Fed's 9-3 Hold Removes Forward Guidance as a Policy Tool

source:

[1] FOMC Recap: The Removal of Forward Guidance Is Not a Communications Change. It's a Policy Tool. (https://www.etftrends.com/etf-strategist-cont ...)[2] Warsh-Led Fed Leaves Rates on Hold and a Bond Market Scratching Its Head (https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/artic ...)[3] 2026 Cumberland Advisors Midyear Outlook (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4928081-2026 ...)[4] Fed Holds Rates Steady as Three Policymakers Dissent for a Hike (https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/artic ...)[5] Wall Street Closes Down Sharply After Fed Holds Rates Unchanged (https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/artic ...)

Related News

Jul 31 2026, 14:51

Amazon to refund customers after $600 million tariff payout

Amazon received $600 million in refunds after the Supreme Court struck down sweeping Trump-era tariffs earlier this year, and will pass a portion back to customers who absorbed specific import charges, CFO Brian Olsavsky said on the company's earnings call Thursday. "We have identified a limited set of circumstances where we can trace that we passed specific import charges onto customers, and when we receive those refunds, we will proactively contact affected customers and automatically issue refunds to them," Olsavsky said. Amazon largely absorbed the cost of the tariffs rather than passing them to consumers, the CFO said, and the company built up inventory ahead of the tariff implementation, which reduced the size of the refund. The Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs earlier this year, making companies eligible to request refunds on duties paid. The refund marks a rare instance of a major retailer returning tariff-related costs to consumers. Other importers are also seeking refunds, though Nintendo has declined, telling plaintiffs in a class action that customers "received exactly what they bargained and paid for." ## Refund Process and Customer Impact Amazon has not specified when refunds will be processed or how many customers will be affected. The company said it will proactively contact eligible customers and automatically issue refunds, rather than requiring them to file claims. The company's approach contrasts with its earlier consideration of displaying tariff-related price increases to shoppers. Amazon reportedly planned to show how much more customers were paying as a result of the tariffs on its low-cost Amazon Haul store, but denied ever approving the plan, saying it was only "considered." The tariff regime that triggered these refunds imposed duties across a broad range of imported consumer goods. The Supreme Court's decision invalidating the tariffs followed months of legal challenges from importers and trade groups, and opened the door for companies across sectors to reclaim duties paid during the tariff period. ## Broader Retail Implications Amazon's $600 million refund is among the largest disclosed so far, though the company has not said how much of that total will be returned to customers versus retained. Olsavsky said Amazon "largely absorbed" the impact of rising prices from the tariffs, suggesting the company's share of the refund could be substantial. The distinction matters for how the retail sector handles tariff-related costs going forward. Companies that passed import charges directly to consumers face potential refund obligations, while those that absorbed the costs internally may retain the full benefit of any government payout. Amazon's inventory buildup ahead of the tariff implementation also reduced its exposure, meaning the company paid fewer duties than it would have otherwise. If other major importers follow Amazon's lead and return tariff-related charges to consumers, it could set a precedent for how companies handle government refunds tied to trade policy reversals. Nintendo's refusal to refund customers in response to a class action lawsuit suggests some companies will treat tariff costs as absorbed business expenses rather than pass-through charges. The Supreme Court's ruling also raises questions about the durability of executive-branch tariff authority. The decision invalidating the tariffs came after months of legal challenges, and its implications extend beyond refunds to how future administrations approach trade policy. For retailers and importers, the ruling provides a legal framework for challenging tariff measures that lack clear congressional authorization. The refund also provides a one-time cash inflow for Amazon at a time when the company is investing heavily in artificial intelligence infrastructure and logistics. The timing of customer refunds remains unclear, though Amazon said it will begin reaching out to affected consumers in the near future. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Jul 31 2026, 14:49

