
By
GO Markets
本文由 GO Markets 的分析師及撰稿人撰寫,內容基於其獨立分析或個人經驗。文中所表達的觀點、意見或交易風格均屬作者個人,並不代表或反映 GO Markets 的立場。任何提供的建議均屬一般性,並未考慮您的個人目標、財務狀況或需求。在採取任何行動之前,請考慮該建議是否適合您的目標、財務狀況與需求。若該建議涉及購買特定金融產品,請於作出任何決定前,先閱讀我們網站上提供的《產品揭露聲明書》(Disclosure Statement, DS)及其他法律文件。
The biggest move in 80 years We need to start with what is probably the biggest structural change Europe has seen since the formation of the European Union to its biggest member – Germany. For the first time in 80 years Germany’s Bundestag has voted to lift the country's “debt brake” to allow the expansion of major defence and infrastructure spending under new leadership of incoming Chancellor Frederick Merz. We need to illustrate how much spending Germany is going to do in defence it is up to €1 trillion over the forward estimates. 5 billion of which is to support Ukraine for this year and to continue to put European pressure on Russia.
It's also a country it has been highly sceptical of stimulating itself having suffered through the Weimar government of the 1920s and 30s that led to hideous hyperinflation and drove the country to political extremism. It is also clearly in response to Washington’s change of tact regarding Europe and the war in Ukraine. As it is now clear that Europe who need to defend itself and that NATO is becoming a dead weight that can no longer be relied upon.
Couple this with what the EU is doing itself. Last week we saw the head of the EU Ursula von der Leyen, delivered a speech that stated the continent needed to: “rearm and develop the capabilities to have credible deterrence.” This came off the back of the EU endorsing a commission plan aimed at mobilising up to €800 billion in investments specifically around infrastructure and in turn defence. The plan also proposes to ease the blocs fiscal rules to allow states to spend much more on defence.
If you want to see direct market reactions to this change in the continent’s commitments – look no further than the performance of the CAC40 and DAX30. Both are outperforming in 2025 and considering how far back they are coming compared to their US counterparts over the past 5 years – the switch trade may only be just beginning. What is also interesting it’s the limited reactions in debt markets.
The 10-year Bund finished marginally higher, though overall European bond markets saw limited movement. Bonds rallied slightly following confirmation of the German stimulus package. Inflation swap rates were little changed, while EUR swaps dipped, particularly in the belly of the curve.
EUR/USD ticked up 0.2% to $1.0960. Hopes for a potential Russia-Ukraine cease-fire also offered some support to the euro but has eased to start the weeks as Russia looks to break the deal before it even begins. Staying with currency impactors – The US saw a range of second-tier U.S. economic data releases last week all came in stronger than expected.
Housing starts jumped, likely benefiting from improved February weather. Industrial production rose 0.7% month-over-month big beat considering consensus was for a 0.2% gain while manufacturing jumped 0.9%. Import and export prices also exceeded forecasts, prompting a slight upward revision to core PCE inflation estimates, mainly due to higher-than-expected foreign airfares.
These upside surprises led to a brief sell-off in treasury bills but yields soon drifted lower as equities struggled. Looking ahead to the FOMC decision, expectations remain for the Fed to hold steady. Chair Powell has emphasised that the U.S. economy is in a "good place" despite ongoing uncertainties and has signalled there’s no rush to cut rates.
The Fed’s updated projections are expected to show a slight downward revision to growth, a more cautious view on GDP risks, and slightly higher inflation forecasts. As for rate cuts, the median expectation remains two 25bps cuts in 2025 and another two in 2026, with markets currently pricing around 56bps of easing next year. All this saw the U.S. dollar trade mixed against G10 currencies as local factors took centre stage.
Despite a weaker risk tone in equities, the DXY USD Index edged down 0.1%. The Aussie and Kiwi dollars softened (AUD/USD -0.3%, NZD/USD -0.4%) as risk sentiment deteriorated. The AUD will be interesting this week as we look to the budget that was never meant to happen on Tuesday.
