Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Red Sea Shipping Halt Is Latest Risk to Global Economy

    Next year could see increasing volatility as persistent military conflicts and economic uncertainty influence voting in national elections across the globe.The attacks on crucial shipping traffic in the Red Sea straits by a determined band of militants in Yemen — a spillover from the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza — is injecting a new dose of instability into a world economy already struggling with mounting geopolitical tensions.The risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East is the latest in a string of unpredictable crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, that have landed like swipes of a bear claw on the global economy, smacking it off course and leaving scars.As if that weren’t enough, more volatility lies ahead in the form of a wave of national elections whose repercussions could be deep and long. More than two billion people in roughly 50 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States and the 27 nations of the European Parliament, will head to the polls. Altogether, participants in 2024’s elections olympiad account for 60 percent of the world’s economic output.In robust democracies, elections are taking place as mistrust in government is rising, electorates are bitterly divided and there is a profound and abiding anxiety over economic prospects.A ship crossing the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. Attacks on the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, via ShutterstockA billboard promoting presidential elections in Russia, which will take place in March.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressEven in countries where elections are neither free nor fair, leaders are sensitive to the economy’s health. President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision this fall to require exporters to convert foreign currency into rubles was probably done with an eye on propping up the ruble and tamping down prices in the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections in March.The winners will determine crucial policy decisions affecting factory subsidies, tax breaks, technology transfers, the development of artificial intelligence, regulatory controls, trade barriers, investments, debt relief and the energy transition.A rash of electoral victories that carry angry populists into power could push governments toward tighter control of trade, foreign investment and immigration. Such policies, said Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, could tip the global economy into “a very different world than the one that we have been used to.”In many places, skepticism about globalization has been fueled by stagnant incomes, declining standards of living and growing inequality. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyle said, “a world of shrinking trade is a world of shrinking income.”And that raises the possibility of a “vicious cycle,” because the election of right-wing nationalists is likely to further weaken global growth and bruise economic fortunes, she warned.A campaign rally for former President Donald J. Trump in New Hampshire in December.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA line of migrants on their way to a Border Patrol processing center at the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration will be a hot topic in upcoming elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMany economists have compared recent economic events to those of the 1970s, but the decade that Ms. Coyle said came to mind was the 1930s, when political upheavals and financial imbalances “played out into populism and declining trade and then extreme politics.”The biggest election next year is in India. Currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, it is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s manufacturing hub. Taiwan’s presidential election in January has the potential to ratchet up tensions between the United States and China. In Mexico, the vote will affect the government’s approach to energy and foreign investment. And a new president in Indonesia could shift policies on critical minerals like nickel.The U.S. presidential election, of course, will be the most significant by far for the world economy. The approaching contest is already affecting decision-making. Last week, Washington and Brussels agreed to suspend tariffs on European steel and aluminum and on American whiskey and motorcycles until after the election.The deal enables President Biden to appear to take a tough stance on trade deals as he battles for votes. Former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, has championed protectionist trade policies and proposed slapping a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States — a combative move that would inevitably lead other countries to retaliate.Mr. Trump, who has echoed authoritarian leaders, has also indicated that he would step back from America’s partnership with Europe, withdraw support for Ukraine and pursue a more confrontational stance toward China.Workers on a car assembly line in Hefei, China. Beijing has provided enormous incentives for electric vehicles.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesA shipyard in India, which is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s largest manufacturing hub.Atul Loke for The New York Times“The outcome of the elections could lead to far-reaching shifts in domestic and foreign policy issues, including on climate change, regulations and global alliances,” the consulting firm EY-Parthenon concluded in a recent report.Next year’s global economic outlook so far is mixed. Growth in most corners of the world remains slow, and dozens of developing countries are in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. On the positive side of the ledger, the rapid fall in inflation is nudging central bankers to reduce interest rates or at least halt their rise. Reduced borrowing costs are generally a spur to investment and home buying.As the world continues to fracture into uneasy alliances and rival blocs, security concerns are likely to loom even larger in economic decisions than they have so far.China, India and Turkey stepped up to buy Russian oil, gas and coal after Europe sharply reduced its purchases in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, tensions between China and the United States spurred Washington to respond to years of strong-handed industrial support from Beijing by providing enormous incentives for electric vehicles, semiconductors and other items deemed essential for national security.A protest in Yemen on Friday against the operation to safeguard trade and protect ships in the Red Sea.Osamah Yahya/EPA, via ShutterstockThe drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi militia are a further sign of increasing fragmentation.In the last couple of months, there has been a rise in smaller players like Yemen, Hamas, Azerbaijan and Venezuela that are seeking to change the status quo, said Courtney Rickert McCaffrey, a geopolitical analyst at EY-Parthenon and an author of the recent report.“Even if these conflicts are smaller, they can still affect global supply chains in unexpected ways,” she said. “Geopolitical power is becoming more dispersed,” and that increases volatility.The Houthi assaults on vessels from around the world in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait — the aptly named Gate of Grief — on the southern end of the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates and oil prices while diverting marine traffic to a much longer and costlier route around Africa.Last week, the United States said it would expand a military coalition to ensure the safety of ships passing through this commercial pathway, through which 12 percent of global trade passes. It is the biggest rerouting of worldwide trade since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the impact of the attacks had so far been limited. “From an economic perspective, we’re not seeing huge increase in oil and gas prices,” Mr. Vistesen said, although he acknowledged that the Red Sea assaults were the “most obvious near-term flashpoint.”Uncertainty does have a dampening effect on the economy, though. Businesses tend to adopt a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to investment, expansions and hiring.“Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors,” a midyear survey by the World Economic Forum found.With persistent military conflicts, increasing bouts of extreme weather and a slew of major elections ahead, it’s likely that 2024 will bring more of the same. More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Under Argentina’s New President, Fuel Is Up 60%, and Diaper Prices Have Doubled

