Connect with us

International

FOMC Preview: The First Rate Hike Since 2018

FOMC Preview: The First Rate Hike Since 2018

Central banks face a challenging trade-off: do they react to the labor market close to full employment…

Published

on

FOMC Preview: The First Rate Hike Since 2018

Central banks face a challenging trade-off: do they react to the labor market close to full employment and near record jump in inflation visible even before the latest energy price moves to prevent a further unanchoring of inflation expectations to the upside, or do they react to the considerable downside risks to the economic outlook from a massive geopolitical and energy price shock, preferring not to add volatility to the current market environment. The ECB opted for the former, and the Fed is expected to follow suit.

Tomorrow the Fed will hike 25bps - its first rate hike since Dec 2018 and the first liftoff (from zero) since Dec. 2015. In his recent testimony to Congress, Chair Powell summed up the compromise that the FOMC appears to have reached by noting in his recent testimony to Congress that he will support a 25bp hike at the March meeting, but is open to hiking by more than 25bp at a future meeting if inflation surprises to the upside or remains persistently high.

To be sure, many will ask why just 25bps - after all, the last time inflation was 7.9%, the Fed Funds rate was 15%. The answer is that never before has the US financial system been so hyperfinancialized, and any "rushed" attempt to lift rates will lead to a complete collapse in risk assets.

The Fed will also update the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) to show that inflation will remain higher for longer and result in hikes of 100-125bps in each of ’22 & ’23, even though markets are far more hawkish, and have priced in 7 rate hikes for all of 2022, and a 15% chance of a 50bps rate hike on Wednesday.

The Fed may also trim growth forecasts because of geopolitical risks. According to BofA's Ralf Preusser, Powell will offer limited guidance on the outlook for hikes: he will stress elevated uncertainty, data dependency, & retain option for 50bp hikes if needed.

The 25bp vs. 50bp debate in the months ahead will also depend on the war in Ukraine. The war has raised energy prices, tightened financial conditions, and lowered growth prospects abroad, implying higher inflation and lower growth in the US. Goldman suspects that the FOMC will be reluctant to consider a 50bp hike until downside risks to the global economy from the war diminish.

While a rate hike is fully priced in, the market focus will be on the outlook for hikes and QT. In its FOMC preview, Goldman writes that it does not expect the war to knock the Fed off of a 25bp-per-meeting tightening path. With inflation likely to remain uncomfortably high all year, the FOMC will probably only pause if it thinks further tightening risks pushing the economy into recession. Goldman expects seven 25bp hikes this year - in line with the market - one at every meeting this year, followed by four quarterly hikes in 2023, for a total of 11 rate hikes by the end of 2023, and for a terminal rate of 2.75-3%.

Going down the SEP, the dots are likely to jump again in March, though the FOMC’s forecast will be less hawkish than the market's. Even more hawkish than BofA, Goldman expects the median dot to show six hikes in 2022, but the risks are tilted to the downside, especially if FOMC participants view balance sheet reduction as equivalent to multiple rate hikes. In 2023, GS expects the median dot to show four more hikes in 2023 and a terminal rate of 2.5-2.75%, just above the FOMC’s 2.5% neutral rate estimate.

Goldman also believes that the FOMC will avoid appearing to commit to a specific pace of tightening in its statement. The Committee could adapt Powell’s recent comment, “We will use our policy tools as appropriate to prevent higher inflation from becoming entrenched while promoting a sustainable expansion and a strong labor market.”

An interesting question, according to Bank of America, is whether the latest evidence of liquidity pressure in the Treasury market is causing a rethink on timing and design of QT. On QT, the bank expects the Fed to finalize their redemption caps for UST coupons, MBS, & bills (BofA cap base case: UST coupons = $60b/m, MBS = $40b/m, bills = no cap); these will likely be updated in the Fed’s “principles for reducing balance sheet” document.

BofA believes that QT details will be finalized at this meeting and allow the Fed to start QT as early as May, however, QT risks being delayed due to deteriorating UST liquidity and a Fed that does not want to add market uncertainty. According to the bank, there are risks that QT could get pushed to June or July; and may also start with only MBS QT if UST liquidity remains strained. "A later QT start could add to curve flattening pressures", BofA warns.

Goldman does not believe that the Fed will rush QT and reminds clients that Powell said in his testimony to Congress that the FOMC will not finalize its plan to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet at the March meeting. Instead, the FOMC will likely finalize and publish its plan at the May meeting and then announce the start of balance sheet reduction at the June meeting.

