A snapshot of the US dollar, it is down versus all the major currencies:EUR -0.81%JPY -0.97%GBP -0.75%CHF -0.83%CAD -0.40%AUD -1.0%NZD -0.81%The market is reacting positively to the Fed chair speech as a tilt toward moving more toward a less restrictive/more balanced monetary policy. He commented that the downside risk to employment and that tariffs are likely to be a one-time price increase.The chance of a cut in September are back to nearly 100% with 2 cuts before the end of the yearUS stocks have moved higher Dow industrial average up 1.52%S&P index up 1.25%NASDAQ index up 1.47%. The small-cap Russell 2000 is the biggest gainer as smaller/riskier companies benefit from lower rates. It is currently up to 2.86%Looking at the US yields, the shorter end is down 10 basis points with the 2-year now at 3.692% -10.0 basis points. 10-year yield is also lower but down -6.5 basis points at 4.267%. 30-year yield is down -3.3 basis points at 4.890%.. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

I will fire Fed Gov. Cook if she does not resignWill see if Russia's Putin and Ukraine Pres. Zelenskyy will work togetherWill see if I need to be there but would rather notYesterday Trump said that we will know about Russian Ukraine in about 2 weeks.Russia did increase their attacks on Ukraine since the Trump-Putin meetingTrump did say that he got very angry after Ukraine damage a Russian oil pipeline that supplies Hungary. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

InflationHeadline PCE inflation rose 2.6% y/y in July; core PCE up 2.9%.Goods prices rose 1.1%, reversing declines from 2024.Housing services inflation continues to trend lower; nonhousing services remain slightly above levels historically consistent with 2%.Tariffs are visibly pushing up prices; effects expected to accumulate in coming months.Base case: tariff-driven price increases are short-lived, one-time shifts.Risks: could create wage–price dynamics or lift inflation expectations, though Powell sees this as unlikely.Commitment: Fed will not allow a one-time price level increase to become ongoing inflation.Longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored near 2%.Labor MarketPayroll growth slowed to 35,000/month over last 3 months vs. 168,000/month in 2024.Unemployment rate edged up to 4.2%, still historically low.Labor force growth has slowed sharply due to tighter immigration policies.Participation rate edged lower; demand and supply for labor both softened.Labor market appears “in balance,” but this balance reflects slowing on both sides, raising downside risks to employment.Risks: a sudden downturn could trigger rising layoffs and unemployment.Economic GrowthGDP slowed to 1.2% in H1 2025 vs. 2.5% in 2024.Slowdown led mainly by weaker consumer spending.Some slowing reflects supply-side constraints (immigration, tariffs, regulatory and tax policy changes).Balance of risks appears to be shifting toward weaker growth and labor softness.Monetary Policy OutlookCurrent policy stance remains restrictive but is now 100 bps closer to neutral than a year ago.Risks are tilted to the upside for inflation and downside for employment.Framework requires balancing both sides of dual mandate when goals are in tension.Fed will “proceed carefully”, not on a preset course.Decisions will depend on incoming data, risks, and outlook.Fed Policy Framework (Revised Statement)Review conducted every 5 years; 2025 revisions mark the second public review since 2012.Key changes:Removed language making the zero lower bound (ELB) a defining feature.Eliminated “makeup” strategy (flexible average inflation targeting) → returned to flexible inflation targeting.Removed “shortfalls” wording on employment; clarified Fed may not tighten policy solely on uncertain estimates of max employment.New language: employment may at times run above real-time estimates without risks to price stability.If labor tightness threatens inflation, preemptive action is still warranted.Reinforced commitment to:Well-anchored long-term inflation expectations.Balanced approach when inflation and employment goals conflict.2% inflation target as the anchor for price stability.Key Themes & CommitmentsFed remains data-dependent, flexible, and forward-looking.Price stability is essential for economic well-being, especially for vulnerable households.Commitment to review framework every 5 years to adapt to structural changes.Fed will continue to pursue maximum employment and 2% inflation with full transparency and accountability.Elaborating on the framework changes:The Fed’s updated policy framework marks a significant shift away from the 2020 “makeup” strategy and a refocusing on clarity and flexibility. By eliminating the commitment to allow inflation to run moderately above 2% following periods of weakness, the Fed is acknowledging that this approach was both impractical and politically costly, especially after the post-pandemic surge. Returning to a standard flexible inflation targeting regime signals that the Fed intends to avoid locking itself into asymmetric commitments and will instead react to conditions in real time.The removal of language tying policy too closely to the zero lower bound (ELB) also broadens the Fed’s room to maneuver. In the 2010s, the ELB was a defining constraint, but in today’s higher-rate environment, that focus is less relevant. By stepping