    Javier Milei warned that things would get worse before they got better. Now Argentines are living it.Over the past two weeks, the owner of a hip wine bar in Buenos Aires saw the price of beef soar 73 percent, while the zucchini he puts in salads rose 140 percent. An Uber driver paid 60 percent more to fill her tank. And a father said he spent twice as much on diapers for his toddler than he did last month.In Argentina, a country synonymous with galloping inflation, people are used to paying more for just about everything. But under the country’s new president, life is quickly becoming even more painful.When Javier Milei was elected president on Nov. 19, the country was already suffering under the world’s third-highest rate of inflation, with prices up 160 percent from a year before.But since Mr. Milei took office on Dec. 10 and quickly devalued the Argentine currency, prices have soared at such a dizzying pace that many in this South American country of 46 million are running new calculations on how their businesses or households can survive the far deeper economic crunch the country is already enduring.“Since Milei won, we’ve been worried all the time,” said Fernando González Galli, 36, a high school philosophy teacher in Buenos Aires.Mr. Galli has been trying to cut back without making life worse for his two daughters, who are 6 years and 18 months old, including switching to a cheaper brand of diapers and racing to spend his Argentine pesos before their value disintegrates even further. “As soon as I get my paycheck, I go buy everything I can,” he said.Since Javier Milei took office on Dec. 10 and quickly devalued the Argentine currency, prices have risen at a dizzying pace.Emiliano Lasalvia/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNahuel Carbajo, 37, an owner of Naranjo Bar, a trendy Buenos Aires wine bar, said that like most Argentines, he had become accustomed to regular price increases, but this past week went far beyond what even he was used to.Since Mr. Milei won, the price for the premium steak that Mr. Carbajo serves soared 73 percent, to 14,580 pesos, or roughly $18, per kilogram, about 2.2 pounds; a five-kilogram box of zucchinis rose to 15,600 pesos from 6,500; and avocados cost 51 percent more than the beginning of this month.“There’s no way for salaries or people’s incomes to adapt at that speed,” Mr. Carbajo said.Mr. Milei’s spokesman, Manuel Adorni, said accelerating inflation was the inevitable consequence of finally fixing Argentina’s distorted economy.“We’ve been left with a multitude of problems and unresolved issues that we have to start addressing,” he said. “Inevitably, we will go through months of high inflation.”Mr. Milei has warned Argentines that his plans to shrink the government and remake the economy would hurt at first. “I prefer to tell you the uncomfortable truth rather than a comfortable lie,” he said in his inaugural address, adding this past week that he wanted to end the country’s “model of decline.”Argentina’s economy has been mired in crisis for years, with chronic inflation, rising poverty and a currency that has plunged in value. The economic turmoil paved the way to the presidency for Mr. Milei, a political outsider who had spent years as an economist and television pundit railing against what he called corrupt politicians who had destroyed the economy, often for personal gain.During the campaign, he vowed to take a chain saw to public spending and regulations, even wielding an actual chain saw at rallies.After Mr. Milei’s victory, price increases began accelerating in expectation of his new policies.Buying fruit and vegetables in Buenos Aires. Argentines suffer under the world’s third highest rate of inflation.Tomas Cuesta/ReutersThe previous leftist government had used complicated currency controls, consumer subsidies and other measures to inflate the peso’s official value and keep several key prices artificially low, including gas, transportation and electricity.Mr. Milei vowed to undo all that, and he has wasted little time.Two days after taking office, Mr. Milei began cutting government spending, including consumer subsidies. He also devalued the peso by 54 percent, putting the government’s exchange rate much closer to the market’s valuation of the peso.Economists said such measures were necessary to fix Argentina’s long-term financial problems. But they also brought short-term pain in the form of even faster inflation. Some analysts questioned the lack of adequate safety nets for the poorest Argentines.In November, prices rose 13 percent from October, according to government data. Analysts predict prices will increase another 25 percent to 30 percent this month. And from now until February, some economists are forecasting an 80 percent jump, according to Santiago Manoukian, the chief economist at Ecolatina, an economics consulting firm.The forecasts are partly caused by soaring gas prices, which increased 60 percent from Dec. 7 to Dec. 13, and have a trickle-down effect on the economy.The currency devaluation made imported products like coffee, electronic devices and gas immediately more expensive because they are priced in U.S. dollars. A monthly Netflix subscription in Argentina jumped 60 percent to 6,676 pesos, or $8.30, the day after the devaluation, for example. It also prompted some domestic producers, including farmers and cattle ranchers, to increase prices to align them with their own rising costs.With the chronic high inflation, labor unions often negotiate large raises to try to keep up, yet those wage increases are quickly eaten up by sharp price hikes. Informal workers, a list that includes nannies and street vendors, and who make up nearly half of the economy, also do not get such raises.Outside a clothing store this month in Buenos Aires. In November, prices rose 13 percent from October, and analysts predict that prices will increase another 25 percent to 30 percent this month.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn Wednesday, Mr. Milei launched his next big steps to remake the government and economy with an emergency decree that significantly reduces the state’s role in the economy and eliminates a raft of regulations.The measure prohibits the state from regulating the rental real estate market and setting limits on fees that banks and health insurers can charge customers; changes labor laws to make it easier to fire workers while also placing limits on strikes; and turns state companies into corporations so they can be privatized.Many legal analysts immediately questioned the decree’s constitutionality, saying that Mr. Milei was trying to subvert Congress.After the speech, people across Buenos Aires, like Jesusa Orfelia Peralta, 73, a retiree, took to the streets banging on pots to show their displeasure.She worried that price increases would make proper health care too expensive for her and her husband. Despite severe spinal problems, she said she did not hesitate to head out, using a walker, and vent her anger in public. “Where else would I be?” she said.A protest on Wednesday in Buenos Aires against Mr. Milei’s austerity measures.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Milei has sought to discourage protests by threatening to cancel welfare plans and fine anyone involved in demonstrations that block roads. Human rights groups have widely criticized such policies as restricting the right to peacefully protest.For now, most Argentines are trying to figure out how to make ends meet in what often feels like both a complicated course in economics and a frenzied sprint to buy before prices rise again.“I always say that we are at university, and every day we sit for a difficult exam, every five minutes,” Roberto Nicolás Ormeño, an owner of El Gauchito, a small empanada shop in downtown Buenos Aires.Mr. Ormeño said he had been scouring the market for his ingredients and changing suppliers almost every week, either because they increase prices too much or provide poorer quality products.He is trying to avoid passing along too much of his price increases to customers, though he is unsure how long he can sustain that. “I see my frequent customers buying one dozen instead of two” dozen empanadas, he said.Marisol del Valle Cardozo, who has a 3-year-old daughter, has been cutting back in a bid to make ends meet, turning to cheaper brands and going out less. “We don’t turn the air-conditioning on as much,” she said. “We decreased our plans on weekends from four times a month to just once.”Ms. Cardozo, who works for a police department outside Buenos Aires, said that she got a raise this year, but that it is already not enough. She also drives an Uber, but said that fare increases had not kept up with the soaring gas prices.Despite the challenges, Ms. Cardozo said she remained a Milei supporter and was hoping his policies work.“We were living under a fantasy,” she said, referring to gas prices before the recent hike. “If these adjustments are necessary to thrive in the end, they’re worth it.”Protesters in front of the National Congress on Thursday in Buenos Aires.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJack Nicas More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Price Increases Cooled in November as Inflation Falls Toward Fed Target