Embecta faces securities class action after 57.8% stock plunge

Embecta Corp. faces a securities class action after its shares plunged 57.8 percent to $3.90 on May 5, 2026, following a guidance cut. "The case presents important questions about revenue guidance disclosure obligations in the medical device sector," Joseph E. Levi, founding partner at Levi & Korsinsky LLP, said. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges Embecta misled investors about the strength of its pen needle business and fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance between Nov. 25, 2025 and May 4, 2026. Embecta cut its FY2026 revenue guidance by about 46 percent and reduced its quarterly dividend 93 percent to $0.01 from $0.15. Pen needles and safety pen needles represent about 85 percent of the company's product portfolio. The stock fell $5.35 per share, or 57.8 percent, from $9.25 on May 4 to $3.90 on May 5. Investors who purchased Embecta securities during the class period have until Aug. 17, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The complaint, captioned Apitz-Grossman v. Embecta Corp., No. 26-cv-07217, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges Embecta repeatedly reaffirmed FY2026 revenue guidance of $1.071 billion to $1.093 billion while facing accelerating share loss in its pen needle segment. Pen needle shortfalls accounted for roughly $53 million of the $75 million total guidance reduction, or more than 70 percent of the miss. The complaint details additional headwinds: market volume softness in the retail channel for insulin pens and pen needles contributed an estimated $20 million shortfall, while inventory reductions and net pricing pressure added about $8 million. Syringe, swab and safety product declines contributed another $22 million, including $13 million from syringes, $5 million from discontinued swab products and $4 million from safety products. Share loss was concentrated at a single major customer, which the company described as "incredibly resolute" weeks before the miss. The insulin delivery device market has been shifting as pump adoption and GLP-1 therapies reshape patient purchasing patterns in the United States. Embecta cited geographic diversification and the stability of insulin pen prescriptions to reassure investors, while the U.S. retail channel was already seeing declines in new insulin pen prescriptions, the complaint alleges. Robbins LLP and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP have also announced the class action, which is being handled on a contingency basis. The legal overhang adds pressure to a stock already trading near its lowest levels, and a settlement or adverse ruling could weigh further on Embecta's valuation. Investors will watch the lead plaintiff deadline on Aug. 17, 2026 and any subsequent court rulings for the case's trajectory. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Jul 31 2026, 14:34

Iran suspends Hormuz passage, cutting off 20% of global oil

Iran's "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" declared Hormuz closed to normal passage on July 31, citing continued US military aggression in surrounding waters, a move that threatens roughly 20 percent of global oil and LNG trade. "The region's energy sector appears weaker and more vulnerable than at any point since the war began," said Ron Bousso, energy columnist at Reuters, in a July 30 analysis. Combined exports from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia's west coast have already slipped to around 6.2 million barrels per day this week, less than half the wartime peak of 13.4 million bpd hit in late June and far below the more than 20 million bpd that typically left the region before the conflict, according to data analytics firm Kpler. The announcement follows the unraveling of the US-Iran interim ceasefire deal on June 17 and renewed US strikes against Iranian targets this week after Tehran and allied militias targeted tankers and two major refineries in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The formal closure raises the stakes for global energy markets that have been operating under an effective shutdown for months. India's Mangalore Refinery has already issued a crude purchase tender explicitly asking suppliers to avoid the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, while Asian and European LNG importers are pressing Qatar and the UAE for lower prices and stronger supply guarantees. If the closure persists, crude prices could spike well beyond current levels, triggering safe-haven flows into gold and US Treasuries and a broad sell-off in global equities. **Exports Already Halved** The suspension accelerates a decline that has been building since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran more than five months ago. Gulf producers have been forced to reroute shipments through the Red Sea, but Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi militia declared an embargo on Saudi exports last week, complicating that alternative corridor. Attacks on tankers and energy infrastructure have forced two major refineries in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to shut down. The last comparable disruption came during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when the "Tanker War" led to US naval escorts of reflagged Kuwaiti tankers and a sustained period of elevated oil prices and war-risk insurance premiums. That conflict eventually ended with a ceasefire, but the current standoff has no obvious diplomatic off-ramp. The US has so far failed to eliminate Tehran's ability to disrupt shipping with air strikes, while President Donald Trump appears reluctant to embark on a deeper regional war. **Buyers Rethink Gulf Dependence** The psychological damage may outlast the physical disruption. For decades, Gulf energy supplies commanded a reliability premium from Asian buyers. The war has demonstrated that Iran can disrupt the strait using relatively cheap drones and missiles, and even if shipping resumes, the threat will persist. Gulf producers may be forced to offer discounts to retain customers, and importers are already seeking more bespoke, direct supply deals outside the liquid spot market. Oman presented Tehran with a Gulf-backed proposal under which Iran would help administer the strait and collect voluntary fees from vessels using the route. Iran rejected the proposal, insisting that the entire inbound shipping channel and part of the outbound route should fall under its control, according to an Iranian official. Washington has repeatedly rejected any suggestion that ships should pay tolls to transit the strait. The immediate question is whether the US will respond militarily to enforce freedom of navigation or whether diplomatic pressure will force a compromise. With Tehran demanding control over the strait and Washington refusing to legitimize any Iranian authority over the waterway, the standoff has no obvious near-term resolution. Energy markets are pricing in a prolonged period of elevated risk, with higher insurance premiums and shipping costs becoming the new cost of doing business in the Gulf. For Asian importers that depend on Gulf crude for a significant share of their refining feedstock, the cost of rerouting and higher insurance could translate directly into higher fuel prices for consumers. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.