Considering that we are within 10 weeks of a certain election, the budget really is not worth the paper its written on as it will likely change with an ‘election’ likely to be enacted straight after the new government is sworn in. That said, the budget is likely to show once again that Canberra is messing at the edges and not taking the steps needed to address structural issues. The AUD is likely to fluctuate on the release and then find a direction (more likely to the downside) over the week as the budget shows the soft set of numbers with little or no change in the interim.
Finally, the rally of the yen appears to be over as it continues to weaken. USD/JPY climbed from Y149.20 in early Tokyo trade to around Y149.90 as the London session got underway. With CFTC data showing significant long yen positioning, some traders likely unwound short USD/JPY bets ahead of the BoJ decision.
Other JPY pairs moved in tandem with USD/JPY. But whatever is at play out of Japan – the rally of the past 6-7 months looks to be ending and with USD/JPY facing the magic Y150 mark – will the BoJ step in like it did last year? Will the market look straight past it again?
Or will we see a completely different trend?
With core CPI missing expectations and some slight deceleration in other areas such as retail sales an overall service economic activity. The RBA is likely to hold tight and not raise rates on Tuesday. We say this with some confidence, based on the communication coming from RBA governor Bullock.
She had emphasised the importance of the second quarter CPI print at the June meeting, despite providing hawkish rhetoric around the risk of rate rises and a stalling inflation story. This had led the market and many economists to suggest the possibility of a rate rise has now reduced to sub 10% coming into Tuesday's meeting. That clearly means that it's not still a possibility but all things being equal the likelihood now is negligible.
You can see that here in the charts of the Aussie dollar particularly against the JPY and the USD AUDUSD AUDJPY Given the preference for rate stability by the board, what's also interesting about the Q2 CPI figures is that it gives them a clear path to keep rate stability (their words) for the stable future. It suggests not only will August be a hold but suggests that the September meeting as well would likely be the same. However it can't be ignored that CPI was slightly ahead of forecast and thus the Statement of Monetary Policy (SoMP) coming up in a few weeks will be very interesting.
Because we expect forecast changes and are likely to show a slower progress towards target. So first and foremost, forecasts have to narrow to include the higher than expected year on year figure. The forecast for inflation at the May SoMP update didn't include the new Federal government’s $300 energy rebate or the Western Australian and Queensland governments respective energy rebate.
This will significantly lower the financial year 24 inflation rate but will simultaneously raise the financial year 25 forecast by a similar amount. Providing a bit of a catch 22 from the board. There's been upward revisions in consumer spending and are likely to challenge the forecast assumptions used in the May statement of monetary policy that was justifying a lower part of inflation.
All things therefore being considered the hawkish message coming from governor Bullock is likely to persist. Because as this chart shows core inflation and headline inflation in Australia is the highest against all major peers and despite the RBA having a 2 to 3% target band higher than its peers around 2% it is a long long way away from reaching its goal. It should therefore be pointed out that come the Tuesday decision making call “all options” as the RBA like to call it, realistically means a tight hold or a possible rate hike With the right hike being dismissed.
This means that there is a divergence going on between the RBA and the rest of the dovish global environment. You only have to look at what the Bank of England said last week to understand that something like AUDGBP has a neutral central bank with the hawkish bias dovish central bank with dovish action to see the pair likely moving slightly higher in the interim. The same argument could actually be made for the AUDUSD because post the CPI number as we explained last week The US Federal Reserve was due to meet.
And although the board didn't move the Federal Funds rate At the July meeting it is all but confirmed September is the likely start point for the Fed’s right cutting cycle. The US has seen some pretty mixed data over the last six days. Unemployment has ticked up; retail sales ticked down; inflation has moderated and forward looking indicators in consumer confidence and industrial manufacturing have both declined.
Couple this with the US election geopolitical risks and other factors explains the rally that has happened in the pair post the CPI data as seen here: AUDUSD Returning to the outlook for the US and the federal funds rate post the FOMC July meeting. 7 major economists are forecasting not just the September meeting with a rate cut but the remaining three meetings of the year will see cuts from Constitutional Ave. And if we take into consideration the FOMC’s dot plots the cuts will continue early into 2025 most likely at the February, March and May meetings. If this doesn't indeed come to fruition the impact on US indices will clearly be to the upside.