    A key inflation measure has been slowing and overall prices actually declined slightly from October, good news for officials and consumers.A closely watched measure of inflation cooled notably in November, good news for the Federal Reserve as officials move toward the next phase in their fight against rapid price increases and a positive for the White House as voters see relief from rising costs.The Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation measure, which the Fed cites when it says it aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, climbed 2.6 percent in the year through November. That was down from 2.9 percent the previous month, and was less than what economists had forecast. Compared with the previous month, prices overall even fell slightly for the first time in years.That decline — a 0.1 percent drop, and the first negative reading since April 2020 — came as gas prices dropped. After volatile food and fuel prices were stripped out for a clearer look at underlying price pressures, inflation climbed modestly on a monthly basis and 3.2 percent over the year. That was down from 3.4 percent previously.While that is still faster than the Fed’s goal, the report provided the latest evidence that price increases are swiftly slowing back toward the central bank’s target. After more than two years of rapid inflation that has burdened American shoppers and bedeviled policymakers, several months of solid progress have helped to convince policymakers that they may be turning a corner.Increasingly, officials and economists think that they may be within sight of a soft economic landing — one in which inflation moderates back to normal without a painful recession. Fed policymakers held interest rates steady at their meeting this month, signaled that they might well be done raising interest rates and suggested that they could even cut borrowing costs three times next year.“Inflation is slowing a lot faster than the Fed had anticipated — that could allow them to potentially cut soon, and more aggressively,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of U.S. rates strategy at TD Securities. “They’re really trying their best to deliver a soft landing here.”The inflation progress is welcome news for the Biden administration, which has struggled to capitalize on strong economic growth and low unemployment at a time when high prices are eroding household confidence.President Biden released a statement celebrating the report, and Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council, called the slowdown in inflation “a significant milestone” in a call with reporters.“Inflation has come down faster than even the more optimistic forecasts,” she said, noting that wage gains are outstripping price increases. While she didn’t comment on monetary policy directly, citing the central bank’s independence from the White House, she did note that households are already facing lower mortgage rates as investors come to expect a more lenient Fed.Based on market pricing, the Fed is expected to begin lowering interest rates as soon as March, though officials have argued that it is too early to talk about when rate cuts will commence.“Inflation has eased from its highs, and this has come without a significant increase in unemployment — that’s very good news,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at that meeting. Still, he emphasized that “the path forward is uncertain.”Central bankers are likely to watch closely for signs that inflation has continued to cool as they contemplate when to start cutting rates. Some officials have suggested that keeping borrowing costs steady when price increases are slowing would effectively squeeze the economy more. (Interest rates are not price-adjusted, so they get higher after stripping inflation out as inflation falls.)Still, Fed officials have been hesitant to declare victory after repeated head fakes in which price increases proved more stubborn than expected, and at a time when geopolitical issues could complicate supply chains or push up gas prices.“The more benign inflation data is certainly something to celebrate, but there is some turbulence ahead,” Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, wrote in a note reacting to Friday’s data. “Fed officials will want to get through before turning the focus squarely to rate cuts.”Policymakers are also likely to keep a close eye on consumer spending as they try to figure out how much momentum is left in the economy.The report released Friday showed that consumers are still spending at a moderate clip. A measure of personal consumption climbed 0.2 percent from October, and 0.3 percent after adjusting for inflation. Both readings were quicker than the previous month. That suggested that growth is still positive, though is no longer quite as hot as it was earlier this year.Officials still expect the economy to slow more notably in 2024, a demand cool-down that they think would pave the way to sustainably slower price increases.After a year in which inflation cooled rapidly in spite of surprisingly strong growth, economists are expressing humility. But policymakers remain wary of a situation in which growth remains too strong.“If you have growth that’s robust, what that will mean is probably we’ll keep the labor market very strong; it probably will place some upward pressure on inflation,” Mr. Powell said at his news conference. “That could mean that it takes longer to get to 2 percent inflation.”That, he said, “could mean we need to keep rates higher for longer.” More

  • 200 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Fed’s favorite inflation gauge shows prices rose at 3.2% annual rate in November, less than expected

    The core personal consumption expenditures price index rose just 0.1% in November and was up 3.2% from a year ago, both close to expectations.
    On a six-month basis, core PCE was up 1.9%, below the Fed’s 12-month target.
    Including food and energy costs, so-called headline PCE actually fell 0.1% on the month and was up just 2.6% from a year ago.

    A gauge the Federal Reserve uses for inflation rose slightly in November and edged closer to the central bank’s goal.
    The core personal consumption expenditures price index, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, increased 0.1% for the month, and was up 3.2% from a year ago, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

    Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting respective rises of 0.1% and 3.3%.
    On a six-month basis, core PCE increased 1.9%, indicating that if current trends continue the Fed essentially has reached its goal.
    “Adding in the further sharp slowdown in rent inflation still in the pipeline, it’s hard to see any credible reason why the annual inflation rate won’t also return to the 2% target over the coming months,” wrote Andrew Hunter, deputy chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics.
    Markets reacted little to the report, with Wall Street set for a mixed open Friday in its last session before the Christmas holiday.
    Elsewhere in the report, consumer expenditures in November climbed 0.3% while income rose 0.4%, numbers that were in line with expectations and indicative that spending was continuing apace despite ongoing inflation pressures.

    Including food and energy costs, so-called headline PCE actually fell 0.1% on the month and was up just 2.6% from a year ago, after peaking above 7% in mid-2022. That was the first monthly decline since April 2020, according to Fed data.
    The 12-month numbers are significant in that both show inflation making continued progress toward the Fed’s 2% target.
    “The Federal Open Market Committee is not yet ready to declare victory on inflation, but the outlook is much better than it was just a few months ago,” wrote Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services. “The slowing in core inflation opens the door for fed funds rate cuts in 2024; the timing will depend on core PCE numbers over the next few months.”
    The Fed prefers PCE as an inflation measure over the more widely followed CPI as the former focuses more on what consumers actually spend rather than the latter’s measure of what goods and services cost. Though policymakers watch both measures, they are more concerned with core prices as a longer-run inflation gauge.
    November’s report reflected a shift in consumer appetite, as prices for services increased 0.2% while goods slumped 0.7%. A 2.7% slide in energy prices and a 0.1% decrease in food helped hold back inflation for the month.
    Much of the market’s focus lately has been on the Fed’s inflation view and what that will mean for interest rates.
    For each of its last three meetings, the Federal Open Market Committee has held the line, keeping its benchmark overnight borrowing rate targeted between 5.25%-5.5%. At its meeting last week, the committee indicated it is done raising rates and expects to implement cuts totaling 0.75 percentage point in 2024. Markets expect the first rate reduction to happen in March.
    Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    UK inches closer to technical recession as growth is revised down

    The U.K. is edging closer to a technical recession, after revised figures showed the economy shrank in the previous quarter.
    U.K. gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.1% between July and September, in a downward revision from the earlier estimate of flat growth, according to the Office for National Statistics.
    The data could put further pressure on the Bank of England to cut interest rates sooner than planned in a bid to shore up a weaker economy.

    People shopping on Oxford Street in London. Picture date: Thursday December 29, 2022. (Photo by James Manning/PA Images via Getty Images)
    James Manning – Pa Images | Pa Images | Getty Images

    LONDON — The U.K. is edging closer to recession after revised figures showed the economy shrank in the previous quarter.
    U.K. gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.1% between July and September, a downward revision from the earlier estimate of flat growth, according to new data released Friday by the Office for National Statistics.

    There was also zero growth in the prior three months, the new figures showed, down from the 0.2% growth previously calculated.
    Data due out in February will show whether the U.K. has entered a technical recession — defined as when the economy shrinks for two consecutive quarters.
    Responding to the revisions Friday, Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt insisted that the “medium-term outlook for the U.K. is far more optimistic than these numbers suggest.”

    However, analysts said it shows that the U.K. has so far just “scraped by” without a recession.
    “Growth is weakening and interest rates are really beginning to bite and while a recession has just been avoided to date, there is no guarantee one will be avoided in 2024,” Richard Carter, head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, said in a note.

    “Inflation has eased more than anticipated and interest rate predictions are suggesting more easing than originally thought in 2024, but the damage may already have been done. Certainly, Rishi Sunak’s pledge to grow the economy is now severely in doubt,” he said.
    That could put further pressure on the Bank of England to cut interest rates sooner than planned in a bid to shore up a weaker economy.
    Better-than-expected data released Wednesday showed that inflation hit 3.9% in November, raising speculation that the central bank could cut rates in the spring.
    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made growing the economy one of his key pledges this year. Downing Street said it will be met if GDP increases in the three months to December versus the previous quarter.
    A near-term drop in interest rates would be a win for Sunak’s government, as the U.K. enters an election year.
    Still, the BOE’s governor Andrew Bailey has insisted that rates may need to remain “higher for longer” after holding them steady at 5.25% at the final policy meeting of the year. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up

    Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.The Biden administration is quietly signaling new support for seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations, and has begun urgent discussions with allies about using the funds to aid Ukraine’s war effort at a moment when financial support is waning, according to senior American and European officials.Until recently, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had argued that without action by Congress, seizing the funds was “not something that is legally permissible in the United States.” There has also been concern among some top American officials that nations around the world would hesitate to keep their funds at the New York Federal Reserve, or in dollars, if the United States established a precedent for seizing the money.But the administration, in coordination with the Group of 7 industrial nations, has begun taking another look at whether it can use its existing authorities or if it should seek congressional action to use the funds. Support for such legislation has been building in Congress, giving the Biden administration optimism that it could be granted the necessary authority.The talks among finance ministers, central bankers, diplomats and lawyers have intensified in recent weeks, officials said, with the Biden administration pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the invasion.The more than $300 billion of Russian assets under discussion have already been out of Moscow’s control for more than a year. After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, used sanctions to freeze the assets, denying Russia access to its international reserves.But seizing the assets would take matters a significant step further and require careful legal consideration.President Biden has not yet signed off on the strategy, and many of the details remain under heated discussion. Policymakers must determine if the money will be channeled directly to Ukraine or used to its benefit in other ways.They are also discussing what kinds of guardrails might be associated with the funds, such as whether the money could be used only for reconstruction and budgetary purposes to support Ukraine’s economy, or whether — like the funds Congress is debating — it could be spent directly on the military effort.The discussions have taken on greater urgency since Congress failed to reach a deal to provide military aid before the end of the year. On Tuesday, lawmakers abandoned a last-ditch effort amid a stalemate over Republican demands that any aid be tied to a crackdown on migration across the U.S. border with Mexico.The Financial Times reported earlier that the Biden administration had come around to the view that seizing Russia’s assets was viable under international law.A senior administration official said this week that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to pay for more arms for Ukraine and aid to its government, eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.American officials have said that current funding for the Ukrainians is nearly exhausted, and they are scrambling to find ways to provide artillery rounds and air defenses for the country. With Europe’s own promise of fresh funds also stuck, a variety of new ideas are being debated about how to use the Russian assets, either dipping into them directly, using them to guarantee loans or using the interest income they earn to help Ukraine.“This amount of money that we’re talking about here is simply game-changing,” said Philip Zelikow, a State Department official in both Bush administrations and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The fight over this money which is occurring is actually in some ways the essential campaign of the war.”Seizing such a large sum of money from another sovereign nation would be without precedent, and such an action could have unpredictable legal ramifications and economic consequences. It would almost certainly lead to lawsuits and retaliation from Russia.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, referred to the discussions in a video address to his country last week, saying that “the issue of frozen assets was one of the very important decisions addressed” during his recent talks in Washington. He seemed to suggest that the funds should be directed to arms purchases, adding, “The assets of the terrorist state and its affiliates should be used to support Ukraine, to protect lives and people from Russian terror.”In a sign that some European countries are ready to move forward with confiscating Russian assets, German prosecutors this week seized about $790 million from the Frankfurt bank account of a Russian financial firm that was under E.U. sanctions.The Biden administration has said little in public about the negotiations. At the State Department on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a spokesman, said: “It’s something that we have looked at. There remains sort of operational questions about that, and legal questions.” He said he did not have more information.Very little of the Russian assets, perhaps $5 billion or so by some estimates, are in the hands of U.S. institutions. But a significant chunk of Russia’s foreign reserves are held in U.S. dollars, both in the United States and in Europe. The United States has the power to police transactions involving its currency and use its sanctions to immobilize dollar-denominated assets.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the Capitol this month. A Biden administration official said that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to send more aid to Ukraine, an alternative source of funding was still desperately needed.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesThe bulk of the Russian deposits are believed to be in Europe, including in Switzerland and Belgium, which are not part of the Group of 7. As a result, diplomatic negotiations are underway over how to gain access to those funds, some of which are held in euros and other currencies.American officials were surprised that President Vladimir V. Putin did not repatriate the funds before the Ukraine invasion. But in interviews over the past year, they have speculated that Mr. Putin did not believe the funds would be seized, because they were left untouched after his invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. And bringing the funds home to Russia would have been another tipoff that an invasion was imminent, at a time Mr. Putin was vigorously denying American and British charges that he was preparing for military action.One Group of 7 official said the coalition had been considering a variety of options for how to use Russia’s assets, with the goal of putting forward a unified proposal around the second anniversary of the war, when many top officials will be gathering in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. The first debates have focused on what would be permissible under international law and under each nation’s domestic laws, as they consider Russia’s likely legal responses and retaliatory measures.Earlier in the year, American officials said they thought the frozen assets could be used as leverage to help force Russia to the negotiating table for a cease-fire; presumably, in return, Moscow would be given access to some of its assets. But Russia has shown no interest in such negotiations, and now officials argue that beginning to use the funds may push Moscow to move to the negotiating table.Among the options that Western countries have discussed are seizing the assets directly and transferring them to Ukraine, using interest earned and other profits from the assets that are held in European financial institutions to Ukraine’s benefit or using the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.Daleep Singh, a former top Biden administration official, suggested in an interview this year that the immobilized reserves should be placed into an escrow account that Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance could have access to and be used as collateral for new bonds that Ukraine would issue.If Ukraine can successfully repay the debt — over a period of 10 to 30 years — then Russia could potentially have its frozen assets back.“If they can’t repay, my hunch is that Russia probably has something to do with that,” said Mr. Singh, who is now the chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “And so in that way, Russia has a stake in Ukraine’s emergence as a sovereign independent economy and country.”Settling on a solid legal rationale has been one of the biggest challenges for policymakers as they decide how to proceed.Proponents of seizing Russia’s assets, such as Mr. Zelikow and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued that nations that hold Russian assets are entitled to cancel their obligations to Russia and apply those assets to what Russia owes for its breach of international law under the so-called international law of state countermeasures. They note that after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, $50 billion of Iraqi funds were seized and transferred through the United Nations to compensate victims in Iraq and other countries.Robert B. Zoellick, the former World Bank president, has been making the case to Group of 7 finance ministers that as long as they act in unison, seizing Russian assets would not have an impact on their currencies or the status of the dollar. He suggested that other countries were unlikely to rush to put their money into another currency, such as China’s renminbi.“With reserve currencies, it’s always a question of what your alternatives are,” said Mr. Zoellick, who was also a Treasury and State Department official.One of the obstacles in the United States for seizing Russian assets has been the view within the Biden administration that being able to lawfully do so would require an act of Congress. At a news conference in Germany last year, Ms. Yellen highlighted that concern.“While we’re beginning to look at this, it would not be legal now, in the United States, for the government to seize those statutes,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not something that is legally permissible in the United States.”Since then, however, Ms. Yellen has become more open to the idea of seizing Russia’s assets to aid Ukraine.Factions of Congress have previously tried to attach provisions to the annual defense bill to allow the Justice Department to seize Russian assets belonging to officials under sanction and funnel the proceeds from the sale of those assets to Ukraine to help pay for weapons. But the efforts have faltered amid concerns that the proposals were not thoroughly vetted.With Ukraine running low on funds and ammunition, the debate about how to provide more aid could shift from a legal question to a moral question.“One can understand the precedential point made by those who do not believe the assets should be seized,” said Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury Department official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “Given skirmishes and wars in many spots, one could easily argue such a precedent could get out of hand.”However, Mr. Sobel argued that the barbarity of Russia’s actions justified using its assets to compensate Ukraine.“In my mind, humanity dictates that those factors outweigh the argument that seizing the assets would be unprecedented simply because Russia’s heinous and unfathomable behavior must be strongly punished,” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Choice Hotel Franchise Owners Push Back on Merger With Wyndham

    Franchisees are fighting Choice Hotels’ attempted takeover of its biggest rival, which would create a dominant player in the budget hotel sector.When Patrick Pacious, the chief executive of a large portfolio of hotel brands, promoted a blockbuster attempt to acquire a competitor in October, he said the proposed merger would lower costs and attract more customers for the families and small businesses that own most of the company’s locations.“Our franchisees instantly grasped the strategic benefit this would bring to their hotels,” Mr. Pacious, who leads Choice Hotels, said on CNBC.As the weeks have passed, however, the reaction has not been positive. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, the target of the proposed deal, rejected the offer from Choice, which is now pursuing a hostile takeover. And in early December, an association representing the majority of hoteliers who own Choice and Wyndham-branded properties came out strongly against it.“We all don’t know what’s driving this merger. Many of us feel it’s not needed,” said Bharat Patel, the chairman of the organization, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. The group surveyed its 20,000 members and found that about 77 percent of respondents who own hotels under either brand or both thought a merger would hurt their business.“I’m not against Choice or Wyndham,” said Mr. Patel, who owns two Choice hotels. “We just need robust competition in the markets.”That opposition illustrates a growing resistance to consolidation in industries that have grown more concentrated in recent years. Even some Wall Street analysts have expressed skepticism that Choice’s proposal is a good idea.The views of hotel owners could become a hurdle for Choice as it seeks approval for a merger from the Federal Trade Commission, which has taken an interest in franchising as evidence has mounted that the economic and legal relationship has increasingly tilted in favor of brand owners and away from franchisees.To understand why franchisees are worried, it’s helpful to understand how hotels are structured.About 70 percent of the nation’s 5.7 million hotel rooms operate under one of the several big national brands like Marriott or Hilton, according to the real estate data firm CoStar. The rest are independent.Over the past few decades, franchise chains have bought one another and merged to the point where the top six companies by number of rooms — Marriott, Hilton, InterContinental, Best Western, Choice and Wyndham — account for about 80 percent of all branded hotels.How a Choice/Wyndham merger would stack upCombining the two companies would create America’s largest branded hotel chain

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Number of hotel rooms in the United States
    Note: Data is as of Dec. 19.Source: CoStar GroupBy The New York TimesUnlike fast food franchisees, hotel owners typically develop or buy their own buildings, representing a multimillion-dollar investment for each property. The industry has drawn thousands of immigrant entrepreneurs from South Asia. Some owners accumulate sprawling portfolios, but most end up with just a few hotels.The average member of the Asian American owners’ group owns just two hotels, most commonly with one of the economy or midscale brands. Choice and Wyndham dominate that segment, with 6,270 and 5,907 hotels in the United States, including Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Quality Inn and Econo Lodge.Being part of a franchise network provides a recognized name, a business plan and collective purchasing that is supposed to give small businesses the benefits of scale. In exchange, hotel owners pay the brands a fee to join, ongoing royalties and other payments for marketing, technology and consulting.As a result, franchisees are effectively customers of the hotel brands. Less competition between hotel chains can leave owners with fewer options and, thus, less leverage to demand better services for a lower cost.Consider the frustrations of Jayanti Patel, who owns a Comfort Inn — one of Choice’s 22 brands — in Gettysburg, Pa.He said Choice had been taking a larger cut, via charges like an $18 monthly fee for reporting his property’s energy use, discounts for rooms booked with rewards programs and penalties when guests file complaints. Mr. Patel also laments declining service, such as from revenue management consultants who are supposed to provide advice that increases his profits. Choice has outsourced this work to a service that operates partly overseas.Mr. Patel said his profit margins had become “thinner and thinner,” and he’s considering signing up with a different brand when his franchise agreement ends in a couple of years. Friends who own Wyndham-branded properties seem happy, so he might adopt one of its brands as long as Choice doesn’t acquire that chain.“When my window comes up in 2026, 99 percent I don’t want to renew my agreement,” Mr. Patel said. “And maybe If I want to go to Wyndham, they have nearly 20 brands, and I lose that opportunity, because it will be the same thing.”Choice argues that as its rivals have expanded and merged, it also needs to grow to offer hotel owners bigger savings on supplies like signage and bedsheets. The company is also promising to bargain down the commissions that hotel owners pay websites like Expedia and Booking.com, which are particularly crucial in the budget segment.“Combining with Wyndham would enable us to continue to deliver enhanced profitability for franchisees — by helping to lower their costs and grow their direct revenue while providing our best-in-class technology platform,” Choice said in a statement.However, many hotel owners say that even if Choice did negotiate lower prices, they are skeptical that they would reap those benefits. In 2020, 90 franchisees filed a lawsuit that accused the company of, among other things, not passing along rebates from contracts with vendors. A judge ruled that hotel owners would have to pursue their claims in separate arbitration cases, and several did.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, supports a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry.Hannah Yoon for The New York TimesChoice prevailed in two of those proceedings. But in one, brought by a hotelier in North Dakota, an arbitrator found this past summer that Choice had “made virtually no efforts to leverage its size, scale and distribution to obtain volume discounts.” He ordered Choice to pay $760,008 in legal fees and compensation. Choice is contesting the award.The case is just one example, but it squares with recent economic research. A 2017 study found that while being part of a hotel franchise system helped bring in guests, it did not lower the cost of doing business compared with operating an independent hotel.But litigating on your own is expensive, which is why few franchisees do so even when they feel they’ve been mistreated.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, is supporting a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry. He leads a three-year-old group called Reform Lodging that is also opposing the merger.Mr. Gandhi has turned four of his Choice-branded hotels into Best Westerns and Red Roof Inns, both non-Choice brands that he said offered better assistance, fewer restrictions and more reasonable fees. Choice, he argued, introduced too many competitors to his area because it makes money from selling new franchises and controlling more of the market, even if the practice squeezes existing owners.“They want the biggest pie, because to them it’s all incremental revenue,” Mr. Gandhi said. “If you keep accumulating all these buildings and provide no support, it’s like one of those old pyramid schemes that’s ready to fall apart, which is exactly what’s happening.”A representative for Choice referred The New York Times to four hoteliers who it said would speak favorably of the merger. Two of them, including the chairman of the Choice Hotels Owners Council — to which all franchisees must belong and pay dues — declined to comment on the record. A third, who owns three Radisson hotels and was happy when Choice bought the brand, said the purchase of Wyndham — a much bigger company — could pose problems.The fourth, a Florida hotelier, Azim Saju, said that despite the loss of competition, if Choice acquired Wyndham the company would still have an incentive to make sure franchisees stayed afloat.“The concern is valid, but the bottom line is that franchising doesn’t do well unless the franchisees are profitable,” Mr. Saju said. “I think Choice has become more conscientious of the importance of franchisee profitability in order to further their success.”The dissatisfaction of hotel owners could hurt Choice’s ability to absorb Wyndham, especially if more franchisees switch to other brands. That prospect has soured some Wall Street analysts on the deal.“In hotel franchising, the critical constituency, as much as consumers walking in the door, is that franchising community,” said David Katz, an analyst who covers the hospitality and gambling industries for Jefferies & Company. “They’re going to own more than 50 percent of the limited service and economy hotels in the United States, and not have the full support of the largest franchisee organization out there? I think that merits further debate.”Franchisee support isn’t important just for morale. It could also sway federal regulators, who have started to take into account the effect of corporate mergers not just on their consumers but also on suppliers like book authors, chicken farmers and Amazon sellers.“Traditionally in antitrust there’s this consumer welfare standard, which is focused on ‘Is this going to be good or bad for consumers?’” said Brett Hollenbeck, an associate professor at the Anderson School of Management of the University of California, Los Angeles. “If the F.T.C. doesn’t feel like this argument will hold sway, they could try a more novel theory, which is that it could hurt franchisees.”Choice said it anticipated that its deal would be approved and was expecting to complete the transaction within a year. Its offer to buy all outstanding Wyndham shares extends through March, when it will try to replace the directors on the company’s board with people who will approve the sale. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Companies Like Afterpay and Affirm May Put Americans At Risk For ‘Phantom Debt’

    Buying mattresses, clothes and other goods on installment plans has propped up spending, but economists worry that such loans could put some people at risk.“Buy now, pay later” loans are helping to fuel a record-setting holiday shopping season. Economists worry they could also be masking and exacerbating cracks in Americans’ financial well-being.The loans, which allow consumers to pay for purchases in installments, often interest-free, have soared in popularity because of high prices and interest rates. Retailers have used them to attract customers and to get people to spend more.But such loans may be encouraging younger and lower-income Americans to take on too much debt, according to consumer groups and some lawmakers. And because such loans aren’t routinely reported to credit bureaus or captured in public data, they could also represent a hidden source of risk to the financial system.“The more I dig into it, the more concerned I am,” said Tim Quinlan, a Wells Fargo economist who recently published a report that described pay-later loans as “phantom debt.”Traditional measures of consumer credit indicate that U.S. household finances overall are relatively healthy. But, Mr. Quinlan said, “if those are missing the fastest-growing piece of the market, then those reassurances aren’t worth a darn.”Estimates of the size of this market vary widely. Mr. Quinlan thinks that spending through pay-later options was about $46 billion this year. That is small when compared with the more than $3 trillion that Americans put on their credit cards last year.But such loans — offered by companies like Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay and PayPal — have climbed fast at a moment when the finances of some Americans are showing early signs of strain.Credit card borrowing is at a record high in dollar terms — though not as a share of income — and delinquencies, though low by historical standards, are rising. That stress is especially evident among younger adults.People in their 20s and 30s are by far the biggest users of pay-later loans, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That could be both a sign of financial problems — young people may be using pay-later loans after maxing out credit cards — and a cause of it by encouraging them to spend excessively.Liz Cisneros, a 23-year-old college student in Chicago who works part time at Home Depot, said she was surprised by the ease of pay-later programs. During the pandemic, she saw influencers on TikTok promoting the loans, and a friend said they helped her buy designer shoes.Ms. Cisneros started using them to buy clothes, shoes and Sephora beauty products. She often had multiple loans at a time. She realized she was overspending when she didn’t have enough money while in a grocery checkout line. A pay-later company had withdrawn funds from her bank account that morning, and she had lost track of her payment schedule.“It’s easy when you keep continually clicking and clicking and clicking, and then it’s not,” she said, referring to when she realizes she has spent too much.Ms. Cisneros said the problem was particularly intense around Christmas, and this year she was not shopping for the holiday so she could pay off her debts.Pay-later loans became available in the United States years ago, but they took off during the pandemic when online shopping surged.The products are somewhat similar to the layaway programs offered decades earlier by retailers. Online shoppers can choose from pay-later options at checkout or on the apps of pay-later companies. The loans are also available at some physical stores; Affirm said on Tuesday that it had started offering pay-later loans at the self-checkout counters at Walmart stores.The most common loans require buyers to pay a quarter of the purchase price upfront with the rest usually paid in three installments over six weeks. Such loans are typically interest-free, though users sometimes end up owing fees. Pay-later companies make most of their money by charging fees to retailers.Some lenders also offer interest-bearing loans with repayment terms that can last a few months to more than a year. Pay-later companies say their products are better for borrowers than credit cards or payday loans. They say that by offering shorter loans, they can better assess borrowers’ ability to repay.“We’re able to identify and extend credit to consumers who have the ability and willingness to repay above that of revolving credit accounts,” Michael Linford, Affirm’s chief financial officer, said in an interview.In its most recent quarter, 2.4 percent of Affirm’s loans were delinquent by 30 days or longer, down from 2.7 percent a year earlier. Those numbers exclude its four-payment loans.Briana Gordley, who works on consumer finance issues for a progressive policy organization, learned about pay-later firms in college from friends, and still uses them occasionally for larger purchases.Montinique Monroe for The New York TimesThe service makes the most sense for certain purchases, like buying an expensive sweater that will last many years, said the chief executive of Klarna, Sebastian Siemiatkowski.He said pay later probably made less sense for more frequent purchases like groceries, though Klarna and other companies do make their loans available at some grocery stores.Mr. Siemiatkowski acknowledged that people could misuse his company’s loans.“Obviously it’s still credit, and so you’re going to find a subset of individuals who unfortunately are using it in not the way intended,” said Mr. Siemiatkowski, who founded Klarna in 2005. He said the company tried to identify those users and deny them loans or impose stricter terms on them.Klarna, which is based in Stockholm, says its global default rates are less than 1 percent. In the United States, more than a third of customers repay loans early.Kelsey Greco made her first pay-later purchase about four years ago to buy a mattress. Paying $1,200 in cash would have been difficult, and putting the purchase on a credit card seemed unwise. So she got a 12-month, interest-free loan from Affirm.Since then, Ms. Greco, 30, has used Affirm regularly, including for a Dyson hair tool and car brakes. Some of the loans charged interest, but she said that even then she preferred this form of borrowing because it was clear how much she would pay and when.“With a credit card, you can swipe it all day long and be like, ‘Wait, what did I just get myself into?’” Ms. Greco, a Denver resident, said. “Whereas with Affirm, it’s giving you these clear-cut numbers where you can see, ‘OK, this makes sense’ or ‘This doesn’t make sense.’”Ms. Greco, who was introduced to The New York Times by Affirm, said pay-later loans helped her avoid credit card debt, with which she previously had trouble.But not all consumers use pay-later options carefully. A report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this year found that nearly 43 percent of pay-later users had overdrawn a bank account in the previous 12 months, compared with 17 percent of nonusers. “This is just a more vulnerable portion of the population,” said Ed deHaan, a researcher at Stanford University.In a paper published last year, Mr. deHaan and three other scholars found that within a month of first using pay-later loans, people became more likely to experience overdrafts and to start accruing credit card late fees.Financial advisers who work with low-income Americans say more clients are using pay-later loans.Barbara L. Martinez, a financial counselor in Chicago who works at Heartland Alliance, a nonprofit group, said many of her clients used cash advances to cover pay-later loans. When paychecks arrive, they don’t have enough to cover bills, forcing them to turn to more pay-later loans.“It is not that the product is bad,” she added, but “it can get out of control really fast and cause a lot of damage that could be prevented.”Barbara L. Martinez, a financial counselor in Chicago who works with low-income families, meeting with a colleague about an upcoming workshop for people wanting to learn more about financial stability.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesBriana Gordley learned about pay-later products in college. She was working part time and couldn’t get approved for a credit card, but pay-later providers were eager to extend her credit. She started falling behind when her work hours were reduced. Eventually, family and friends helped her repay the debts.Ms. Gordley, who testified about her experience last year in a listening session hosted by the Senate, now works on consumer finance issues for Texas Appleseed, a progressive policy organization. She said pay-later loans could be an important source of credit for communities that lacked access to traditional loans. She still uses them occasionally for larger purchases.But she said companies and regulators needed to make sure that borrowers could afford the debt they were taking on. “If we’re going to create these products and build out these systems for people, we also just have to have some checks and balances in place.”The Truth in Lending Act of 1968 requires credit card companies and other lenders to disclose interest rates and fees and provides borrowers with various protections, including the ability to dispute charges. But the act applies only to loans with more than four payment installments, effectively excluding many pay-later loans.Many such loans also aren’t reported to credit agencies. As a result, consumers could have multiple loans with Klarna, Afterpay and Affirm without the companies knowing about the other debts.“It’s a huge blind spot right now, and we all know that,” said Liz Pagel, a senior vice president at TransUnion who oversees the company’s consumer lending business.TransUnion and other major credit bureaus and pay-later companies all say they are supportive of more reporting.But there are practical hurdles. The credit-rating system rates borrowers more highly for having longer-term loans, including longstanding credit card accounts. Each pay-later purchase qualifies as a separate loan. As a result, those loans could lower the scores of borrowers even if they repay them on time.Ms. Pagel said TransUnion had created a new reporting system for the loans. Other credit bureaus, such as Experian and Equifax, are doing the same.Pay-later firms say they are reporting certain loans, particularly ones with longer terms. But most are not reporting and won’t commit to reporting loans with just four payments.That worries economists who say they are particularly concerned about how such loans will play out when the economy weakens and workers start losing their jobs.Marco di Maggio, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied pay-later products, said that when times were tough more people would use such loans for smaller expenses and get into trouble. “You only need one more shock to push people into default.” More