back, the Fed is making clear that its framework is meant to apply across a wider range of economic conditions, not just prolonged low-rate episodes. This provides greater communication flexibility and reduces confusion about how the Fed will react in periods of elevated inflation or restrictive policy.Perhaps most notable is the adjustment around employment language. The old framework emphasized avoiding “shortfalls” from maximum employment, which often gave the impression that the Fed would tolerate overheated labor markets as long as inflation was subdued. The revised language makes it clear that employment can run above estimates without forcing action, but it also restores the option for preemptive tightening if labor market tightness threatens price stability. This change reinforces the Fed’s dual mandate balance, avoiding the perception that policy is skewed toward jobs at the expense of inflation control.Overall, the implications are that the Fed is recalibrating toward a more balanced, less rigid framework. Policymakers have learned from the past five years that inflation risks can materialize quickly, and that too much emphasis on labor “shortfalls” or ELB-related concerns can undermine credibility. The new approach gives the Fed greater flexibility, clearer communication, and stronger anchoring of inflation expectations, all while keeping the 2% target firmly at the center of its strategy. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

August 22, 2025Monetary Policy and the Fed’s Framework ReviewChair Jerome H. PowellAt “Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy,” an economic symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, WyomingShareWatch LiveOver the course of this year, the U.S. economy has shown resilience in a context of sweeping changes in economic policy. In terms of the Fed's dual-mandate goals, the labor market remains near maximum employment, and inflation, though still somewhat elevated, has come down a great deal from its post-pandemic highs. At the same time, the balance of risks appears to be shifting.In my remarks today, I will first address the current economic situation and the near-term outlook for monetary policy. I will then turn to the results of our second public review of our monetary policy framework, as captured in the revised Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy that we released today.Current Economic Conditions and Near-Term OutlookWhen I appeared at this podium one year ago, the economy was at an inflection point. Our policy rate had stood at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent for more than a year. That restrictive policy stance was appropriate to help bring down inflation and to foster a sustainable balance between aggregate demand and supply. Inflation had moved much closer to our objective, and the labor market had cooled from its formerly overheated state. Upside risks to inflation had diminished. But the unemployment rate had increased by almost a full percentage point, a development that historically has not occurred outside of recessions.1 Over the subsequent three Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings, we recalibrated our policy stance, setting the stage for the labor market to remain in balance near maximum employment over the past year (figure 1).This year, the economy has faced new challenges. Significantly higher tariffs across our trading partners are remaking the global trading system. Tighter immigration policy has led to an abrupt slowdown in labor force growth. Over the longer run, changes in tax, spending, and regulatory policies may also have important implications for economic growth and productivity. There is significant uncertainty about where all of these polices will eventually settle and what their lasting effects on the economy will be.Changes in trade and immigration policies are affecting both demand and supply. In this environment, distinguishing cyclical developments from trend, or structural, developments is difficult. This distinction is critical because monetary policy can work to stabilize cyclical fluctuations but can do little to alter structural changes.The labor market is a case in point. The July employment report released earlier this month showed that payroll job growth slowed to an average pace of only 35,000 per month over the past three months, down from 168,000 per month during 2024 (figure 2).2 This slowdown is much larger than assessed just a month ago, as the earlier figures for May and June were revised down substantially.3 But it does not appear that the slowdown in job growth has opened up a large margin of slack in the labor market—an outcome we want to avoid. The unemployment rate, while edging up in July, stands at a historically low level of 4.2 percent and has been broadly stable over the past year. Other indicators of labor market conditions are also little changed or have softened only modestly, including quits, layoffs, the ratio of vacancies to unemployment, and nominal wage growth. Labor supply has softened in line with demand, sharply lowering the "breakeven" rate of job creation needed to hold the unemployment rate constant. Indeed, labor force growth has slowed considerably this year with the sharp falloff in immigration, and the labor force participation rate has edged down in recent months.Overall, while