That said, where Goldman does agree with BofA is in the expectation of how much QT will be once it does begin: the bank expects the FOMC to permit passive runoff capped at $60bn per month for US Treasury securities (UST) and $40bn per month for mortgage-backed securities (MBS), with at most a brief ramp-up period to reach those peak rates. Some Fed officials have also raised the possibility of permitting uncapped runoff of MBS. This would have almost no incremental impact on runoff relative to the $40bn per month cap but it might seem like an agreeable compromise to participants who had advocated sales of MBS. Comments from Fed officials suggest that the FOMC has also discussed the possibility of treating bills separately from other Treasury securities and letting them run off more quickly.

In sum, Goldman's assumptions imply that the balance sheet will ultimately shrink from just under $9tn today to just over $6tn in 2025, although since a recession will hit long before then, this estimate appears at best naive.

A more detailed FOMC preview is below, courtesy of Newsquawk

The Fed Funds target range is expected to be lifted by 25bps in the first hike since COVID-19 with inflation running hot and the labor market widely considered close to full employment. The accompanying SEPs are expected to signal a string of hikes to follow this year in wake of ramped inflation forecasts, countered with lower growth forecasts. The guidance will be gauged to see whether FOMC is moving towards the market pricing of front-loaded hikes (seven this year), or a more measured three/four hikes. The uncertainty around the Ukraine invasion has pushed back on the chances of 50bps hikes, but the door is still open. Powell could provide more details around balance sheet reduction, but plans/launch are not to be finalised until mid-2022.

HIKE INCREMENT: The majority of Fed officials have come out in support of a 25bps liftoff for the Federal Funds target range, particularly in wake of the Ukraine uncertainty. Fed Chair Powell said in his testimony in the Capitol that he thinks it is appropriate to hike by 25bps in March. Although he warned if inflation doesn't begin to come down, "we're prepared to raise by more than that amount in a meeting or meetings", keeping the door open on 50bps in future meetings. A Reuters poll of economists saw all respondents forecast a 25bps hike, while 20/37 economists saw the risk of a 50bps hike later this year as high or very high. Rates markets are implying a 5% chance of a 50bps liftoff. On administered rates, the majority expect the IOR (currently 0.15%) and RRP (currently 0.05%) to both be hiked by the same 25bps increment with money markets having been stable and the effective Federal Funds rate comfortably within the target range.

RATE PATH: Bloomberg's survey has 28% of economists seeing the March statement indicating a hike in May, 45% expect signalling for a string of increases, and 28% see no forward guidance in the statement. Meanwhile, the Dot Plot is expected to signal more hikes are to follow this year in the Fed's efforts to get the Fed Funds closer to neutral (largely seen at 2.5%). Powell has said that every meeting is live for 2022, but the broader discourse has seen a binomial  outlook develop, with one camp leaning towards three/four hikes while the other leans towards the mid-to-high single digits, corroborating with market pricing. On which, after a Ukraine-induced unwind in market hike pricing in early March, rates markets are now back to pricing seven 25bps hikes by year-end, supported recently by the hawkish ECB and given the Fed has been undeterred in its policy outlook in wake of the invasion. The cooling of market volatility has helped.

BALANCE SHEET: Powell has said balance sheet normalisation/reduction plans will not be finalised at the March FOMC but will occur some time after the initial rate lift off. Little new details have been touted by officials in wake of the announcement made at the January confab either, where the Fed released its Principles for Reducing the Size of the Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet. Powell may use the upcoming FOMC to give a calendar guide to when the process will begin, where expectations range largely for the rolloff to begin between July and September. And potentially on pace and composition, with Bloomberg's median survey of economist estimates seeing the balance sheet at USD 8.5tln by 2022-end compared to the current USD 9tln area, and another USD 1tln reduction is expected in 2023. Meanwhile, amid some calls for faster MBS roll-off, most economists don't expect a faster relative pace of MBS vs Treasuries reduction to begin with, although the Fed has kept the door open to that possibility going ahead, with some officials touting potential outright sales, instead of the current rolloff plans.

