The updated economic scenario and forecasts of the Economic research
Last week, the Trump administration announced tariffs against the entire world which, added to those of previous weeks, will raise the average external tariff of the United States to 22%, compared with 2.5% at the end of 2024. Financial markets have reacted extremely badly, and suggest even more serious fears for US growth than for global growth. Many unknowns remain, but this scenario is the most plausible. For the United States' trading partners, it would be better to resist the temptation to escalate and instead to double down on strengthening the engines of domestic growth. Europe is particularly well placed to do this.
Equity indices, Currencies & commodities, and Bond markets.
The vulnerability of ASEAN countries to US trade protectionism has increased significantly since 2017. The US has become a key destination for these countries, which export low-intensity tech products (such as textiles and footwear) as well as medium-intensity tech products (mobile phones) and high-intensity tech products (integrated circuits and semiconductors). Vietnam, Thailand and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia have the largest trade surpluses with the US and are therefore the most exposed to a change in US tariff policy.On 2 April, the US government announced an increase in tariffs on ASEAN countries that goes well beyond simple reciprocity
How will Beijing react to the imminent US protectionist measures? Will the central bank allow the yuan to depreciate in order to offset the effect of tariff hikes on the price competitiveness of Chinese exports?
As a result of the post-Covid debts surge and rising interest rates, the financial burden on governments is increasing. In the OECD, it has reached 3.3% of GDP, its highest level since 2010. For the European Union, the end of the period of cheap money coincides with a substantial increase in its borrowing requirements, partly linked to the need of rearmament. Public finances, already confronted with climate change and ageing populations, are under pressure and will not be able to meet all the challenges alone.
The message delivered by Beijing at the annual meeting of the National People's Congress at the beginning of March was clear: whatever the difficulties linked to trade and technological rivalries with the United States, the Chinese economy must achieve growth of close to 5% in 2025. The target has remained unchanged since 2023. It seems particularly ambitious this year, given that external demand, the driving force behind Chinese growth in 2024, is set to weaken significantly due to the rise in protectionist measures against China. The authorities are counting on domestic demand to pick up the slack, but this is still coming up against powerful obstacles
After being left reeling by the unexpected money-market crisis during its first round of quantitative tightening (QT1), the US Federal Reserve (Fed) intends to manage the second (QT2) with the utmost caution. This means reducing its securities portfolio without creating a shortage in central bank money, in view of the liquidity requirements imposed on banks under the Basel 3 framework. As it is unable to estimate the optimum amount of central bank reserves needed to ensure that its monetary policy is properly implemented, the Fed aims to reduce the stock of reserves to a sufficiently "ample" level.If QT2 is ended too early, it would have to activate its liquidity draining tools in order to limit the downwards pressure on short-term market rates
They say the Davos consensus is always wrong, but it usually takes longer than a couple of months to be apparent. Not so in 2025.
Government bond yields in advanced economies are highly correlated, much more than the correlation of real GDP growth. Governments should be cognizant that a lack of fiscal discipline can create negative externalities, by pushing up bond yields abroad. Given the prospect of huge financing needs in the public and private sector, every issuer of debt should prepare for the possibility of structurally higher interest rates and stress test his balance sheet in order to test its resilience.
Inflation is no longer the No. 1 economic problem that it has been for the past three years, but it remains a major challenge. While it has not reached its 2% target yet, and the last pockets are slowly deflating, new inflationary pressures are mounting. At this stage, those pressures are limited but not negligible and new inflationary risks, linked to the economic and geopolitical context, are taking shape. The Fed's task is becoming more complicated by the risk of a US stagflation, and the ECB's one happens to be slightly trickier when balancing between downside and upside risks on growth.
The two most recent shocks to emerging countries (the 2022-2023 tightening of US monetary policy, and the election of Donald Trump at the end of 2024) have not affected their financing conditions. However, supporting factors have weakened since the second half of last year. In the coming months, financing conditions could tighten as a result of rising geopolitical risk in particular. However, the adverse impact on emerging economies should be viewed in perspective, given the low transmission of the two recent external shocks to interest rates. Although exchange rates have continued to depreciate against the dollar, the vulnerability of debt to foreign exchange risk is moderate or low for households and non-financial companies
While the Fed lowered its target rate by 100 bps from 18 September 2024, bond yields rose by around 80 bps (as at 7/2/2025). This rare divergence is reminiscent of an inverse version of the ‘Greenspan conundrum’ (2004–2005): during this episode, which spread to Europe, the rise in short-term rates had little effect on long-term rates. What are the reasons for these contrary movements between short- and long-term rates, and what might the implications be?
The consensus view currently holds that the great divergence between the US and EU economies observed since the pandemic is bound to continue. As a snapshot of current conditions, it is certainly true that the US economy has a strong growth momentum and bullish animal spirits, while Europe has neither. But extrapolating from a snapshot, as instinct tempts us to do, is often wrong. In fact, there are solid reasons to expect the gap between US and Europe growth to shrink in 2025—as envisioned in BNPP’s central scenario, with the US economy slowing down and the Eurozone’s accelerating (albeit modestly so). Beyond the year-ahead outlook, there are at least 5 reasons to challenge the view that Donald Trump’s economic policies will make Europe even weaker. Let’s consider them in turn.
Energy policy was at the top of the agenda during the election campaign and in the first few weeks of the Trump presidency. Its objectives are to reaffirm America's domination of the global hydrocarbon market (the United States has been the world's leading oil producer since 2019) and to ensure low prices for US consumers. In practice, this is manifesting in a desire to increase US oil and gas production by three million barrels of oil equivalent per day, for an average crude oil production of over 13 million b/d in 2024. But is this goal realistic?