the labor market appears to be in balance, it is a curious kind of balance that results from a marked slowing in both the supply of and demand for workers. This unusual situation suggests that downside risks to employment are rising. And if those risks materialize, they can do so quickly in the form of sharply higher layoffs and rising unemployment.At the same time, GDP growth has slowed notably in the first half of this year to a pace of 1.2 percent, roughly half the 2.5 percent pace in 2024 (figure 3). The decline in growth has largely reflected a slowdown in consumer spending. As with the labor market, some of the slowing in GDP likely reflects slower growth of supply or potential output.Turning to inflation, higher tariffs have begun to push up prices in some categories of goods. Estimates based on the latest available data indicate that total PCE prices rose 2.6 percent over the 12 months ending in July. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.9 percent, above their level a year ago. Within core, prices of goods increased 1.1 percent over the past 12 months, a notable shift from the modest decline seen over the course of 2024. In contrast, housing services inflation remains on a downward trend, and nonhousing services inflation is still running at a level a bit above what has been historically consistent with 2 percent inflation (figure 4).4The effects of tariffs on consumer prices are now clearly visible. We expect those effects to accumulate over coming months, with high uncertainty about timing and amounts. The question that matters for monetary policy is whether these price increases are likely to materially raise the risk of an ongoing inflation problem. A reasonable base case is that the effects will be relatively short lived—a one-time shift in the price level. Of course, "one-time" does not mean "all at once." It will continue to take time for tariff increases to work their way through supply chains and distribution networks. Moreover, tariff rates continue to evolve, potentially prolonging the adjustment process.It is also possible, however, that the upward pressure on prices from tariffs could spur a more lasting inflation dynamic, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed. One possibility is that workers, who see their real incomes decline because of higher prices, demand and get higher wages from employers, setting off adverse wage–price dynamics. Given that the labor market is not particularly tight and faces increasing downside risks, that outcome does not seem likely.Another possibility is that inflation expectations could move up, dragging actual inflation with them. Inflation has been above our target for more than four years and remains a prominent concern for households and businesses. Measures of longer-term inflation expectations, however, as reflected in market- and survey-based measures, appear to remain well anchored and consistent with our longer-run inflation objective of 2 percent.Of course, we cannot take the stability of inflation expectations for granted. Come what may, we will not allow a one-time increase in the price level to become an ongoing inflation problem.Putting the pieces together, what are the implications for monetary policy? In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside—a challenging situation. When our goals are in tension like this, our framework calls for us to balance both sides of our dual mandate. Our policy rate is now 100 basis points closer to neutral than it was a year ago, and the stability of the unemployment rate and other labor market measures allows us to proceed carefully as we consider changes to our policy stance. Nonetheless, with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.Monetary policy is not on a preset course. FOMC members will make these decisions, based solely on their assessment of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks. We will never deviate from that approach.Evolution of Monetary Policy FrameworkTurning to my second topic, our monetary policy framework is built on the unchanging foundation of our mandate from Congress to foster maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. We remain fully committed to fulfilling our statutory mandate, and the revisions to our framework will support that mission across a broad range of economic conditions. Our revised Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, which we refer to as our consensus statement, describes how we pursue our dual-mandate goals. It is designed to give the public a clear sense of how we think about monetary policy, and that understanding is important both for transparency and accountability, and for making monetary policy more effective.The changes we made in this review are a natural progression, grounded in our ever-evolving understanding of our economy. We continue to build upon the initial consensus statement adopted in 2012 under Chair Ben Bernanke's leadership. Today's revised statement is the outcome of the second public review of our framework, which we conduct at five-year intervals.  