FINANCIAL CONDITIONS: A big part of the argument for 25bps liftoff instead of 50bps is the already realised deterioration in financial conditions, tightening the flow of credit to the economy. Goldman Sachs' Global Financial Conditions index hit its tightest since May 2009, tightening 130bps since the Ukraine invasion, and adding to the increased certainty of central bank tightening paths that were already beginning to affect conditions beforehand. That tightening has been accentuated by a spell of funding pressures amid the market volatility, seen in lower stocks and record-breaking commodity strength, playing into credit spread widening. Note the recent cooling of those pressures, however. Albeit, the market is already tightening and the Fed now needs to ratify those expectations with  its liftoff, but there's less urgency to surprise too hawkishly.

INFLATION: Headline Feb CPI rose 7.9% Y/Y, with the core not far behind at +6.4% as price pressures become more broad based. Figures were in line with the Wall St consensus and presumably a slight sigh of relief for policymakers that there wasn't another right tail print, albeit still at alarming levels. Further, given the approaching commodity shock, the Fed will now be viewing the figures as a base to grow off/sustain, rather than a peak that was expected before the Ukraine invasion. Even after the Feb NFP saw signs of cooling wage growth and easing price spiral fears, it's noteworthy Fed's Evans (non-voter; last speaker ahead of FOMC blackout) on CNBC said the report didn't change much for the Fed and took the time to warn about further approaching inflation, with particular concern around food prices. Indeed, the Feb CPI report saw food prices rise 1% M/M, the largest since the early COVID period, with risks skewed to the upside ahead given the rally in ags. And that's not to mention the already lofty 3.5% spike in energy M/M, and over 25% rise Y/Y. The Fed has largely kept a cool head to look through the inflation, with the party line being the anchoring of longer term inflation expectations keeping credence to the idea that the pressures will recede. However, the recent breakout of market-based, longer-term inflation expectations post-Ukraine will be raising eyebrows and emboldening tightening plans, with 5yr5yr CPI swaps rising further towards their 2013/14 peaks of 3% and away from their 2% target.

DOTS: Bloomberg's economist survey sees the FOMC raising its PCE forecasts for 2022 to a 3.9% median from 2.6% in December, cutting its 2022 GDP median to 3.3% from 4.0%, while maintaining the unemployment median at 3.5% for the next several years, according to the survey. Median dot expectations via Bloomberg's survey:

  • FEDERAL FUNDS RATE: exp. at 1.1% in 2022 (prev. 0.9% in Dec), 1.9% in 2023 (prev. 1.6%), 2.38% in 2024 (prev. 2.1%), 2.5% in longer run (prev. 2.5%)
  • CHANGE IN REAL GDP: exp. at 3.3% in 2022 (prev. 4.0% in Dec), 2.2% in 2023 (prev. 2.2%), 2.0% in 2024 (prev. 2.0%), 1.8% in longer run (prev. 1.8%)
  • UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: exp. at 3.5% in 2022 (prev. 3.5% in Dec), 3.5% in 2023 (prev. 3.5%), 3.5% in 2024 (prev. 3.5%), 3.5% in longer run (prev. 4.0%)
  • PCE INFLATION: exp. at 3.9% in 2022 (prev. 2.6% in Dec), 2.5% in 2023 (prev. 2.3%), 2.1% in 2024 (prev. 2.1%), 2.0% in longer run (prev. 2.0%)
  • CORE PCE INFLATION: exp. at 3.3% in 2022 (prev. 2.7% in Dec), 2.4% in 2023 (prev. 2.3%), 2.1% in 2024 (prev. 2.1%)

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/15/2022 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Shakira’s net worth

After 12 albums, a tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth more than 4 decades into her care…

Published

on

Shakira’s considerable net worth is no surprise, given her massive popularity in Latin America, the U.S., and elsewhere. 

In fact, the belly-dancing contralto queen is the second-wealthiest Latin-America-born pop singer of all time after Gloria Estefan. (Interestingly, Estefan actually helped a young Shakira translate her breakout album “Laundry Service” into English, hugely propelling her stateside success.)

Since releasing her first record at age 13, Shakira has spent decades recording albums in both Spanish and English and performing all over the world. Over the course of her 40+ year career, she helped thrust Latin pop music into the American mainstream, paving the way for the subsequent success of massively popular modern acts like Karol G and Bad Bunny.

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze sculpture of Shakira, the barefoot belly dancer of Barranquilla, was unveiled at the city's waterfront. The statue was commissioned by the city's former mayor and other leadership.