FX is likely to have to ask some serious questions around pricing in pairs such as the EUR, GBP and CAD. Which brings us back to the Aussie dollar The current sell off that we've seen in the currency is based solely on the idea the RBA is on a tight hold, and that selling is probably justified. However with the data that is currently before us it is hard to make a case that isn't bullish for the AUD as it gets left behind in the rate cut environment and dovish outlook the global economy is about to undertake.
Thus post Tuesdays meeting Michele Bullock's press conference will be key to this trade idea because it's likely to show you like she did in June that is going to have to continue on with the hawkish view and jawbone inflation lower.
Market action and underline breath of the last two and half weeks has been extreme and rather eye opening. The S&P 500 has made 38 record all time highs in 2024 so far, however since its most recent peak on July 16 it has traded lower ever since. Now we need to put that into perspective, the pullback since its July high is 4.75 percent to date.
The pullback that we saw in April was 5.7 per cent, the rally at the end of the April pullback was 14.1 per cent to that July 16 high. And overall the S&P 500 is still up 6.6 per cent year to date. But what's really catching our attention is that the pullback in the second half of July looks very much like the pullback that started in July 2023.
If we compare the SNP's year to date performance in 2023 to what we have seen today in 2024 the correlation is surprisingly tight. Have a look at this chart. Yes, the path of the market in the first quarter of 2023 was different to what happened this year but by the end of March (2023 and 2024) the S&P was up a similar amount on a year to date basis.
What we can then see is that from the start of the second quarter through to mid-July that correlation is really tight. So the question we're now asking is are we going to experience déjà vu? The pullback that began in late July 2023 went all the way through to late October 2023 Started slightly lighter than what we've seen this year.
But as the price action shows if we follow what happened last year we could be in for a couple of months of high volatility and the Bulls quickly reassessing their current trajectory. It's going to be interesting because unlike in 2023 where the issues came for monetary policy and the prospect of rate rises or cuts. 2024 has an external factor we only experience every four years and that's a U.S. presidential election. And what might be a trigger point for the bottom of the market if we are about to experience a multi month pullback would be the November 5 election.
Second to that is that all things being equal a rate cut or cuts will have happened by the end of October something that didn't happen in 2023. What's hard to equate is the impact one or more cuts will have on indices in particular as according to the market pricing it's already factored in. It's why the current pullback although close to 2023 the deja vu we are experiencing right now is just that deja vu and not something to be factored into your thinking.
What’s going on in FX? What we are watching very closely on a monetary policy and FX perspective is this coming Wednesday's CPI read in Australia. Over the last 2 1/2 weeks the AUD has been savaged.
So much so that several traders have exited their bullish positions in the Aussie. It's not hard to see why with the AUD/USD losing some two cents in this. Yes this is down to USD strength on the back of a change in the democratic candidate,risk increases in markets, and signs of economic reactivity in the world's largest economy.
But it's not only the AUD/USD but it's saying movements of this kind of magnitude news over the last week and a half of intervention by the Bank of Japan has seen the JPY recuperate some of the losses experienced this year. Again using the Aussie dollar as an example AUD/JPY moved from a high of ¥107.56 to as low as ¥100.5 inside 10 days. This all suggests that at the moment FX is probably ignoring fundamentals and is being caught up in short term external factors.
It is why this coming Wednesday's CPI numbers could be a real turning point in the trading of FX of the last few weeks. Because it should sharpen traders' minds back to the fundamentals. As this chart shows, the expectation of a rate rise on August 6 has been as high as 27 percent in fact at one point in the last two months it's been as high as 46 per cent.
This in our opinion has been fully factored out of FX trading in the Aussie over the last couple of weeks. Thus, if Australia’s trimmed mean inflation rate comes in anywhere north of 3.9 per cent year on year. This chart should rapidly change and be pricing in the probability of a rate hike as high as 80per cent for the August 6 meeting.
What this means for FX is that the current sell off in the AUD is probably overdone and will rapidly unwind itself. Those bulls that have been shaken out over the last week and 1/2 will more than likely reinstate positions. Crosses that have been savaged are also likely to face a rapid snapback because from what is currently presented in the data suggests the Aussie is more fairly valued where it was two weeks ago rather than where it is now.
The caveat If however Australia is trimming inflation rate comes in at or below 3.9 per cent. Then the current pricing of the Aussie is probably fair, and the reaction is likely to be negative. All pricing this year in the local currency has been on the premise of an improving China which is yet to materialise and the divergence that's happening at the RBA.
If inflation indeed is showing signs of finally declining in Australia then there will be a reaction to the downside because the probability of a rate increase in 2024 will drop back to almost 0, as there will be no data strong enough to convince the RBA to raise rates again is there a hesitant hawk something we discussed 4 weeks ago. We will do a full report on the CPI next week and how to trade it leading into the August 6 RBA meeting.
Most traders understand EA portfolio balance through the lens of traditional risk management — controlling position sizes, diversifying currency pairs, or limiting exposure per trade.
But in automated trading, balance is about deliberately constructing a portfolio where different strategies complement each other, measuring their collective performance, and actively managing the mix based on those measurements.
The goal is to create a “book” of EAs that can help diversify performance over time, even when individual strategies hit rough patches.
A diversified mix of EAs across timeframes and assets can, in some cases, reduce reliance on any single strategy. This approach reduces dependency on any single EA’s performance, smooths your overall equity curve, and builds resilience across changing market conditions.
It’s about running the right mix, identifying gaps in your coverage, and viewing your automated trading operation as an integrated whole rather than a collection of independent systems.
When combined, a timeframe balance (even on the same model and instrument) can help flatten equity swings.
For example, a losing phase in a fast-acting M15 EA can often coincide with a profitable run in an H4 trend model.
Combining this with some market regime and sessional analysis can be beneficial.
Running five different EAs on USDJPY might feel diversified if each uses different entry logic, even though they share the same systemic market driver.
But in an EA context, correlation measurement is not necessarily between prices, but between EA returns (equity changes) relating to specific strategies in specific market conditions.
Two EAs on the same symbol might use completely different logic and thus have near-zero correlation.
Conversely, two EAs on a different symbol may feel as though they should offer some balance, but if highly correlated in specific market conditions may not achieve your balancing aim.
In practical terms, the next step is to take this measurement and map it to potential actionable interventions.
For example, if you have a EURUSD Trend EA and a GBPUSD Breakout EA with a correlation of 0.85, they are behaving like twins in performance related to specific market circumstances. And so you may want to limit exposure to some degree if you are finding that there are many relationships like this.
However, if your gold mean reversion EA correlates 0.25 compared to the rest of your book, this may offer some balance through reducing portfolio drawdown overlap.
Markets are commonly described as risk-on or risk-off. This bias at any particular time is very likely to impact EA performance, dependent on how well balanced you are to deal with each scenario.
You may have heard the old market cliché of “up the staircase and down the elevator shaft” to describe how prices may move in alternative directions. It does appear that optimisation for each direction, rather than EAs that trade long and short, may offer better outcomes as two separate EAs rather than one catch-all.
Trend and volatility states can have a profound impact on price action, whether as part of a discretionary or EA trading system. Much of this has a direct relationship to time of day, including the nature of individual sessions.
We have a market regime filter that incorporates trend and volatility factors in many EAs to account for this. This can be mapped and tested on a backtest and in a live environment to give evidence of strategy suitability for specific market conditions.
For example, mean reversion strategies may work well in the Asian session but less so in strongly trending markets and the higher volatility of the early part of the US session.
As part of balancing, you are asking questions as to whether you actually have EA strategies suited to different market regimes in place, or are you using these together to optimise book performance?
The table below summarises such an approach of regime vs market mapping:
Once your book is structured, the challenge is to turn it into something workable. An additional layer of refinement that turns theory and measurement into something meaningful in action is where any difference will be made.
This “closing the circle” is based on evidence and a true understanding of how your EAs are behaving together. It is the step that takes you to the point where automation can begin to move to the next level.
Mapping relationships with robust and detailed performance evaluation will take time to provide evidence that these are actually making a difference in meeting balancing aims.
To really excel, you should have systems in place that allow ongoing evaluation of the approaches you are using and advise of refinements that may improve things over time.
Theory must ultimately translate into an executable EA book. A plan of action with landmarks to show progress and maintain motivation is crucial in this approach.
Defining classification tags, setting risk weights, and building monitoring dashboards are all worth consideration.
Advanced EA traders could also consider a supervisory ‘Sentinel’ EA, or ‘mothership’ approach, to enable or disable EAs dynamically based on underlying market metrics and external information integrated into EA coding decision-making.
A balanced EA portfolio is not generated by accident; it is well-thought-out, evidence-based and a continuously developing architecture. It is designed to offer improved risk management across your EA portfolio and improved trading outcomes.
Your process begins with mapping your existing strategies by number, asset, and timeframe, then expands into analysing correlations, directional bias, and volatility regimes.
When you reach the stage where one EA’s drawdown is another’s opportunity, you are no longer simply trading models but managing a system of EA systems. To finish, ask yourself the question, “Could this approach contribute to improved outcomes over time?”. If your answer is “yes,” then your mission is clear.
If you are interested in learning more about adding EAs to your trading toolbox, join the new GO EA Programme (coming soon) by contacting [email protected].
The rise of algorithmic trading has made it possible for traders of all levels to execute trades with precision and discipline 24/7.
However, while algorithms, such as Expert Advisors (EAs) used on MT4or MT5, remove emotion from the execution, they cannot remove the human element from trading.
The psychological challenges may be different when using EAs than those facing the discretionary trader, but challenges still exist.
Every automated strategy reflects the trading beliefs, thinking, logic, and discipline of its creator. This is true in development and in a live environment.
The “code” in EA trading should mean more than lines of MQL5. It should be based on a code of conduct that defines the standards by which you operate.
In a world where automation can amplify both success and mistakes, a structured set of principles helps ensure EAs remain a tool for improvement, not a shortcut to risk.
EAs are instruments, tools of the trade, not a replacement for skill, judgment, or responsibility. Their role is to supplement a trader’s edge, not substitute for it.
For example, a swing trader who relies on price-action patterns might automate only specific entry conditions to ensure consistency, while continuing to manage exits manually.
Conversely, a systematic trader may automate the entire process but still monitor performance against broader market regimes as a filter for entering or exiting automated trades.
Before an EA is ever switched on, traders must ask: What problem is this solving for me? Is it improving my execution discipline, making sure I miss fewer trading opportunities, or helping me diversify and trade efficiently across multiple markets?
Automation magnifies intent and thoroughness in peroration, execution and system refinement. If your answer is simply “to make money while I sleep,” the foundation is not enough, and perhaps you should look a little deeper.
The design phase is where your EA professionalism begins. Every EA must be built on a clear, rules-based logic that matches the trader’s intent and desire to take advantage of specific price action.
In practice, this means you need to define exactly what the EA is supposed to do from the outset and, equally, what it will not do.
Integrity in design means documenting your logic before you code it. Write out the concept in plain language.
“Enter long when a bullish engulfing candle forms above the 20 EMA during the London session.”
“Exit when RSI crosses below 70 or after two ATRs in profit.”
Once defined, those conditions become the contract between the trader and the code.
Whether you are attempting to code yourself, using a third party to code for you or even using an off-the-shelf EA, ambiguity or lack of clarity should be addressed.
Without this, there will always be a temptation to shift or a failure to recognise the need for refinement.
Backtesting is often where enthusiasm overtakes discipline. It’s easy to be seduced by an impressive equity curve, yet testing is only valuable when it’s transparent.
Successful EA traders will often treat every backtest as additional data, not exclusive hard validation that an EA definitely perform in a live market environment.
They record settings, market conditions, and measure key metrics, saving results journal and different versions. This allows an objective comparison and sets the foundations for what should be measured on an ongoing basis.
Transparency also means using realistic conditions — spreads, slippage, and ticks rather than OHLC for final testing, all provide a greater quality of metrics that may more accurately mirror live trading.
A good practice is to maintain a “testing log” alongside the EA code. For example:
The temptation to fine-tune parameters until a backtest looks flawless is a trap known as overfitting.
It produces systems that may often perform brilliantly on historical data but collapse in a heap in live markets, where other external variables can be equally, if not more influential.
The necessity for and rigour and robustness in testing include approaches such as:
A robust EA trader accepts uncertainty as reality. A recognition that markets can evolve, conditions often shift, and no single setting is likely to remain optimal forever.
Your goal is durability, not perfection in a single set of market conditions.
An EA that performs moderately well across different conditions is often far more valuable than one that looks brilliant in backtest isolation.
The transition from backtest to live trading is not something to take lightly; it is a major operational step. Before going live, traders should have a checklist covering readiness that includes confirmation of logic, appropriate infrastructure, and management of risk.
Steps to achieve this aim can include:
EA traders should have a set of minimum values for key metrics such as Net profit vs balance drawdown, win rate, consecutive wins and losses and Sharpe ratios before moving to live.
A full checklist that incorporates minimum testing performance as well as infrastructure management is critical.
The most dangerous misconception in automated trading is that the EA “handles risk.” It does not. It simply executes your instructions, whether these are good or bad for a particular trade.
As a trader, you remain responsible for every lot size, margin call, and equity swing. Proper capital management means understanding total exposure across all running EAs as a whole, not just an individual one.
Running five EAs, of which risks 1% of account equity per trade is not necessarily diversification, particularly if the assets are heavily correlated.
In the same way that you should be rigorous in decision-making from test to live environment, it is equally important when scaling, i.e., increasing trading lot sizes.
Scaling rules should be data-based and only considered after a defined critical mass of trading activity of a single EA. Only increasing trade size when the EA’s equity curve maintains a positive slope over a rolling period, or when the profit factor exceeds a set threshold for a given number of trades.
Once scaling is taking place beyond the minimum volume, it may be worth considering the implications of the reality that risk is dynamic.
Experimenting with adjusting lot size against the strength of the signal or underlying market conditions for specific EAs may be worthwhile.
A live EA is not a “set-and-forget” machine. It’s a continuous process that requires observation and refinement on an ongoing basis
Regular and planned reviews of EA performance through appropriate reporting will always reveal valuable insights beyond your overall account balance. Aim to answer questions such as:
A disciplined EA trader will use these insights to decide when to pause, adjust, or retire an EA. For instance, if a breakout EA consistently loses during low-volatility sessions, the solution might not be “optimise again” but to restrict trading hours within the parameters.
Even the best logic fails if your trading environment is unstable or unsuitable. Operational discipline ensures that the infrastructure supporting EAs is reliable, secure, and constantly monitored for any “events” that may influence the execution of your book of EAs.
This includes maintaining a properly configured VPS (Virtual Private Server) with sufficient CPU capacity and regular monitoring of resource use.
Traders should track activity, confirming that log files are saving correctly, and not only know how to install their EA to trade live (and other files that may be necessary for it to run, e.g., include files) but also how to restart or stop an EA without disrupting open trades.
Operational discipline also extends to record-keeping and organisation of your automated trading performance evaluations and resources. Notes on anything that looks unusual for further review, and systems that dictate when you take actions, are all part of putting the right things in place.
Your Code of Conduct for EA Traders is not a rulebook but a roadmap for moving towards excellence in the design, deployment, and management of automated trading systems.
Although each standard can stand alone as something specific to work on, they are also inextricably linked to the whole.
View your automated trading as an extension of who you are and want to become as a trader. An EA can execute your edge, but it cannot replace your accountability for actions, your need for learning and improvement, nor your commitment towards better trading outcomes.
The best traders don’t just build and use algorithms; they build standards of practice and follow through to move towards becoming a successful EA trader.
The United States entered a government shutdown on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to agree on full-year appropriations or a short-term funding bill. Although shutdowns have occurred before, the timing, speed, scale, and motives behind this one make it unique. This is the first shutdown since the last Trump term in 2018–19, which lasted 35 days, the longest in history.For traders, understanding both the mechanics and the ripple effects is essential to anticipating how markets may respond, particularly if the shutdown draws out to multiple weeks as currently anticipated.
A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriation bills or a temporary extension to fund government operations for the new fiscal year beginning October 1.Without the legal authority to spend, federal agencies must suspend “non-essential” operations, while “essential” services such as national security, air traffic control, and public safety continue, often with employees working unpaid until funding is restored.Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, federal employees are guaranteed back pay to cover lost wages once the shutdown ends, although there has been some narrative from the current administration that some may not be returning to work at all.
The 2025 impasse stems from partisan disputes over spending levels, health-insurance subsidies, and proposed rescissions of foreign aid and other programs. The reported result is that around 900,000 federal workers are furloughed, and another 700,000 are currently working without pay.Unlike many past standoffs, there was no stopgap agreement to keep the government open while negotiations continued, making this shutdown more disruptive and unusually early.
Historically, most shutdowns don’t occur immediately on October 1. Lawmakers typically kick the can down the road with a “Continuing Resolution (CR)”. This is a stopgap measure that can extend existing funding for weeks or months to allow time for an agreement later in the quarter.The speed of the breakdown in 2025, with no CR in place, is unusual compared to past shutdowns. It suggests it was not simply budgetary drift, but a potentially deliberate refusal to extend funding.
While the main narrative coming from the U.S. administrators points to budget deadlock, several other theories are being discussed across the media:
AreaImpactFederal workforceHundreds of thousands have been furloughed with reduced services across various agencies.Travel & aviationFAA expects to furlough 11,000 staff. Inspections and certifications may stall. Safety concerns may become more acute if prolonged shutdown.Economic outputThe White House estimates a $15 billion GDP loss per week of shutdown (source: internal document obtained by “Politico”.Consumer spendingFederal workers and contractors face delayed income, pressuring local economies. Economic data releaseKey data releases may be delayed, impacting the decision process at the Fed meeting later this month.Credit outlookScope Ratings and others warn that the shutdown is “negative for credit” and could weigh on U.S. borrowing costs.Projects & researchInfrastructure, grants, and scientific initiatives are delayed or paused.
Shutdowns show some degree of U.S. political dysfunction. They can weigh on confidence and subsequently equity market and risk asset sentiment. To date, markets are shrugging off a prolonged impact, but a continued shutdown into later next week could start to impact.Equity markets have remained strong, and there has been no evidence of the frequent seasonal pullback we often see around this time of year.Markets have proved resilient to date, but one wonders whether this could be a catalyst for some significant selling to come.
Ratings downgrades could lift Treasury yields and increase debt-servicing costs. The Federal Reserve is already balancing sticky inflation and potential downward pressure on growth. This could make rate decisions more difficult.
Rises in treasury yields would generally support the USD. However, rising concerns about fiscal stability created by a prolonged shutdown may put further downward pressure on the USD. Consequently, it is likely to result in buying into gold as a safe haven. With gold already testing record highs repeatedly over the last weeks, this could support further moves to the upside.
Repeated shutdowns weaken the U.S.’s reputation as the world’s most reliable borrower. With some evidence that tariffs are already impacting trade and investment into the US, a prolonged shutdown could exacerbate this further.
For those who trade financial markets, shutdowns matter more for what they could signal both in the short and medium term. Here are some of the key asset classes to watch:
The 2025 shutdown is unusual because of its scale and because it started on Day 1 of the fiscal year, without even a temporary extension. That speed points to a deeper strategic and political contribution beyond the usual budget wrangling that we see periodically.For traders, the lesson is clear: shutdowns are not just what happens in Washington, but may impact confidence, borrowing costs, and market sentiment across a range of asset classes. In today’s world, where political credibility is a form of capital, shutdowns have the potential to erode the very foundation of the U.S.’s role in global finance and trade relationships.