United States, China, and crypto liquidations: what happened?

The US, China and crypto liquidations: what happened?

Weekend of terror: fears of a new trade war between the US and China led to more than £19 billion liquidated in the crypto market alone. Analysis

The weekend of 10, 11 and 12 October was particularly difficult: the United States threatened tariffs of up to 100% on Chinese imports, set to take effect on 1 November. Naturally, such news caused panic among investors worldwide, and major financial markets, both traditional and non-traditional, suffered heavy losses. In particular, the crypto world witnessed its largest-ever liquidation: £19.16 billion. What caused this shock? Here is the analysis

The trade war between the United States and China 

The trade war between the United States and China, as we know, has been ongoing for years: the world’s two most powerful trading economies have been clashing over this issue, alternating between hostile statements and reasoned ‘truces’. However, in recent months, the negotiations have taken on a harsh tone, to say the least

In particular, since that fateful 2 April, also known as Liberation Day, the two sides have intensified their confrontation, with extremely high reciprocal tariffs – up to 145% – and truces with deadlines repeatedly postponed. Recently, however, the situation seemed to be returning to normal, with the United States and China apparently indicating they wanted to continue negotiations in a more collaborative spirit. But in the second week of October, Beijing reignited tensions.   

The trigger

On Thursday 10 October, the People’s Republic announced its intention to impose restrictions on the export of rare earths, over which it has a virtual global monopoly: according to the CSIS (Centre for Strategic and International Studies), China controls 60% of the production and 90% of the processing of these minerals, which are extremely strategic as they are fundamental to the technology (artificial intelligence in particular), energy and defence sectors. 

To be more precise, the breaking point can be attributed to the Beijing government’s decision to grant licences for certain types of chips on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. What does this mean? To understand this, we need to take a brief step back and clarify the dynamics of exporting rare earth materials. 

As we wrote a few lines ago, these goods are valuable because they are irreplaceable components in the manufacture of chips and semiconductors, elements that are fundamental to a nation’s technological and energy development. They are, therefore, goods subject to restrictions, as they are closely linked to national security: by depriving itself of them, China would effectively allow its rivals, led by the United States, to gain a competitive advantage in these sectors

With these restrictions, which in theory should come into force on 1 December, the Celestial Empire intends to transform a natural resource into a geopolitical tool. In this way, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) will be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to issue export licences based on several discretionary factors, including: who is the company or entity receiving the materials? For what purpose? Does the export pose a potential risk to Chinese national security? And so on.

The US reaction: the straw that broke the camel’s back   

Upon hearing the news, Donald Trump wasted no time, immediately publishing a long, fiery post on Truth in which he essentially stated that he did not like this behaviour. The text ends with a not-so-veiled threat of equally harsh retaliation by the United States. And so it was.  

The following day, Friday 10 October, the US President wrote on his Truth social media account that ‘the United States of America will impose a 100% tariff on imports from China, in addition to the tariffs already in place’ and that ‘from 1 November, we will impose export controls on all critical software, without exception‘.

For the sake of completeness, we would like to point out that, at the time of writing, Trump has shown a willingness to reconcile with Chinese Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. The latter, writes the POTUS, “was just going through a difficult time,” adding, “don’t worry about China, everything will be fine” because “the United States wants to help China, not harm it.”

Now that we have a clear understanding of the initial context, it is time to look at the figures and graphs to get an idea of what may have happened: how did we get from tariffs to £19.16 billion in liquidated damages? Let’s take a look together. 

How did the markets react?

To answer this question, we will first analyse the specific performance of the traditional market and the main crypto assets during the “flash crash”. Then, in the concluding part of the article, we will assess the practical repercussions of the event and the recovery of various crypto assets today, Monday, 13 October.

Traditional market reaction (S&P 500)

The influence of friction between the United States and China on the traditional market was marginal, largely due to timing.

In fact, the market only picked up on the initial announcement: China’s notification of restrictions on rare earth exports, interpreted as a potential resumption of trade hostilities with the US. This statement generated an immediate negative reaction, resulting in a drop of just under 3% from previous prices.

As luck would have it (or perhaps not), the traditional market closed its doors just moments before Trump announced a 100% tariff increase on China. This effectively eliminated the second, and more violent, bearish leg, which, as we will see in the section on cryptocurrencies, hit digital assets hard.

Cryptocurrency market reaction (BTC)

The growing optimism at the beginning of October, combined with the closure of the traditional market, which focused attention and liquidity on digital assets, created the ideal conditions for a violent correction. The excess of leveraged positions opened in recent days was the trigger for one of the most significant flash crashes in the history of the crypto market.

The extent of this correction was measured in terms of liquidations. On Friday alone, as we anticipated, the number of positions liquidated was estimated at around $19 billion.

As for Bitcoin (BTC), the collapse occurred in two distinct phases, following the geopolitical escalation:

  1. First Impact (China): When China announced restrictions on rare-earth exports, BTC initially lost around 5%, temporarily falling to £116,000.
  2. Second Impact (Trump): At the height of the clash, Bitcoin fell a further 11% after Trump announced 100% tariffs, hitting a low of £103,084.

This crash resulted in a Bitcoin loss of more than 15%, driven mainly by massive liquidations on exchanges such as Hyperliquid and Binance.

Cryptocurrency market reaction (ETH)

Moving on to Ethereum (ETH), we observe that, as often happens during times of extreme volatility, its dynamics followed those of Bitcoin, but with a slightly higher leverage in percentage terms.

For ETH, too, the crash developed in two distinct bearish phases, which recorded respectively:

  1. First impact (China): A drop of about 7%, bringing ETH to interact with support at 4000
  2. Second impact (Trump): The further escalation of the conflict caused a decisive break of the support level at £4,000, triggering a further 15% decline that pushed the price down to a low of £3,439.

With an overall loss of more than 21%, Ethereum showed greater sensitivity during the flash crash, reflecting its higher intrinsic volatility compared to Bitcoin.

The market rebound (V-shape recovery) 

Despite the colossal number of liquidations and negative performance recorded on Friday, the market showed a rapid and vigorous recovery just minutes after the wave of liquidations ended, confirming a classic “V-shaped rebound”.

  • Bitcoin (BTC): After hitting a low of £103,084, BTC traded at around £115,019 in the following hours, making a recovery of more than 11% in a matter of hours.
  • Ethereum (ETH): After losing more than 21% in the flash crash, ETH returned to trading above the psychological threshold of £4,000. More specifically, the price reached £4,157, marking a recovery of about 20% from Friday’s lows.

These rapid and significant recoveries confirm that, although the cryptocurrency market is undergoing increasing institutionalisation, its nature as a market free of certain regulations and characterised by a very high level of leverage still makes it extremely vulnerable to large movements and potential market manipulation.

To conclude, a reflection: as demonstrated by the exceptional rebound over the past few hours, such shocks do not seem to alter the solid long-term fundamentals of this sector, which continues to show remarkable structural resilience.This is particularly true for Bitcoin. To understand why, just compare this event with the last notable shock, the Covid Crash: on 12 March 2020, Bitcoin fell by 40% in a single day.

Japan: Why Should We Care

Japan: Why Should We Care

Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has resigned. Sanae Takaichi has been nominated in his place. The issue deserves a focus. Why?

Japan, at this moment, deserves a deeper look. Here we will deal with a new figure in Japanese politics, Sanae Takaichi, a possible future Prime Minister, especially due to her ideas on economic policy. Let us not forget, in fact, that Japan is the fourth-largest economy in the world, with significant weight globally.

Japan: Let’s Quickly Give Some Context

In early September, Japan experienced a delicate moment regarding national politics: Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), resigned.

The LDP members chose Sanae Takaichi in his place, who could be the first woman in Japan to hold the role of Prime Minister. First, however, the LDP must find one or more partners with whom to form the coalition that will govern the country. This is because Komeito, literally the “Clean Government Party”, which for more than twenty years was a government ally with the LDP, declared it wanted to break the agreement. All this will make Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister slightly more complex.

Let us now see, in more detail, who Sanae Takaichi is and why these political dynamics should interest us.

Who is Sanae Takaichi?

The daughter of an office worker and a policewoman, Sanae Takaichi was born in Nara Prefecture in 1961. Before entering politics, Takaichi was a heavy metal drummer, an expert diver, and a television presenter.

She developed an interest in politics around the 1980s and entered the political game in 1992, when she tried to run for parliament as an independent. The attempt failed, but she did not give up: four years later she ran again with the LDP and was elected. From that moment she is considered one of the most conservative figures of the Liberal Democratic Party.

Moving on to her positions on economic policy, Takaichi is an absolute fan of Margaret Thatcher. Her goal, as she herself has declared, is to become the Iron Lady – the nickname given to Thatcher when she governed – of Japan. Furthermore, she was a protégé of former Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe, a very influential figure in her formation.

This last point is very important: Shinzo Abe, in fact, was the author and strong supporter of an economic policy based on a strong injection of money through fiscal stimuli and increased public spending. The aim was to revitalise the Japanese economy, at that moment in a deep crisis caused also by the shock of the 2008 financial crisis.

Specifically, Abenomics – a portmanteau of Abe and Economics – was founded on three arrows: expansive monetary policy to increase inflation (Japan was in a state of chronic deflation) and depreciate the Japanese Yen, favouring national exports; negative interest rates to incentivise money circulation in the economy; and structural reforms to increase Japan’s competitiveness. Sanae Takaichi has promised to relaunch her vision of Abenomics.

Let us therefore come to the central core of the article.

With Sanae Takaichi, Japan Could Join the Fiscal Stimulus Club

The Japanese Iron Lady seems to have clear ideas: “I have never denied the need for fiscal consolidation, which is naturally important. But the most important thing is growth. I will make Japan a vigorous land of the Rising Sun again”. In other words, economic growth comes before balancing public accounts.

Sanae Takaichi, indeed, has promised huge public funding for government-led initiatives in sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. She then declared she wants to increase defence spending and announced new tax credits – i.e., fiscal bonuses – to increase workers’ net income, deductions for domestic services, and other tax breaks for companies offering internal childcare services. Finally, her programme envisages strong public investments in infrastructure.

Financial markets, naturally, like all this very much: fiscal stimuli and expansive policy are manna from heaven for businesses, which can access credit more easily, invest, innovate and, ultimately, increase profits, with more than positive consequences for share values. And the effects have already been felt.

Market Reactions: The “Takaichi Trade”

The Nikkei, the main Japanese stock index, proved particularly sensitive to developments regarding Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister. Retracing the sequence of events, it is patently obvious how the Japan 225 – another name for the Nikkei – strongly desires the Iron Lady governing the Land of the Rising Sun.

For example, Sanae Takaichi was chosen by the LDP as heir to the resigning Prime Minister Ishiba on the weekend of October 4th and 5th, with stock exchanges closed. On Monday the 6th, the Nikkei gained more than 5.5% in a single session – reaching up to 8% if we also count Friday the 3rd, when rumours were already starting to circulate. The “Takaichi trade”, in this sense, led the main Japanese index to touch new highs.

Equally but conversely, when Komeito broke away from the coalition, undermining Takaichi’s nomination, the market reacted very negatively: on October 10th, the Nikkei lost more than 5.6% on the stock exchange.

Since Komeito’s renunciation, Sanae Takaichi has moved to look for other parties that could support the government alliance, obtaining good results. As favourable news came out, the Nikkei reacted consistently: +5.4% in the week between Monday the 13th and Friday the 17th of October.

Finally, on Monday, October 20th, the leader of the right-wing party Nippon Ishin – the Innovation Party – announced that he will make official the agreement to support Takaichi’s choice as Prime Minister. Once again, the Japanese index shows its appreciation: +2% in one session and an updated All Time High.

What is the Moral of the Story?

So, even the fourth economy in the world could start spending, and heavily. With the new leader, Japan could switch to a regime of great public spending, large deficits, and expansive monetary policy, enormously increasing public debt. The goal: to ensure that economic growth exceeds debt growth.

We are in a historical moment where the top three world economies, with the fourth trailing, have launched fiscal stimulus policies founded on a massive increase in public debt.

The moral, therefore, is singular and very simple: if the main thought is “spend”, the method to realise it is printing money. The necessary consequence is the devaluation of money – or, in other words, inflation. In similar scenarios, the main protection instruments, the so-called debasement hedges, have historically represented a valid exit route for capital preservation.

And when one speaks of debasement hedges, the mind immediately runs towards two assets: gold and Bitcoin. All this is even more valid if we rethink the very recent statements of Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, released during an interview with the broadcaster CBS: “Markets teach you that you must always question your convictions. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have a role, just like gold: they represent an alternative”.

What awaits us in the near future? If you don’t know how to answer, don’t worry, nobody knows. However, to not miss updates, you could subscribe to our Telegram channel and Young Platform, given that we deal often and very willingly with these themes.The information reported above is for exclusively informative and divulgative purposes. It does not in any way constitute financial advice, investment solicitation, or personalised recommendation pursuant to current legislation. Before making any investment decision or asset allocation, it is advisable to contact a qualified consultant.

Gold plummets: worst crash since 2013

Gold crashes: worst crash since 2013

Is gold reversing course? 21 October marks the worst decline in recent years and surprises investors. What happened and why?

On Tuesday, 21 October, the price of gold fell to levels not seen in about 12 years. The event left investors around the world speechless: added to the extent of the loss was the shock caused by the fact that the value of the precious metal had been rising steadily for months. So? It’s time to analyse the facts. 

The price of gold plummets: what happened?

In just over 24 hours, gold recorded its worst performance since 2013, losing almost 8.3% to reach $4,000, before rebounding and settling at a compound of writshock– in the range between $4,050 and $4,150. 

An incredible figure that testifies to the magnitude of the event is related to the loss, in terms of market cap, of the most noble of metals: this -8.3% corresponds, give or take a million, to approximately $2.2 trillion or, to put it another way, the entire market capitalisation of Bitcoin

The collapse of gold has also affected companies linked to the mining sector – some may notice interesting similarities. The two largest mining companies in the world, Newmont Corporation and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, have in fact recorded sharp declines: from the opening of the stock markets on Tuesday 21st to the time of writing, the two companies are losing more than 10%.

Gold is not the only precious metal in trouble: silver is currently down 8.6%, while platinum, which is actually doing a little better, is down 7.2%.

The causes

If the price of gold is plummeting, as many analysts claim, the causes are mainly technical. In a nutshell, the sell-off could be a necessary consequence of the rally that, since January 2025, has seen the yellow metal gain more than 50%: quite simply, if an asset grows for a long time, it is likely that sooner or later someone will decide to take profits

To this argument, which certainly carries weight given the rise in gold prices, two variables of a more political and economic nature could be added. 

The first is related to the relationship between the United States and China, which appears to be easing: after the clashes on 10 and 12 October, which eventually triggered the worst sell-off in the history of cryptocurrencies, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet in Seoul on 31 October. The conditional tense is a must because The Donald has repeatedly shown that he changes his mind at the drop of a minute. 

Here is an example. On Tuesday 21st, the POTUS confirmed his intention to reach an agreement with the supreme leader: “I have a very good relationship with President Xi. I expect to be able to reach a good agreement with him,” but then added that the meeting “may not happen, things can happen, for example someone might say ‘I don’t want to meet, it’s too unpleasant. But in reality, it’s not unpleasant. It’s just business.” Pure unpredictability. 

The second, on the other hand, could be understood in part as a consequence of the first: the strengthening of the US dollar. The DXY, which measures the value of the dollar against a basket of the six most important foreign currencies, has gained 1.3% since mid-September. 

Is this a reversal of the trend or a temporary retracement?

Has the upward trend in gold come to an end, or are we witnessing a mere temporary halt? This is the question of questions, to which, of course, no one can answer.

What we can say, however, is that a change of course could be excellent news for Bitcoin. An interesting precedent can be found in 2020: when gold reached its market peak in August at £2,080, Bitcoin hit bottom at £12,250 – what times. 

From that moment on, gold moved sideways for about three years before beginning an upward trend that saw it double in value, while Bitcoin embarked on the epic bull run of 2020-2021: from £10,000 in September 2020 to £65,000 in April 2021. A veritable rotation of capital in favour of the King of Crypto. 

Citigroup assigns a strong ‘Buy’ rating to Strategy

In the event of a trend reversal, will the gold-BTC pattern repeat itself in 2025? Again, there is no way of knowing. However, banking investment giant Citigroup has officially started following Strategy (MSTR), Michael Saylor’s company that holds 640,418 BTC: its first recommendation to investors was ‘Buy’, forecasting a target price for the stock of £485. 

The interesting thing is that Strategy’s share price – at the time of writing – is around £280: if Citi sets a target price of £485, it means that it expects the stock to grow by around 70%. Citi analyst Peter Christiansen, who is monitoring MSTR, said that such a price increase “is with its base case forecast over the next 12 months, set at £181,000, a potential upside of 65% from current levels“.

Gold and itcoin, neck and neck?

We’ll have to wait and see what happens in the coming weeks. The data tells us that, over the last three years, more and more financial institutions – central banks in particular – have started to stockpile physical gold, partly to protect themselves from the devaluation of the dollar, accentuated by the Trump administration’s management.

On the other hand, we are witnessing an almost daily increase in showbero entities, both public and private, that are deciding to include Bitcoin in their treasuries and that, generally, no longer see the asset as an alternative, but as a choice.  

Finally, as always, we remind you that the information contained in this article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal or tax advice, nor is it a solicitation or offer to the public of investment instruments or services, pursuant to Legislative Decree 58/1998 (TUF). Investing in crypto-assets involves a high risk of loss – even total loss – of the capital invested. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Users are invited to make their own informed assessments before making any financial and/or investment decisions.

Fed: Who wants to be the new president?

Fed: Who wants to be the new president?

The Fed changes face: in May, Chairman Jerome Powell will end his second term, and Donald Trump will have to choose his successor. Who will it be?

After eight years, the Fed, the US central bank, will be led by a new chair: Jerome Powell, who currently holds the top job, will have to make way for a new figure. It will be up to the US President to choose his successor. Let’s take a look at the most likely candidates.  

The Fed prepares for a new Chairman.n

In May 2026, the Fed will undergo a significant structural change: the current Chairman, Jerome Powell, will step down after eight years and be replaced. The person who will head the US central bank will be chosen directly by Donald Trump: after the nomination, however, the Fed Chairman candidate will also have to be approved by the US Senate

As we shall see, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has released a list of five names, at least three of whom are potentially very close to being nominated. The only spoiler we can give is that Jerome Powell is not on Bessent’s list. Why? For at least two reasons

No chance for Jerome Powell: dura lex, sed lex

The first is legal in nature: although the law in force in the US – the Federal Reserve Act – does not set a term limit for the Fed Chair, Powell will leave the central bank due to a rather curious coincidence of events. 

Jerome Powell took office as Governor in May 2012 to complete Frederic Mishkin’s unexpired term – much like the very Trumpian Stephen Miran, who was appointed Governor last July following the resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler.

Two years later, in June 2014, Powell was officially appointed Governor for a full 14-year term, expiring on 31 January 2028. In 2018, Donald Trump, during his first term, promoted Powell to the role of Chair (i.e., President) of the Federal Reserve. Four years later, at the legal end of his term, he was confirmed by Joe Biden, who was President of the United States at the time. This brings us to the present day: in 2026, it will be four years since Biden’s confirmation and, as a result, the word ‘End’ will appear. 

But then, if the law does not set a maximum term limit for the Fed Chair, why can’t Jerome Powell be re-elected to that role? Because the Federal Reserve Act has a fundamental rule: the Fed Chair must also be a member of the Board of Governors, i.e. the central bank’s governors. 

This rule cannot be applied in Powell’s case: even if he were re-elected to the top position at the Fed until 2030, his status as Governor would lapse in 2028, as he would have reached 14 years of service since 2014. At that point, he would automatically be removed from the Chair role.  

The Trump administration’s dislike of Powell is well known

Even if this rule did not exist, the situation would not change: the chances of Powell being included in Bessent’s list would be close to zero. And here we come to the second reason, which is more ‘relational’ in nature: Trump and company do not like the current Chair, to put it mildly. 

As we have reported on several occasions, the President of the United States has often used harsh tones towards Jerome Powell, especially during the summer FOMC meetings, when the much-coveted rate cut was slow in coming. Because of this ‘slowness’, Donald Trump began to nickname him Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell and threatened to fire him on several occasions

With Powell now out of the running, let’s take a look at the names chosen by the US Treasury Secretary.

The most likely candidates

On Sunday, 26 October, while travelling on Air Force One to Tokyo, Scott Bessent told reporters that he had narrowed down the number of candidates to five following the first round of interviews, which is expected to be followed by a second round. 

The list includes Trump adviser Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, Fed Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, and BlackRock executive Rick Rieder. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

Kevin Hassett

He is a loyal supporter of Donald Trump: he served alongside the US President during his first term as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and still holds a position in the administration as Director of the National Economic Council. In addition, between the two terms, he worked for the investment fund of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. 

Given this background, it would be reasonable to assume that Hassett could be Trump’s first choice, as he is a politician who places great importance on loyalty. However, there are a couple of strategic considerations. 

Firstly, the markets’ reaction to his appointment could be particularly harmful, as a Fed led by Hassett would be perceived as firmly subordinate to the will of the POTUS (President of the United States). 

Secondly, if the Federal Reserve were to make decisions that Trump did not like, with equally unwelcome macroeconomic consequences, the latter would find it much more difficult to blame one of his loyalists: the rhetoric he is using against Powell would have less effect. 

Kevin Warsh

A former Fed governor, he was a member of the Board of Governors during the 2008 financial crisis, before resigning in 2011 following the US central bank’s shift towards quantitative easing (QE) – i.e. a more expansionary monetary policy. He has been an executive director and vice president at Morgan Stanley and is currently a visiting fellow at Stanford University.

His impressive CV rightly makes him a potential successor to Powell. Added to this are his connections with the American conservative establishment: like Hassett, he also worked for the White House as an economic adviser to George W. Bush (also known as Bush Jr.), who later appointed him Governor of the Fed. Furthermore, the family of his wife, billionaire Jane Lauder, granddaughter of Estée Lauder, founder of the cosmetics company of the same name, with a market cap of £32 billion, is on excellent terms with the Trump family

However, here too, there are a couple of strategic considerations, starting with his views on monetary policy. Warsh is considered a ‘hawk‘ because, according to reports, he is fixated on controlling inflation, which was the main reason for his resignation as Governor in 2011. A Fed led by Warsh would therefore be more inclined to implement a more restrictive, or at least less expansionary, economic policy

In short, a very different attitude from that of the POTUS, who has been imploring Powell to cut rates for months. 

Christopher Waller 

Currently serving as Governor of the Fed, appointed by Trump in 2020, Waller has spent his life between university classrooms and the corridors of the US central bank. 

He has taught as a professor at various universities in the United States – Indiana, Washington and Kentucky – and in Germany – Bonn University. In 2009, he joined the Fed’s St. Louis office as Vice President and Research Director, where he helped create FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), a massive free database of economic and financial data managed by the Fed. 

Waller is a crypto-enthusiast and views the cryptocurrency sector in a positive light: on 21 October, at the Fed in Washington, he chaired the Payments Innovations Conference, a meeting which, in his own words, aimed to “bring together ideas on how to improve the security and efficiency of payments, listening to those who are shaping the future of payment systems“. The conference was attended by, among others, Sergey Nazarov, Co-Founder & CEO of Chainlink; Heath Tarbert, President of Circle; and Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest

There is one problem with all this: Christopher Waller’s long experience within the Federal Reserve circles. The future Chair chosen by Donald Trump will also have to be a new figure, capable of reforming the Fed’s structure and making it less decisive in terms of economic management. Waller, on the contrary, may have internalised the very dynamics that Trump intends to dismantle, thus making him unsuitable for the role. 

Michelle Bowman

Michelle ‘Miki’ Bowman is the first of the two outsiders, i.e., those with a background different from the three candidates just examined. However, like Waller, Bowman is also a sitting governor appointed by Trump in 2018. Trump himself promoted her to Vice Chair of the Fed in January 2025, a role that places her just one step below Jerome Powell.

Why is she an outsider? Because, while Hassett, Warsh and Waller have a purely economic or high-finance background, Bowman has a degree in Advertising and Journalism and a master’s degree in Law

Before moving on to the last candidate, a note about Michelle Bowman: she is known for being someone who fights tenaciously to advance her agenda and achieve her goals, despite political pressure. For example, she has repeatedly expressed dissent towards many of the Biden administration’s measures. In September 2024, hers was the first dissenting vote by a Fed governor after two decades of unanimous voting on monetary policy. She is a strong-willed woman who would undoubtedly appeal to The Donald.  

Rick Rieder

Rieder is an outsider not so much because of his academic background, but because he is not a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. He is, in fact, a senior manager at BlackRock with a deep understanding of the bond market, which is his speciality. 

Rieder is therefore not entirely unfamiliar with the workings of the central bank and the political subplots in Washington. Still, he is very familiar with high finance and the bureaucracy that surrounds it. In this sense, he could be considered the antithesis of Waller

Finally, Rieder is known for his gruelling work schedule: he is said to get out of bed every day at 3:30 a.m. to get a few hours’ head start on his competitors.     

What are the odds for each of the candidates?

Well, we have examined Jerome Powell’s potential successors; now it’s time to take a look at the bookmakers, namely Polymarket

At the time of writing, the odds for each name are: 

  • Kevin Warsh: 15%
  • Kevin Hassett: 15%
  • Chris Waller: 14%
  • Scott Bessent: 5%
  • Rick Rieder: not even listed
  • No announcement before December: 53%

Why is Scott Bessent even on the list? Because Donald Trump, on his trip to Tokyo at the end of October, told reporters that he was considering him as Fed Chair, but that Bessent himself would refuse because ‘he likes working at the Treasury‘. A few minutes later, he backtracked, saying, ‘We’re not actually considering him. ‘ 

So, who will win the race for Fed chair? Or, to quote the article’s headline: who wants to be the new chair?

Fed rates: Will the next FOMC meeting scare the markets?

Fed rates: Is the next FOMC meeting scaring the markets?

Rates, Fed undecided on next moves: the outcome of the December FOMC meeting is less predictable than those in September and October. What do analysts predict? 

Fed rates have a significant impact on financial markets: investors, aware of the importance of interest rates, try to anticipate the decisions of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) to position themselves in the best possible way. Compared to the last two meetings, where the outcomes were practically a foregone conclusion, the December meeting presents numerous unknowns: what is the most likely outcome?  

What happened at the last FOMC meeting?

On 28-29 October, the Fed met at its headquarters in Washington to discuss the macroeconomic situation and decide what to do about interest rates: the Council, with ten votes in favour out of twelve, opted for a 25 basis point cut, lowering rates by 0.25% to a range between 3.75% and 4%. 

The outcome, as we anticipated, was widely expected and already discounted by the markets, which had been growing for weeks – except for the halt on 10 October, when Trump announced 100% tariffs on China.

But it was the press conference following the meeting that was the real key moment. Here, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, in listing the reasons behind the cut, made a very significant statement: “A further cut in benchmark interest rates at the December meeting is not a foregone conclusion, quite the contrary.” Markets in chaos.

Since Powell uttered those words until now – that is, at the time of writing – the major stock indices have entered a phase of severe difficulty, but then they rebounded and are now flat.

The crypto market has also taken a hit, of course, with Bitcoin down 16.8 percentage points since 29 October and Ethereum down almost 20,6. Overall, since that fateful day, the total market cap has fallen by £600 billion, from £3.7 trillion to £3.11 trillion.

Fed, shutdown and block on the publication of macroeconomic data 

During that press conference, Powell responded to questions from journalists about the shutdown’s impact on federal activities. In particular, curiosity focused on the stance the Fed might take at the next FOMC meeting, in a context of almost total absence of data crucial for analysing the macroeconomic scenario.  

Powell himself had already mentioned the difficulties of the moment, stating that “although some important data has been delayed due to the shutdown, the public and private sector data that remains available suggests that the outlook for employment and inflation has not changed much since our September meeting“. 

On this issue, however, the most interesting response came from the Fed Chairman to Howard Schneider of the well-known Reuters news agency. The journalist rightly asked him whether the lack of key information, such as inflation or employment, could have led members of the US central bank to “make monetary policy based on anecdotes”, i.e. qualitative data – such as personal opinions – rather than economic models based on quantitative data. 

Powell initially stated that ‘this is a temporary situation’ and that ‘we will do our job‘. He then went on to say, ‘If you ask me whether it will affect the December meeting, I’m not saying it will, but yes, you can imagine… what do you do when you’re driving in fog? You slow down.

In short, the latest FOMC press conference presented us with a Jerome Powell who appeared even more cautious than the classic “we’ll wait and see” approach that characterised the first six months of 2025. A determined Jerome Powell, who wants to see his task through to the end, even though he will leave the top job in May 2026 to make way for the new Fed Chair.

Fed rates: what do analysts and prediction markets forecast?

Here too, the question is entirely open. The most authoritative voices are divided into two camps: a 25-basis-point cut versus no change (rates unchanged). There is, of course, no mention of a 50 basis point cut. 

The first faction, in favour of a quarter-point cut, is leveraging the weakness of the labour market, particularly the slowdown in hiring: in a Reuters poll of 105 economists, 84 bet on a quarter-point cut, while the remaining 21 chose the No Change option. 

In particular, Abigail Watt, an economist at UBS, justified her vote to Reuters by stating that ‘the general feeling is that the labour market still appears relatively weak, and this is one of the key reasons why we believe the FOMC will cut in December‘. Watt goes on to say that she would change her opinion if data were released that ‘contradicted this sense of weakness‘. 

The second faction, those in favour of unchanged rates, instead takes as its main argument Powell’s words quoted above: “the outlook for employment and inflation has not changed much since our September meeting“. 

For example, Susan Collins, head of the Boston Fed, is of this opinion and believes that a third consecutive cut could fuel inflation at a time when the impact of Trump’s tariffs remains unclear. Specifically, she told CNBC that “it will probably be appropriate to keep interest rates at their current level for some time to balance the risks to inflation and employment in this environment of high uncertainty“. 

Interest rates, according to the FedWatch Tool and Polymarket

FedWatch is a financial tool provided by the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) that calculates the implied probabilities of future Federal Reserve interest rate decisions. Why ‘implied’? Because it deduces probabilities from the market prices of 30-day Federal Funds futures rather than from explicit opinions. 

In simple terms, FedWatch reports market expectations by looking at investors’ portfolios. If it says ‘80% probability of a cut’, it means that 80% of the money invested in the market today is betting on a cut. Currently, according to this tool, a 25 basis point cut is 89,6% likely, while No Change is 10,4%.

According to the most famous prediction market of the moment, Polymarket, the result is a 25 basis point cut at 97%, No Change at 3%, a 50 basis point cut at 1% and a 25 basis point increase at around 1% – if you are interested in knowing how it works, we have written an Academy article dedicated to Polymarket

What will the Federal Reserve do? 

As we have explained so far, the Fed will have to take a large number of variables into account before its Chairman leaves the room, approaches the microphone and utters the familiar ‘Good afternoon‘.