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2023, a 21-foot-tall beachside bronze statue of the “Hips Don’t Lie” singer was unveiled in her Colombian hometown of Barranquilla, making her a permanent fixture in the city’s skyline and cementing her legacy as one of Latin America’s most influential entertainers.

After 12 albums, a plethora of film and television appearances, a highly publicized tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth? What does her income look like? And how does she spend her money?

Related: Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's net worth: How the new TKO Board Member built his wealth from $7

How much is Shakira worth?

In late 2023, Spanish sports and lifestyle publication Marca reported Shakira’s net worth at $400 million, citing Forbes as the figure’s source (although Forbes’ profile page for Shakira does not list a net worth — and didn’t when that article was published).

Most other sources list the singer’s wealth at an estimated $300 million, and almost all of these point to Celebrity Net Worth — a popular but dubious celebrity wealth estimation site — as the source for the figure.

A $300 million net worth would make Shakira the third-richest Latina pop star after Gloria Estefan ($500 million) and Jennifer Lopez ($400 million), and the second-richest Latin-America-born pop singer after Estefan (JLo is Puerto Rican but was born in New York).

Shakira’s income: How much does she make annually?

Entertainers like Shakira don’t have predictable paychecks like ordinary salaried professionals. Instead, annual take-home earnings vary quite a bit depending on each year’s album sales, royalties, film and television appearances, streaming revenue, and other sources of income. As one might expect, Shakira’s earnings have fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

From June 2018 to June 2019, for instance, Shakira was the 10th highest-earning female musician, grossing $35 million, according to Forbes. This wasn’t her first time gracing the top 10, though — back in 2012, she also landed the #10 spot, bringing in $20 million, according to Billboard.

In 2023, Billboard listed Shakira as the 16th-highest-grossing Latin artist of all time.

Shakira performed alongside producer Bizarrap during the 2023 Latin Grammy Awards Gala in Seville.

Photo By Maria Jose Lopez/Europa Press via Getty Images

How much does Shakira make from her concerts and tours?

A large part of Shakira’s wealth comes from her world tours, during which she sometimes sells out massive stadiums and arenas full of passionate fans eager to see her dance and sing live.

According to a 2020 report by Pollstar, she sold over 2.7 million tickets across 190 shows that grossed over $189 million between 2000 and 2020. This landed her the 19th spot on a list of female musicians ranked by touring revenue during that period. In 2023, Billboard reported a more modest touring revenue figure of $108.1 million across 120 shows.

In 2003, Shakira reportedly generated over $4 million from a single show on Valentine’s Day at Foro Sol in Mexico City. 15 years later, in 2018, Shakira grossed around $76.5 million from her El Dorado World Tour, according to Touring Data.

Related: RuPaul's net worth: Everything to know about the cultural icon and force behind 'Drag Race'

How much has Shakira made from her album sales?

According to a 2023 profile in Variety, Shakira has sold over 100 million records throughout her career. “Laundry Service,” the pop icon’s fifth studio album, was her most successful, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, according to TheRichest.

Exactly how much money Shakira has taken home from her album sales is unclear, but in 2008, it was widely reported that she signed a 10-year contract with LiveNation to the tune of between $70 and $100 million to release her subsequent albums and manage her tours.

Shakira and JLo co-headlined the 2020 Super Bowl Halftime Show in Florida.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

How much did Shakira make from her Super Bowl and World Cup performances?

Shakira co-wrote one of her biggest hits, “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa),” after FIFA selected her to create the official anthem for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. She performed the song, along with several of her existing fan-favorite tracks, during the event’s opening ceremonies. TheThings reported in 2023 that the song generated $1.4 million in revenue, citing Popnable for the figure.

A decade later, 2020’s Superbowl halftime show featured Shakira and Jennifer Lopez as co-headliners with guest performances by Bad Bunny and J Balvin. The 14-minute performance was widely praised as a high-energy celebration of Latin music and dance, but as is typical for Super Bowl shows, neither Shakira nor JLo was compensated beyond expenses and production costs.

The exposure value that comes with performing in the Super Bowl Halftime Show, though, is significant. It is typically the most-watched television event in the U.S. each year, and in 2020, a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot cost between $5 and $6 million.

How much did Shakira make as a coach on “The Voice?”

Shakira served as a team coach on the popular singing competition program “The Voice” during the show’s fourth and sixth seasons. On the show, celebrity musicians coach up-and-coming amateurs in a team-based competition that eventually results in a single winner. In 2012, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Shakira’s salary as a coach on “The Voice” was $12 million.

