Research Notes

The second half of 2025 will be an interesting time for everyone. Geopolitical uncertainty prevails. How will all of this impact the Australian investor and in particular, their wealth and retirement savings? Whether you are an accumulator, saving for short- and long-term goals, or a retiree, hoping for a comfortable retirement, the ability to manage this uncertainty will be key.

When we published the previous Your Wealth – First Half 2025, the Division 296 Bill (Div296) was also facing uncertainty. The Bill was eventually blocked in the Senate prior to the Federal Election. The Labor Party succeeded in winning so it’s Ground Hog Day for Div296. The Government doesn’t have the numbers in the Senate to pass the Bill without support from other parties. The Greens are the likely negotiating party but will undoubtably have their own agenda. Regardless, there is a high probability this legislation will be passed once Parliament resumes.

Our message to our clients is to wait until we know more details and to not act in haste.

In addition to our Feature Article which provides further insights on Div296, this edition also Spotlights the Aged Care changes due this year, with the start date pushed back to 1 November.

We hope readers enjoy this edition of Your Wealth.

‍

Morgans clients receive exclusive insights such as access to our latest Your Wealth publication. Contact us today to begin your journey with Morgans.

‍

‍

This morning, I was asked to discuss Sarah Hunter’s presentation from yesterday. Sarah, the Assistant Governor and Chief Economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), delivered a detailed and competent discussion on the conventional view of tariffs’ impact on the international economy. She highlighted that tariffs typically increase inflation and reduce economic output, a perspective echoed by the OECD in a similar presentation overnight. Sarah’s analysis focused on the potential shocks tariffs could cause, particularly their effects on GDP and inflation.

Drawing on my experience as an Australian trade commissioner and my work in Australian embassies, I found her presentation particularly interesting. My background allowed me to bring specialist knowledge to the conversation, which I believe gave me an edge. Notably, I observed that the RBA seems to lack analysts closely tracking individual policymakers in the Trump administration, such as Scott Bessent, whose views on tariffs and competition differ from the general assumptions. The conventional view assumes a world of perfectly competitive countries adhering to international trade rules and unlikely to engage in conflict—a scenario that doesn’t align with the current global trade environment, especially between China and the United States.

China, operating as a Marxist-Leninist economy, aims to dominate global markets by building monopolies in areas like rare earths, nickel, copper, and other base metals. It maintains a managed exchange rate, despite promises to the International Monetary Fund for a freely floating currency. If China allowed its currency, the RMB, to float, it would likely appreciate significantly, increasing imports and reducing its trade surplus. This would create a more balanced international trade environment, potentially reducing the need for other countries to impose tariffs. However, major institutions like the OECD and RBA seem to misjudge the nature of this trade shock, relying on outdated assumptions about global trade dynamics.

The international community also appears to overlook specific U.S. policy intentions, such as those articulated by figures like Peter Navarro and Scott Bessent. The U.S. aims to use tariffs selectively to bolster industries like pharmaceuticals, precision manufacturing, and motor vehicles. This misunderstanding leads public institutions to perceive unspecified risks, as reflected in Sarah’s otherwise able presentation. Because the RBA and similar institutions view the world as fraught with undefined risks, they are inclined to keep interest rates low, responding to perceived threats rather than an equilibrium model.

Interestingly, data from the U.S. economy contradicts the expected negative impacts of tariffs. The Chicago Fed National Activity Indicator, a reliable gauge of economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis, shows U.S. growth above the long-term trend for the first four months of this year. This suggests resilience despite tariff-related shocks. Ideally, growth will slow later this year, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut rates, facilitating a soft landing and a decline in the U.S. dollar to boost global commodity prices. However, this nuanced outlook wasn’t evident in yesterday’s presentation.

Moreover, the anticipated rise in U.S. inflation due to tariffs isn’t materialising. Scott Bessent recently noted that U.S. CPI inflation is lower than expected, with core inflation shown as the (16% trimmed mean) at 3% for the past two months . Core inflation  excluding  food and energy CPI  is only at 2.8%. This suggests that Chinese suppliers are absorbing tariff costs to maintain market share, rather than passing them on as higher prices. Recent Chinese data supports this, showing a slight decline in manufacturing confidence and coal consumption, indicating reduced factory output and electricity use. This points to a modest slowdown in China’s economy. So far the expected negative effects on U.S. prices and output are not occurring.

In summary, the fears expressed by institutions like the RBA and OECD about the Trump administration’s trade policies appear overstated. The U.S. economy is not experiencing the predicted declines in output or increases in inflation. While these effects may emerge later, the current data suggests that the risks are not as severe as anticipated, highlighting a disconnect between theoretical models and real-world outcomes.

‍

‍

‍

Today, I’m presenting the first page of my updated presentation, which focuses on GDP growth and inflation expectations for major economies. Before diving into that, I want to clarify a point about U.S. trade negotiations that has confused some media outlets.

In the previous Trump Administration ,there was single trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, held a cabinet position with the rank of Ambassador. This time, to expedite negotiations and give them more weight, Trump has appointed two additional cabinet-level officials to handle trade talks with different regions. For Asian economies, Scott Bessent and Ambassador Jamison Greer, who succeeded Lighthizer and previously served on the White House staff, are managing negotiations, including those with China. For Europe, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, and Ambassador Greer are negotiating with the European Trade Representative. When the EU representative visits Washington, D.C., they meet with Lutnick and Greer, while Chinese or Japanese representatives engage with Bessent and Greer.

In my presentation today, I’m outlining the economic outlook for growth and inflation in the U.S., the Euro area, China, India, and Australia, drawing data from the International Monetary Fund, the Congressional Budget Office, European sources, and my own analysis for Australia.

For the U.S., the best-case scenario is a soft landing, with growth slowing but remaining positive at 1.3% this year and rising to 1.7% next year. This slowdown allows the Federal Reserve to continue cutting interest rates, leading to a decline in the U.S. dollar. This in turn ,triggers a recovery in commodity prices. These prices have stabilized and are now trending upward, with an expected acceleration as the dollar weakens.

U.S. headline inflation is projected to be just below 3% next year, with higher figures this year driven by tariff effects.

‍

‍

In the Euro area, growth is accelerating slightly, from just under 1% this year to 1.2% next year, with inflation expected to hit the 2% target this year and dip to 1.9% next year.

China’s GDP growth is forecast  at 4% for both this year and next, a step down from previous 5% rates, reflecting a significant slump in domestic demand and very low inflation  Chinese Inflation is only  :   0.2% last year, 0.4% this year, and 0.9% next year.  Despite a massive fiscal push, with a budget deficit around 8% of GDP, China’s debt-to-GDP ratio is rising faster than the U.S.. Yet this is  yielding more modest  domestic growth.

India, on the other hand, continues to outperform, with 6.5% GDP growth last year, 6.2% this year, and  6.3%  next year, surpassing earlier projections.