This year's review included three elements: Fed Listens events at Reserve Banks around the country, a flagship research conference, and policymaker discussions and deliberations, supported by staff analysis, at a series of FOMC meetings.5In approaching this year's review, a key objective has been to make sure that our framework is suitable across a broad range of economic conditions. At the same time, the framework needs to evolve with changes in the structure of the economy and our understanding of those changes. The Great Depression presented different challenges from those of the Great Inflation and the Great Moderation, which in turn are different from the ones we face today.6At the time of the last review, we were living in a new normal, characterized by the proximity of interest rates to the effective lower bound (ELB), along with low growth, low inflation, and a very flat Phillips curve—meaning that inflation was not very responsive to slack in the economy.7 To me, a statistic that captures that era is that our policy rate was stuck at the ELB for seven long years following the onset of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in late 2008. Many here will recall the sluggish growth and painfully slow recovery of that era. It appeared highly likely that if the economy experienced even a mild downturn, our policy rate would be back at the ELB very quickly, probably for another extended period. Inflation and inflation expectations could then decline in a weak economy, raising real interest rates as nominal rates were pinned near zero. Higher real rates would further weigh on job growth and reinforce the downward pressure on inflation and inflation expectations, triggering an adverse dynamic.The economic conditions that brought the policy rate to the ELB and drove the 2020 framework changes were thought to be rooted in slow-moving global factors that would persist for an extended period—and might well have done so, if not for the pandemic.8 The 2020 consensus statement included several features that addressed the ELB-related risks that had become increasingly prominent over the preceding two decades. We emphasized the importance of anchored longer-term inflation expectations to support both our price-stability and maximum-employment goals. Drawing on an extensive literature on strategies to mitigate risks associated with the ELB, we adopted flexible average inflation targeting—a "makeup" strategy to ensure that inflation expectations would remain well anchored even with the ELB constraint.9 In particular, we said that, following periods when inflation had been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy would likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.In the event, rather than low inflation and the ELB, the post-pandemic reopening brought the highest inflation in 40 years to economies around the world. Like most other central banks and private-sector analysts, through year-end 2021 we thought that inflation would subside fairly quickly without a sharp tightening in our policy stance (figure 5).10 When it became clear that this was not the case, we responded forcefully, raising our policy rate by 5.25 percentage points over 16 months. That action, combined with the unwinding of pandemic supply disruptions, contributed to inflation moving much closer to our target without the painful rise in unemployment that has accompanied previous efforts to counter high inflation.Elements of the Revised Consensus StatementThis year's review considered how economic conditions have evolved over the past five years. During this period, we saw that the inflation situation can change rapidly in the face of large shocks. In addition, interest rates are now substantially higher than was the case during the era between the GFC and the pandemic. With inflation above target, our policy rate is restrictive—modestly so, in my view. We cannot say for certain where rates will settle out over the longer run, but their neutral level may now be higher than during the 2010s, reflecting changes in productivity, demographics, fiscal policy, and other factors that affect the balance between saving and investment (figure 6). During the review, we discussed how the 2020 statement's focus on the ELB may have complicated communications about our response to high inflation. We concluded that the emphasis on an overly specific set of economic conditions may have led to some confusion, and, as a result, we made several important changes to the consensus statement to reflect that insight.First, we removed language indicating that the ELB was a defining feature of the economic landscape. Instead, we noted that our "monetary policy strategy is designed to promote maximum employment and stable prices across a broad range of economic conditions." The difficulty of operating near the ELB remains a potential concern, but it is not our primary focus. The revised statement reiterates that the Committee is prepared to use its full range of tools to achieve its maximum-employment and price-stability goals, particularly if the federal funds rate is constrained by the ELB.Second, we returned to a framework of flexible inflation targeting and eliminated the "makeup" strategy. As it turned out, the idea of an intentional, moderate inflation overshoot had proved irrelevant. There was nothing intentional or moderate about the inflation that arrived a few months after we announced our 2020 changes to the consensus statement, as I acknowledged publicly in 2021.11Well-anchored inflation expectations were critical to our success in bringing down inflation without a sharp increase