Related: John Cena's net worth: The wrestler-turned-actor's investments, businesses, and more

How does Shakira spend her money?

Shakira doesn’t just make a lot of money — she spends it, too. Like many wealthy entertainers, she’s purchased her share of luxuries, but Barranquilla’s barefoot belly dancer is also a prolific philanthropist, having donated tens of millions to charitable causes throughout her career.

Private island

Back in 2006, she teamed up with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame and Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz to purchase Bonds Cay, a 550-acre island in the Bahamas, which was listed for $16 million at the time.

Along with her two partners in the purchase, Shakira planned to develop the island to feature housing, hotels, and an artists’ retreat designed to host a revolving cast of artists-in-residence. This plan didn’t come to fruition, though, and as of this article’s last update, the island was once again for sale on Vladi Private Islands.

Real estate and vehicles

Like most wealthy celebs, Shakira’s portfolio of high-end playthings also features an array of luxury properties and vehicles, including a home in Barcelona, a villa in Cyprus, a Miami mansion, and a rotating cast of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Philanthropy and charity

Shakira doesn’t just spend her massive wealth on herself; the “Queen of Latin Music” is also a dedicated philanthropist and regularly donates portions of her earnings to the Fundación Pies Descalzos, or “Barefoot Foundation,” a charity she founded in 1997 to “improve the education and social development of children in Colombia, which has suffered decades of conflict.” The foundation focuses on providing meals for children and building and improving educational infrastructure in Shakira’s hometown of Barranquilla as well as four other Colombian communities.

In addition to her efforts with the Fundación Pies Descalzos, Shakira has made a number of other notable donations over the years. In 2007, she diverted a whopping $40 million of her wealth to help rebuild community infrastructure in Peru and Nicaragua in the wake of a devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake. Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Shakira donated a large supply of N95 masks for healthcare workers and ventilators for hospital patients to her hometown of Barranquilla.

Back in 2010, the UN honored Shakira with a medal to recognize her dedication to social justice, at which time the Director General of the International Labour Organization described her as a “true ambassador for children and young people.”

On November 20, 2023 (which was supposed to be her first day of trial), Shakira reached a deal with the prosecution that resulted in a three-year suspended sentence and around $8 million in fines.

Photo by Adria Puig/Anadolu via Getty Images

Shakira’s tax fraud scandal: How much did she pay?

In 2018, prosecutors in Spain initiated a tax evasion case against Shakira, alleging she lived primarily in Spain from 2012 to 2014 and therefore failed to pay around $14.4 million in taxes to the Spanish government. Spanish law requires anyone who is “domiciled” (i.e., living primarily) in Spain for more than half of the year to pay income taxes.

During the period in question, Shakira listed the Bahamas as her primary residence but did spend some time in Spain, as she was dating Gerard Piqué, a professional footballer and Spanish citizen. The couple’s first son, Milan, was also born in Barcelona during this period. 

Shakira maintained that she spent far fewer than 183 days per year in Spain during each of the years in question. In an interview with Elle Magazine, the pop star opined that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate. It's clear they wanted to go after that money no matter what."

Prosecutors in the case sought a fine of almost $26 million and a possible eight-year prison stint, but in November of 2023, Shakira took a deal to close the case, accepting a fine of around $8 million and a three-year suspended sentence to avoid going to trial. In reference to her decision to take the deal, Shakira stated, "While I was determined to defend my innocence in a trial that my lawyers were confident would have ruled in my favour [had the trial proceeded], I have made the decision to finally resolve this matter with the best interest of my kids at heart who do not want to see their mom sacrifice her personal well-being in this fight."

How much did the Shakira statue in Barranquilla cost?

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze likeness of Shakira was unveiled on a waterfront promenade in Barranquilla. The city’s then-mayor, Jaime Pumarejo, commissioned Colombian sculptor Yino Márquez to create the statue of the city’s treasured pop icon, along with a sculpture of the city’s coat of arms.

According to the New York Times, the two sculptures cost the city the equivalent of around $180,000. A plaque at the statue’s base reads, “A heart that composes, hips that don’t lie, an unmatched talent, a voice that moves the masses and bare feet that march for the good of children and humanity.” 

Related: Taylor Swift net worth: The most successful entertainer joins the billionaire's club

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending