secara historikal: STRONGER DOLLAR equals to MORE PROBABILITY of GLOBAL RECESSION (or at least LOWER GLOBAL GDP)
amrik sebagai LOKOMOTIF EKONOMI GLOBAL akan TERJEREMBAB masuk RESESI
karena HARGA PRODUK EKSPOR amrik MAHAL, sementara BANYAK NEGARA PENGIMPOR SEDANG BERTARUNG ABIS-ABISAN mengatasi PERLAMBATAN EKONOMI
karna HARGA PRODUK IMPOR k amrik AKAN MAKIN MURAH, sehingga TERJADI setidaknya DISINFLASI, bahkan DEFLASI malah BERKELANJUTAN
imbas 2 GEJALA PERDAGANGAN amrik tersebut: ekspor amrik turun, impor amrik naek, maka ANGKA PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI amrik AKAN TURUN
blajar dari JEPANG: deflasi sekira 2 dekade, angka pertumbuhan NEGATIF melulu … stelah diberi STIMULUS oleh BANK SENTRAL n PEMERINTAH,baru lah ada ANGKA PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI POSITIF lage
kalo RESESI AMRIK terjadi, maka SEMUA NEGARA AKAN IKUT RESESIF lah
Deteriorating Asian economic data on Monday took the shine off the Bank of Japan’s unexpected easing on Friday, sending investors across the region scurrying for safe havens.
China’s official manufacturing purchasing managers index gauge fell to 49.4 from 49.7 in December, hitting the lowest level since August 2012. An equivalent measure from Markit also registered contraction, albeit rising slightly to 48.4 from 48.2.
The weakness was mirrored in gauges from Taiwan and South Korea, while Japanese manufacturers registered a slower pace of expansion. The official Chinese non-manufacturing gauge appeared to fare better, with official gauges showing the sector expanding, but the measure still slipped to 53.5 from 54.4.
Even though reading the Chinese economy at this time of year is complicated by the timing of the Lunar New Year distorting the data, analysts are pessimistic about the prospects for the months ahead, too. The country’s manufacturing sector “will likely face a tough year ahead on the back of overcapacity, weakening global demand, and [the] government’s plans to tackle pollution,” analysts from ANZ wrote in a research report.
The downturn in manufacturing activity was mirrored in a bigger-than-expected plunge in South Korean exports, which typically act as a bellwether for global trade. Shipments fell by 18.5% year-on-year in January, the biggest drop since August 2009.
Investors are still reacting to the Bank of Japan’s surprise move to introduce negative interest rates on Friday for the first time, which has pushed the yield on Japanese 10-year government bonds to record lows of just 5.11 basis points. U.S. Treasury 10-year yields also hit a nine-month low of 1.92%.
Japanese domestic investors “have little choice” but to look beyond Japanese government bonds because of their paltry yields and “diversify into suitable alternatives, in particular US Treasuries, which is essentially a high-yielding market,” analysts fromHSBC wrote.
Meanwhile, the prospect of further easing from central banks and a stumbling global economy is lifting the price of gold in Asian trading.
It has made for a mixed day for equity investors in the region, with Japan’s markets faring best. Stocks in China and Hong Kong have extended last month’s selloff.
The global economy is slipping into recession. The evidence is showing up in all the usual ways: slowing output growth, slumping purchasing-manager indexes, widening credit spreads, declining corporate earnings, falling inflation expectations, receding capital investment and rising inventories. But this is a most unusual recession– the first one ever caused by falling oil prices.
A drop in oil prices means less money in the hands of oil producers but more money in the hands of oil consumers. Currently the U.S. is importing about 5.1 million barrels a day more than we’re exporting of crude oil and petroleum products. At $100 a barrel, that had been a net drain on the U.S. economy of $190 billion each year. That drain will now be cut by more than half by falling oil prices.
We usually see consumers spend their extra income right away, whereas it takes more time for producers to alter their spending plans. As a result, even if the U.S. was not a net importer of oil, we might still expect to see a short-run positive stimulus from dropping oil prices. The actual change in overall consumption spending in response to the oil price decline through March of last year was about0.4% smaller than would have been predicted on the basis of the historical correlations. But we see something different when we look at the behavior of individual consumers.