in unemployment. Anchored expectations promote the return of inflation to target when adverse shocks drive inflation higher, and limit the risk of deflation when the economy weakens.12 Further, they allow monetary policy to support maximum employment in economic downturns without compromising price stability. Our revised statement emphasizes our commitment to act forcefully to ensure that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored, to the benefit of both sides of our dual mandate. It also notes that "price stability is essential for a sound and stable economy and supports the well-being of all Americans." This theme came through loud and clear at our Fed Listens events.13 The past five years have been a painful reminder of the hardship that high inflation imposes, especially on those least able to meet the higher costs of necessities.Third, our 2020 statement said that we would mitigate "shortfalls," rather than "deviations," from maximum employment. The use of "shortfalls" reflected the insight that our real-time assessments of the natural rate of unemployment—and hence of "maximum employment"—are highly uncertain.14 The later years of the post-GFC recovery featured employment running for an extended period above mainstream estimates of its sustainable level, along with inflation running persistently below our 2 percent target. In the absence of inflationary pressures, it might not be necessary to tighten policy based solely on uncertain real-time estimates of the natural rate of unemployment.15We still have that view, but our use of the term "shortfalls" was not always interpreted as intended, raising communications challenges. In particular, the use of "shortfalls" was not intended as a commitment to permanently forswear preemption or to ignore labor market tightness. Accordingly, we removed "shortfalls" from our statement. Instead, the revised document now states more precisely that "the Committee recognizes that employment may at times run above real-time assessments of maximum employment without necessarily creating risks to price stability." Of course, preemptive action would likely be warranted if tightness in the labor market or other factors pose risks to price stability.The revised statement also notes that maximum employment is "the highest level of employment that can be achieved on a sustained basis in a context of price stability." This focus on promoting a strong labor market underscores the principle that "durably achieving maximum employment fosters broad-based economic opportunities and benefits for all Americans."The feedback we received at Fed Listens events reinforced the value of a strong labor market for American households, employers, and communities.Fourth, consistent with the removal of "shortfalls," we made changes to clarify our approach in periods when our employment and inflation objectives are not complementary. In those circumstances, we will follow a balanced approach in promoting them. The revised statement now more closely aligns with the original 2012 language. We take into account the extent of departures from our goals and the potentially different time horizons over which each is projected to return to a level consistent with our dual mandate. These principles guide our policy decisions today, as they did over the 2022–24 period, when the departure from our 2 percent inflation target was the overriding concern.In addition to these changes, there is a great deal of continuity with past statements. The document continues to explain how we interpret the mandate Congress has given us and describes the policy framework that we believe will best promote maximum employment and price stability. We continue to believe that monetary policy must be forward looking and consider the lags in its effects on the economy. For this reason, our policy actions depend on the economic outlook and the balance of risks to that outlook. We continue to believe that setting a numerical goal for employment is unwise, because the maximum level of employment is not directly measurable and changes over time for reasons unrelated to monetary policy.We also continue to view a longer-run inflation rate of 2 percent as most consistent with our dual-mandate goals. We believe that our commitment to this target is a key factor helping keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Experience has shown that 2 percent inflation is low enough to ensure that inflation is not a concern in household and business decisionmaking while also providing a central bank with some policy flexibility to provide accommodation during economic downturns.Finally, the revised consensus statement retained our commitment to conduct a public review roughly every five years. There is nothing magic about a five-year pace. That frequency allows policymakers to reassess structural features of the economy and to engage with the public, practitioners, and academics on the performance of our framework. It is also consistent with several global peers.ConclusionIn closing, I want to thank President Schmid and all his staff who work so diligently to host this outstanding event annually. Counting a couple of virtual appearances during the pandemic, this is the eighth time I have had the honor to speak from this podium. Each year, this symposium offers the opportunity for Federal Reserve leaders to hear ideas from leading economic thinkers and focus on the challenges we face. The Kansas City Fed was wise to lure Chair Volcker to this national park more than 40 years ago, and I am proud to be part of that tradition. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Fed unanimously adopts new policy framework of flexible inflation targeting, eliminates 'makeup' strategy for inflationIn Jackson Hole speech, says framework calls for balanced approach when central bank's goals in tensionPrior framework’s emphasis on overly specific set of economic conditions may have led to some confusionFramework removes language indicating zero-lower-bound is a defining feature of economyNew framework designed to work in a range of economic conditionsIdea of intentionally moderate inflation overshoot proved irrelevantNew framework emphasizes commitment to act forcefully to ensure longer-term inflation expectations remain well-anchoredFed still believes it may not need to tighten policy solely based on uncertain estimates that employment may be beyond its maximum sustainable levelShortfall language in previous statement posed communications challenge, and is removed in new frameworkPreemptive action likely would be warranted should tight labor market pose risk to price stabilityFed’s goals are in tension, must balance both sides of Fed’s mandateStability of unemployment rate allows Fed to 'proceed carefully' as we consider changes to policy stanceRisks to inflation tilted to upside, risks to employment to the downsideIn Jackson Hole speech says shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting policy stanceDownside risks to labor market risingGDP growth has slowed notably, reflecting slowdown in consumer spendingLatest data indicates 12-month PCE inflation rose 2.6% in July; core rose 2.9%Effects of tariffs on consumer prices now clearly visible, expect effects to accumulate in coming monthsReasonable base case is inflation effects of tariffs will be short-livedPossible that tariff-driven upward pressure on prices could spur lasting inflation dynamic, but unlikely, given downside risks to labor marketCannot allow one-time increase in price level to be ongoing inflation problemTighter immigration has led to abrupt slowdown in labor force growth.Slowdown in job growth has not opened up a large margin of labor market slack, which we want to avoid.Labor supply has softened a line with demand, breakeven job growth is down sharply.Labor market in "curious kind of" balance.Stability of unemployment rate allows Fed to proceed carefully as we consider changes to policy stance.Risk to inflation tilted to the upside, risk to employment to the downside.Fed's goals are in tension, must balance both sides of Fed's mandate.Downside risk to labor market rising.GDP growth has slowed notably reflecting slowdown in consumer spending.Latest data indicates 12 month PCE inflation rose 2.6 in July core rose 2.9%.Effects of tariffs on consumer prices now clearly visible, expect effects to accumulate in coming months.Reasonable base case is inflation effects on tariffs will be short-lived.The market is now pricing a 90% chance of a September cut and 2 cuts by the end of the year.US stocks have moved higher:Dow industrial average is up 1.47%S&P index is up 1.25%NASDAQ index is up 1.34% This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Ether Futures Technical Analysis & Price Prediction with tradeCompass (August 22, 2025)Summary (Today)Bullish above: 4,225 Bearish below: 4,141 Primary bias: Bullish while price holds above the 4,212.5–4,228 “rail” (mid ~4,219) Current price (time of analysis): 4,258.5Key context: We have a high‑importance zone from 4,212.5 (today’s VAL) to 4,228 (yesterday’s POC, near yesterday’s VAL), bracketed by Aug 20 & Aug 19 VWAPs—a tight acceptance rail centered near 4,219. Above that rail and above 4,225, the tradeCompass bias remains bullish.Ethereum Market Context & Directional BiasWhere we are: Ether futures trade around 4,258.5, a touch under today’s POC, but above the 4,212.5–4,228 acceptance rail. That keeps buyers in control by the tradeCompass map.Why it matters: The confluence of today’s VAL, yesterday’s POC/VAL, and two prior-session VWAPs in a 15.5‑point band concentrates liquidity and prior acceptance. Sustained trade above 4,225 favors continuation toward higher volume magnets and prior VWAP/VA structures.Bearish invalidation: The downside only activates on a decisive break below 4,141 (yesterday’s VAL; just under Aug 19 POC), flipping the map and opening a stair‑step to progressively lower magnets.Key Levels & Partial‑Profit Strategy (Ethereum Bulls)Below are the laddered partial‑profit targets you asked to include, with brief “why it matters” notes. Execute one long per direction per tradeCompass; manage risk with staged exits.4,281 — Just under Aug 21 VWAP; first logical “fair value” check and scale‑out area.4,302.5 — Sits below the VAH of both today and yesterday; high-probability reaction zone. — Move stop to entry upon reaching this second scale‑out (tradeCompass rule).4,349 — Conservative waypoint ahead of liquidity around the mid‑350s and the 4,359 (Aug 20 POC) gravity above; take profits before crowded stops.4,515.5 — Extension target under Aug 15 VWAP; attainable if momentum persists intraday or on a swing basis.4,578.5 — Below Aug 15 VAH; continuation objective if trend sustains.4,688 — Below Aug 14 VAH; final extension for today’s plan (beyond here would require a new tradeCompass).Key Levels & Partial‑Profit Strategy (Ethereum Bears)Bearish scenario activates below 4,141. Targets are closer at first and cluster around psychological magnets.4,102.5 — Just above 4,100 and Aug 18 VAH; take initial profits into round‑number liquidity.4,002 — Near Aug 8 VWAP and 4,000; classic magnet where responsive buying may show.3,963 — In line with Aug 8 VAL; completes today’s bearish ladder. (Swing traders: deeper liquidity zones exist at 3,862, 3,815, and 3,635—these are outside today’s compass but worth marking.)Ethereum News & Catalysts to Watch (last 24–48h)These items do not replace the technical plan; they complement it by explaining flows and sentiment that can speed up or slow down the path between targets.Bloomberg (today): A collapse in Bitcoin volatility is pushing risk‑hungry traders toward other crypto exposures. In August, Ether ETFs saw ~$2.5B of inflows while Bitcoin products had ~$1.3B of net outflows—a supportive relative‑flow signal for ETH. Bloomberg.comInvestingLive (today): “Can Ethereum follow Bitcoin to a new all‑time high?” — review of ETH’s July momentum and the August pullback near prior ATH area; useful macro context for swing‑bias. investingLiveInvestingLive (today): “Fair Value in Crypto” — framework for thinking about Bitcoin/Ethereum fair value, useful when price separates from VWAPs and value areas. investingLiveInvestingLive (this week): Recent ETH analysis & price prediction posts outline continuation triggers and risk levels; the structure aligns with today’s tradeCompass thresholds. investingLive+1Reuters (last week): Standard Chartered lifted its year‑end ETH target to $7,500, citing stronger industry engagement and rising holdings—macro tailwind for medium‑term bulls. ReutersBloomberg (Aug 8): ETH topped $4,000 on ETF inflows and broader demand, underscoring how spot ETF flows are increasingly pivotal to ETH price discovery. Bloomberg.com(Contextual macro): Crypto beta has remained resilient into mid‑August; Bitcoin’s record and flows remain relevant cross‑asset signals for ETH trend persistence. ReutersHow to use this news: If flows into ETH funds stay firm and BTC vol stays muted, pullbacks to the 4,219–4,225 rail may attract dip‑buyers. Conversely, a news‑driven liquidity shock that pushes price back below 4,141 would activate the bearish ladder.Educational Segment (Value Area, VWAP, POC — concise refresher)Value Area (VAH/VAL): The price band where most trading volume happened in a session (typically ~70%). VAH caps where value was accepted; VAL floors it. Repeated acceptance above/below these edges often seeds the next directional leg.VWAP (Volume‑Weighted Average Price): Think of it as the session’s fair trade line. Above VWAP implies buyers paying up relative to volume distribution; below implies sellers dominating. Prior‑day VWAPs frequently act as memory levels for intraday targets.POC (Point of Control): The single most‑traded price by volume. It behaves like a magnet on rotations and a staging post on breakouts. Targets placed just before POCs/VAHs/VWAPs can improve fill probability and reduce slippage.tradeCompass Management Rules (quick reminders)One trade per direction (don’t overtrade the map).Scale out: Take partials at each listed target; do not wait for the “home run” to manage risk.Stop logic: After the second target, move stop to entry.Invalidation: Never park a stop beyond the opposite threshold—breaching it cancels the original premise.Confirmation: Use your preferred confirmation (e.g., 15‑min hold above/below a threshold, or two closes) to suit your risk tolerance.Clarification: Using the investingLive.com tradeCompass (bull/bear roadmap)This map is meant to be actionable across timeframes:If price is hovering under a bullish threshold and failing to hold, aggressive traders may probe shorts back toward the rail or VAL.If price pushes below the bearish threshold (4,141) and holds, that signals a deeper bearish stage, activating the short ladder.The middle “rail” (4,212.5–4,228, mid ~4,219) is your navigation channel—acceptance above favors longs toward 4,281 → 4,302.5, while acceptance below increases risk of a drive toward 4,141.orderFlow IntelWhen available, we’ll overlay Order Flow Intel (delta, cumulative delta progression, absorption/rejection at VA edges) to time entries at the rail and VWAPs. This augments the map by flagging who’s in control at the moment of decision, buyers lifting offers or sellers hitting bids. We may utilize that on trade ideas at investingLive Stocks Telegram (not only for stock trade ideas), hop on over.Professional DisclaimerThis Ethereum technical analysis is decision support, not investment advice. Crypto and futures are volatile; always trade at your own risk, size positions prudently, and use stops. The Ether futures price prediction and key levels above are based on today’s VWAP/Value Area/POC map and may change with market conditions.See also:Fair Value in Crypto (framework for BTC/ETH fair value). investingLiveCan Ethereum follow Bitcoin to a new all‑time high? (big‑picture ETH context). investingLiveEthereum Analysis & Price Prediction Today with tradeCompass (recent map). investingLive This article was written by Itai Levitan at investinglive.com.

Major US stock indices are higher ahead of the Fed Powell speech at Jackson Hole at 10 AM ET. There is uncertainty from his speech especially since the tilt one way or the other is the most likely scenario. It is many Fed members and former Fed members have said, the risks are more balanced, the economy remains solid, but the employment data was a concern.Powell will be speaking, but Pres. Trump will be listening closely.The market has priced in around a 70% chance of a cut in September. The S&P is working on snapping a five-day losing streak (its longest since early January). The NASDAQ index has been down for of the last 5 trading days.A snapshot of the market currently shows:Dow industrial average up 348 points or 0.77% at 45134.25S&P index of 36.67 points or 0.58% at 6407.07NASDAQ index up 91 points or 0.43% at 21192. The small-cap Russell 2000 is up 16.73 points or 0.74% at 2290.85.Looking at the US debt market, yields are lower with a flatter yield curve:2-year yield 3.75%, -0.7 basis points10 year yield 4.308%, -2.4 basis points30 year yield 4.897%, -2.6 basis points.In the forex, the US dollar is mixed:EUR +0.03% at 1.1600JPY +0.10% at 148154GBP -0.12% at 134.27CHF unchanged at 0.8086CAD +0.05% at 1.3917AUD -0.12% at 0.6429NZD +0.03% at 0.5814Below is a link to watch the chairs speech live: This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

ECBs Nagel is speaking on Germany and ECB:Expects more recession in GermanyBelieves inflation is not the point anymore.Reiterates the importance of central bank independencyI don't see many arguments that we should do more here on ratesThe bar for rate cuts aside.Nagel is more of a hawk traditionally This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Growth is slowing but economic fundamentals are relatively solid.We cannot wait for all on the uncertainty to be behind us.Have to look at the whole picture and not focus too much on 1 or 2 specific indicators.the number 1 concern is the inflation picture but she is of course looking out on the employment side as wellUpside risk to inflation, downside risk to employment.They are anticipating into the next quarter and into next year that inflation will remain elevated.Does not rule out a larger impact from tariffs on inflationNot a done deal terms of what we do at next meeting. The risks on both sides of the mandate have into rough balance.She is not that worried about inflation expectations moving up.Policy is moderately restrictive which is appropriate. She is laser focused on the data.Repeats that the underlined fundamentals are still quite healthyThe comments are probably not far from what we might expect from Fed Chair Powe;; US equities are trading higher in premarket: Dow industrial average at 150 point. S&P up 14.58 points (S&P is on its largest losing streak since January 2)NASDAQ index is up 32.6 point This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Ahead of the chair Powell's speech at 10 AM, former Fed Gov. Ferguson and former Fed Pres. Harker are speaking on CNBC:Former Fed Gov. FergusonWe are in a period of "stagflation light". Think the Fed chair will try to create as much flexibility.Administration is often pressuring the Fed chair privately. The public pressure is highly unlikely.Former Fed Pres. Harker:The data is fuzzy. It is not crystal clear. Although there are some businesses that are planning ahead like data, but most businesses are sitting and waiting. There is a lot of diversity of opinionWe are all looking at the data, it is how you interpret it. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.