A study by the JP Morgan Chase Institute compared the response to lower gasoline prices of people who had previously been buying a lot of gasoline with the responses of people who had been buying relatively little. They found that the first group increased spending relative to the second, with the magnitude of the difference in spending between the two groups consistent with the claim that consumers spent almost their entire windfall. The conclusion I draw from the seemingly conflicting evidence in the macro and micro data is that each consumer spent more than they would have if oil prices had not fallen, but that there were other macro headwinds at the same time that were offsetting some of the positive stimulus of falling oil prices.
In any case, we’ve now had plenty of time for cuts in spending by U.S. oil producers to start to have an economic effect of their own. If there’s an increase in spending by consumers of $1 and a decrease in spending by producers of $1, it’s not really a net wash for the economy. The reason is that the consumers are spending their money in different places and on different items than the producers are cutting. There is a lot of specialized labor and capital that’s involved in oil extraction that can’t move without cost to some other sector when the oil patch goes sour. I presented a model in 1988 in which an oil price decline could actually result in an increase in unemployment either because it takes time for people in the oil sector to move to the sectors where the jobs are now available, or because unemployed oil workers are still waiting where they were hoping for conditions to improve.
And of course we’re talking here not just about the people who work in the oil industry itself but all the other industries and services that sell to the oil sector and more in turn who sell to these suppliers. A recent analysis by Feyrer, Mansur, and Sacerdote concluded that without new U.S. oil and natural gas extraction, there would have been 725,000 fewer Americans working and a 0.5 percent higher unemployment rate during the Great Recession.
There are thus some reasons why a decrease in oil prices would be a boost to the U.S. economy and other reasons why it could even be a drag. A number of studies have looked at the effects of oil price decreases and concluded that these have little or no net positive effect on U.S. real GDP growth; see for example this survey. The price of oil fell from $30/barrel in November 1985 to $12 by July of 1986. U.S. real GDP continued growing throughout, logging a 2.9 percent increase overall for 1986, neither significantly faster nor slower than normal.
But 1986 was a bad time for Texas and the other oil-producing states. Here’s a graph from some analysis I did with Michael Owyang of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. We estimated for each state’s employment growth a recession-dating algorithm like the one that Econbrowser updates each quarter for the overall U.S. economy (by the way, a new update will be posted this Friday). The energy-producing states and their neighbors develop their own regional recession during the mid-1980’s even while national U.S. employment and GDP continued to grow.
One of the reasons that more people outside of Texas share Luskin’s worries is the recent striking correlation between oil prices and the U.S. stock market. On days when oil prices go down, U.S. stocks go down, suggesting the market is seeing bad news, not good, in oil price declines.
Cumulative percent change since Dec 22 in U.S. stock market (as measured by S&P500, in blue) and U.S. oil prices (as measured by the USO ETF, in red). Source: Google Finance.
The correlation is even more striking if you look at the Chinese stock market instead of the U.S.
Cumulative percent change since Dec 8 in Chinese stock market (as measured by Shanghai SSE composite, in blue) and U.S. oil prices (as measured by the USO ETF, in red). Source: Google Finance.
And that’s not because of all the carnage that’s in store for Chinese frackers. It isconcerns about China that are driving oil prices, not the other way around. If there is a global slowdown or recession, it certainly would be a factor contributing to lower oil prices.
But regardless of whether it’s oil prices that are moving stock prices or the other way around, folks in Texas and North Dakota have plenty of reason to be concerned.
By Donald Luskin
WASHINGTON kontan. Citigroup mengungkapkan, saat ini perekonomian global sudah berada di jurang resesi. Hal ini dikarenakan kurangnya stimulus dari bank sentral dan melambatnya ekonomi global akibat ekonomi China.
Terkait hal itu, Citi pun memangkas outlook pertumbuhan ekonomi global untuk 2016 menjadi 2,7% dari sebelumnya 2,8%. Hal serupa juga dilakukan Citi untuk outlook perekonomian Amerika, Inggris, Kanada, dan beberapa negara emerging seperti Rusia, Afrika Selatan, Brazil, dan Meksiko.
Kendati begitu, Citi tetap mempertahankan outlook pertumbuhan ekonomi China di 2016. Namun, untuk 2017, Citi memangkas pertumbuhan sebesar 0,2% menjadi 6%.
“China telah mengalami perlambatan selama beberapa tahun terakhir dan akan terus melambat. Data resmi pemerintahan China tidak sesuai dengan kondisi sebenarnya alias dinaikkan dari tingkat pertumbuhan sebenarnya. Namun, apa yang terjadi tahun lalu, saya rasa ekonomi China akan turun lagi,” jelas Willem Buiter, chief economist Citigroup.
Buitler menambahkan, meski tidak terjadi resesi dalam skala besar, namun, ekonomi dunia dipastikan mengalami resesi. “Hal ini juga berarti tekanan terhadap komoditas akan berlanjut dan terjadi penurunan pemesanan ekspor yang terkait dengan rantai dagang China,” paparnya.
Berdasarkan laporan Citi, pertumbuhan ekonomi global melambat menjadi 2,3% year on year pada kuartal IV 2015. Menurut Citi, pertumbuhan ekonomi globak akan naik tipis dalam beberapa kuartal ke depan seiring anjloknya harga minyak dunia.
Rusia dan Afrika Selatan merupakan dua negara yang pemangkasan outlook pertumbuhan ekonominya oleh Citi terbesar. Ekonomi Rusia dinilai akan turun 0,5%. Sedangkan ekonomi Afrika Selatan hanya akan tumbuh 0,3%.
Bisnis.com, DAVOS–Dua pertiga CEO dunia (66%) melihat semakin banyaknya ancaman terhadap perusahaan mereka saat ini dibandingkan dengan 3 tahun lalu. Tidak lebih dari seperempat (27%) meyakini pertumbuhan ekonomi global akan membaik selama 12 bulan ke depan, menurun 10 poin dibandingkan tahun lalu.
Demikian hasil Survei CEO Global Tahunan PwC ke-19 bertajuk Redefining Business Success in a Changing World. Hasil survei ini melibatkan berpartisipasi lebih dari 1.400 CEO ini dipublikasikan pada 19 Januari 2016 pada pembukaan Pertemuan Tahunan Forum Ekonomi Dunia (World Economic Forum Annual Meeting) di Davos, Swiss.
Selain itu, temuan survei ini menunjukkan hanya sedikit lebih dari sepertiga (35%) para pemimpin perusahaan yang sangat yakin terhadap pertumbuhan perusahaan mereka setahun mendatang, turun empat poin dari tahun lalu (39%), dan bahkan satu poin lebih rendah dari tahun 2013.
Hasil dalam survei menggarisbawahi perkiraan yang suram bagi ekonomi global selama 12 bulan ke depan.
Penyesuaian ekonomi China, merosotnya harga minyak mentah, dan kekhawatiran tentang keamanan geopolitik seluruhnya menyebabkan makin meningkatnya ketidakpastian tentang prospek pertumbuhan ekonomi global.
Secara global, hanya 27% responden yang berpendapat bahwa pertumbuhan ekonomi akan membaik selama 12 bulan ke depan, dibandingkan dengan 37% tahun lalu, sementara 23% berpendapat bahwa kondisi ekonomi akan memburuk (2015: 17%). Tingkat optimisme para CEO di Amerika Utara hanya separuh (16%) dari wilayah yang para pimpinan perusahaannya paling optimistis (Eropa Barat 33%, Timur Tengah 34%, ASEAN 38%). Nyaris sepertiga dari para CEO di Tiongkok (33%) meyakini bahwa pertumbuhan ekonomi global akan melambat pada tahun 2016.
The secular sulk
America’s looming rate rise will expose more frailties in emerging markets
THE prospect of interest-rate “lift-off” in America gives investors a reason to take their money there. So it has been odd to see a procession of emerging-market officials call on the Fed to get on with it, the sooner the better. Central bankers from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru are among those who have professed a desire for America’s rates to rise.
One explanation is that they are a little like patients waiting to give blood, tired of the excruciating wait and just hoping to be done with it. Things could certainly get painful. As it is, capital is already being diverted away from developing countries and towards America. In 2010-14 non-residents put $22 billion into emerging-market stocks and bonds every month, on average. In November they moved $3.5 billion out, the fourth month of such outflows in the past five, according to the Institute of International Finance, a trade association.
Further outflows in the coming months would put more pressure on the beleaguered currencies of many emerging markets. Depreciation makes their hefty external debts even more daunting. Dollar credit to non-banks outside America reached $9.8 trillion in the middle of this year; a bit more than a third of that was owed by borrowers in emerging markets, according to the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for central bankers.
To defend their currencies, central banks can raise interest rates in line with the Fed. In recent weeks Peru, Chile and Colombia have done just that in anticipation of lift-off, as have Angola, Ghana, Zambia and others. Higher domestic interest rates, though, come at a cost, dampening economic activity. They also make it more expensive for companies to refinance domestically, a problem since the bulk of their new debt in recent years has been in their local currencies. Whichever route emerging markets choose to take, in other words, some pain is inevitable—hence the desire to get it over with quickly.
Another explanation for their sang-froid in the face of the Fed is that the worst might already be behind them. It has been a brutal year for the assets and currencies of many developing countries. Average real exchange rates for emerging markets, excluding China, are now as weak as in late 2002, when investors still had raw memories of the crises of the 1990s.
A decade of furious growth had dimmed those memories, but this year has revived them. The MSCI index of emerging-market equities has fallen by 15% (see chart), badly underperforming developed markets and hitting its lowest level since the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
From this vantage, much of the downside from rising American rates appears to have been priced in already. Take two of the most battered currencies, the Malaysian ringgit and the Russian rouble. They are down by some 25% and 50%, respectively, over the past two years. A steadying of their value would make nominal corporate earnings in both countries look far healthier in dollar terms: other things being equal, they would go from double-digit falls to being flattish. Jonathan Anderson of Emerging Advisors forecasts that the big theme of 2016 will be a “stabilisation trade”, as portfolio investors are lured back to developing countries.
The International Monetary Fund sees a similar trajectory for economies as a whole. It forecasts that emerging-market growth will average 4.5% next year, up from 3.9% this year, breaking a streak of five straight years of decelerating growth. It is not that emerging markets will have suddenly regained their lustre. Rather, it is that recessions will be less severe, if not over, in places like Brazil and Russia.
Yet if the best that can be said about emerging markets is that they will stabilise, this points to a more troubling reason for their relative indifference: the realisation that the Fed is the least of their problems.
In 2013, investors dumped emerging-market assets when America signalled the beginning of the end of its programme of quantitative easing. That episode came to be known as the “taper tantrum”. This time the gloom that envelops emerging markets might be more accurately described as a “secular sulk”.
The fear is that a golden era of growth, fuelled by China’s ravenous appetite for commodities, has come to a close, exposing deep cracks in their economic foundations. David Lubin of Citigroup, a bank, talks of a “broken growth model”. Governments cannot stimulate their economies because their creditors will not tolerate big deficits. Companies are also unable or unwilling to invest more because they have built up big debts. Exports are of little help because many of these economies are now overly reliant on commodities.
The feeble state of manufacturing across emerging markets, with the exception of parts of Asia, means that many will miss out on the one big upside to lift-off. The Fed is set to raise rates because of America’s relative economic strength. America, in turn, should provide a boost to countries that make the things it wants to buy. But emerging markets such as Indonesia and South Africa that specialise in commodities have not just been hit hardest by China’s slowdown; they are also the least likely to benefit from America’s growth. To them, lift-off will sound like a cruel joke. They will stay pinned to the ground.
fortune: Governments have ignored the need to reform the global monetary system.
The U.S. economy is in the midst of a recession. Well, a profits recession, at least.
The consensus for Q3 earnings per share is down 2.8% from the third quarter of last year, and that’s following a 10.9% year-over-year decline in aggregate S&P 500 earnings in the second quarter. That’s the first earnings recession we’ve had since 2009, when the economy was just recovering from the worst of the financial crisis.
Some of America’s biggest industrial powerhouses are feeling the pain. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that firms like Caterpillar CAT -0.73% , Kimberly Clark KMB -0.14% , and Johnson & Johnson JNJ 0.22% are contributing to the current earnings contraction. “The industrial environment’s in a recession. I don’t care what anybody says,” Daniel Florness, chief financial officer of Fastenal Co., FAST 0.61% said in an earnings call earlier this month.
These companies are suffering from the recent, sharp run-up in the dollar, which shrinks dollar-denominated earnings from sales abroad. S&P 500 companies are also struggling with the collapse in oil prices. Because a large chunk of S&P 500 companies are linked to the energy sector, this trend hits big business harder than it does the broader economy.
On a positive note, earnings recessions brought on by a weak dollar and slumping oil prices haven’t generally triggered recessions in the broader economy. Jim O’Sullivan of High Frequency Economics argues that a good point of comparison is the 1998 profits recession:
Back then global growth and and exports weakened significantly, oil and other commodity prices prices fell sharply and the dollar surged, yet overall growth remained solid.
As the effects of a stronger dollar and weak oil dissipate, so should sluggish profits growth. But what if the strong dollar and cheap oil are here to stay?
There is a growing consensus among economists that a global financial system based on the dollar is not an “exorbitant privilege” for the U.S. as was once thought, but a burden on an economy that has bled jobs in labor intensive industries for more than a generation. These economists argue that the massive demand for dollar-denominated assets from foreign multinationals and central banks has created an artificially strong dollar and has hamstrung American exporters.
Sure, the dollar’s rise has pulled back a bit lately, as markets question whether the Federal Reserve really will raise interest rates this year. But with the U.S. economy the only bright spotin a world of slowing growth, and central banks in Europe, Japan, and China loosening their monetary policy, there’s plenty of reason to believe that the dollar will remain pricey for years to come, even if the Fed refrains from hiking rates.
This overvaluing of the the U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, yen, and Chinese yuan has led to a huge trade deficit and was one of the drivers of the global financial crisis, as foreign savers piled into overvalued, “safe” dollar-denominated assets, like U.S. mortgage debt. Though global regulators have made strides in making the international banking system safer, the fundamental drivers of global trade imbalances have been largely ignored.
This fact has led some economists to question whether we need another Plaza Accord to bring stability to global trade. The Plaza Accord is shorthand for a series of agreements signed between 1985 and 1986 by the five major economies at the time: the United States, West Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. It committed these five powers to work to bring down the value of the U.S. dollar and reduce the American trade deficit.
As economist C. Fred Bergsten of the Rice Institute points out, the trade deficit today is as large as it was back in 1985 in terms of GDP, and the Plaza Accord helped the United States eliminate its trade deficit within the decade, before it began to rise again. This suggests to Bergsten that another Plaza Accord would be wise 30 years later.
Of course, the global economy is in a much different place than it was in the mid-1980s. Political support for implementing protectionist policies was much greater in the U.S. at that time, with a labor-backed Democratic Congress demanding relief from American deindustrialization. This motivated exporters like West Germany and Japan to come to the negotiating table lest the U.S. take unilateral action to get its trade deficit under control.
At the same time, global trade imbalance led by an over-reliance on the the U.S. dollar was a primary cause of the financial crisis, and now we can see such imbalances hurting U.S. companies during this recovery. Whether it’s another Plaza Accord, the creation of a new international reserve currency, or the beefing up of international organizations like the IMF to relieve the need for emerging markets to hoard dollar assets, something must be done to ease pressure on the U.S. dollar as the sole lubricant for global commerce.
JAKARTA sindonews – Ekonom Senior Mandiri Sekuritas, Leo Putra Rinaldy menjelaskan pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia 2016 masih akan mengalami tantangan terutama berasal dari pertumbuhan ekonomi negara maju.
Menurutnya yang menjadi pendorong utama ekonomi dunia tahun depan bukan lagi berasal dari negara-negara berkembang, namun dari negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat dan negara benua Eropa.
Dia juga menambahkan Indonesia masih harus mewaspadai kenaikan kembali suku bunga bank sentral Amerika Serikat (The Fed) yang masih bakal menanjak secara bertahap tahun depan dan pelemahan ekonomi China yang sempat mendevaluasikan mata uangnya.
“Di 2016 Indonesia masih akan menghadapi risiko global yaitu kenaikan Fed Fund Rate, dan pelemahan ekonomi di China. Itu yang harus diwaspadai untuk tahun depan,” ucapnya dalam Economic Outlook Mandiri, di Plaza Mandiri, Jakarta, Senin (21/12/2015).
Lebih lanjut Dia menjelaskan Data International Monetary Fund (IMF) memperkirakan, dalam kisaran waktu 2015-2020, ekonomi negara-negara maju berada dalam tren yang positif dan mengalami kenaikan, kecuali di China yang masih akan mengalami pelemahan.
“Pertumbuhan akan di drive oleh negara-negara maju seperti AS dan prediksi akan terus pick up rata-rata naik 2,5%. Tapi untuk China akan turun terus,” katanya.
Terlebih lagi katanya, situasi mengkhawatirkan akan terjadi pada yuan yang akan terus terdevaluasi sampai tahun depan yang berakibat ke melamahnya mata uang Indonesia.
“Prediksinya seperti itu, China akan masih mendevaluasikan yuan. Karena trennya terus melambat. Ini berpotensi ke pelemahan mata uang kita,” katanya.
Selain itu, kenaikan fed rate (suku bunga AS) juga perlu diperhatikan, karena akan berdampak signifikan terhadap rupiah jika sampai terjadi kenaikan 125 basis poin (bps) ke atas.
“Kenaikan Fed Fund Rate itu bisa jadi tekanan buat Indonesia kalau di atas 125 bps, itu jadi volatility ke rupiah. Nah, kalau market kita memang ekspektasi kenaikannya 2-3 kali, 50-70 bps,” tandasnya.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Perekonomian Amerika Serikat masih tumbuh melambat pada kuartal III-2015.
Meskipun demikian, menurut data yang dirilis pemerintah AS, perekonomian Negeri Paman Sam tersebut tetap baik meski berada di bawah historisnya lebih dari 6 tahun dan menuju perbaikan.
Pertumbuhan ekonomi AS pada kuartal III-2015 berada pada posisi 2 persen. Capaian ini berada di bawah prediksi sebelumnya.
Departemen Perdagangan AS sempat memprediksi pertumbuhan ekonomi AS mencapai 2,1 persen setelah meningkat pada posisi 3,9 persen pada kuartal II-2015.
Penurunan kinerja pertumbuhan ekonomi ini antara lain didorong oleh besarnya defisit neraca perdagangan.
Dalam 9 bulan pertama tahun 2015, pertumbuhan ekonomi AS berada pada posisi 2,2 persen. Ekonomi pun diprediksi masih melambat pada kuartal IV-2015.
Jika memang prediksi tersebut benar, maka ekonomi AS gagal mencapai posisi di atas 3 persen selama 10 tahun berturut-turut.
Tidak hanya itu, capaian ini juga merupakan yang terlambat sejak berakhirnya Perang Dunia II. Secara historis, perekonomian AS mencapai kisaran 3,3 persen.
Laporan terkini pemerintah AS ini merefleksikan cerminan kinerja perdagangan yang cukup buruk pada akhir musim panas dan dan awal musim gugur.
Ekspor tumbuh melambat pada posisi 0,7 persen dari estimasi sebelumnya 0,9 persen. Impor pun meningkat menjadi 2,3 persen dibandingkan estimasi 2,1 persen.
Berdasarkan laporan yang dikutip dari MarketWatch, ekspor melambat disebabkan menguatnya nilai tukar dollar AS dan melemahnya perekonomian global.
Sementara itu, menurunnya harga minyak mentah mendorong para produsen energi untuk memperlambat produksi.
|Penulis||: Sakina Rakhma Diah Setiawan|
|Editor||: Bambang Priyo Jatmiko|
New York, Dec 14, 2015 (AFP)
The US dollar held steady Monday ahead of a historic Federal Reserve meeting expected to raise the benchmark US interest rate for the first time after seven years near zero.
Economists and the financial markets are strongly convinced that the increase — likely a quarter point to a range of 0.25-0.50 percent — will be announced when the Fed ends its two-day policy meeting on Wednesday.
But there is disagreement on how fast subsequent rate increases promised by the Fed will come, and traders remained cautious Monday ahead of the Fed’s policy statement and growth and rate forecasts, due at 2:00 pm (1900 GMT) on Wednesday.
After falling back from highs last week, the dollar ended Monday barely changed from Friday, trading at $1.0992 per euro and at 120.98 yen about 2200 GMT.
“The dollar for months has been bought in anticipation a Fed rate hike would come to fruition before the end of the year,” said forex specialist Joe Manimbo at Western Union Business Solutions.
“The near-certainty of a rate hike Wednesday has started to translate into weakness for the dollar, as it succumbs to the classic market play of ‘buy the rumor, sell the fact.'”
“Markets will have more than a rate decision to digest with the central bank also unveiling fresh forecasts for the economy and interest rates, while Chair Janet Yellen will hold a post-meeting news conference,” he added.
2200 GMT Monday Friday
EUR/USD 1.0992 1.0996
EUR/JPY 132.99 132.89
EUR/CHF 1.0834 1.0804
EUR/GBP 0.7262 0.7221
USD/JPY 120.98 120.86
USD/CHF 0.9856 0.9825
GBP/USD 1.5138 1.5228