Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Billionaires Worth More Than the United States’ Cash Balance

    The cash balance at the Treasury Department is now lower than the net worth of some of the world’s richest people.The Treasury Department said its cash balance fell to $38.8 billion as of Thursday, as the United States inched toward running out of cash to pay its bills.That was significantly lower than the $316 billion the department had in operating cash, which is held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, at the start of the month.Just how empty is the Treasury cash coffer? For comparison, $38.8 billion is on par with the gross domestic product of Bahrain and Paraguay and lower than the net worth of more than two dozen of the wealthiest people in the world. Of course, much of the assets of those billionaires are tied up in stocks, rather than liquid assets.Here is a list of people with higher net worths than the U.S. cash reserves, according to Bloomberg News’s Billionaire Index as of Thursday. (Under the news agency’s editorial policy, its billionaire owner, Michael Bloomberg, is not considered for the index. Forbes, though, estimates his net worth at $94.5 billion.)Bernard Arnault, chief executive of the luxury group LVMH: $189 billionElon Musk, chief executive of SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter: $179 billionJeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon: $139 billionBill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: $125 billionLarry Ellison, co-founder and executive chairman of Oracle: $116 billionSteve Ballmer, investor and former chief executive of Microsoft: $113 billionLarry Page, co-founder of Google: $112 billionWarren Buffett, investor: $111 billionSergey Brin, co-founder of Google: $106 billionMark Zuckerberg, co-founder and chief executive of Facebook: $92.3 billionCarlos Slim, investor: $90.3 billionFrançoise Bettencourt Meyers, heir to the L’Oréal fortune and company board member: $87.2 billionMukesh Ambani, chairman of the energy group Reliance Industries: $83.7 billionAmancio Ortega, founder of the Inditex fashion group: $67.1 billionJim Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $66.6 billionRob Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $64.9 billionAlice Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $63.8 billionGautam Adani, founder and chairman of the Adani Group conglomerate: $63.4 billionJacqueline Mars, heir to and co-owner of the candy maker Mars: $61.7 billionJohn Mars, heir to and chairman of Mars: $61.7 billionZhong Shanshan, founder and chairman of the bottled-water company Nongfu Spring: $61.6 billionJulia Flesher Koch and family, heirs of the businessman David Koch: $60.6 billionCharles Koch, chief executive of the industrial conglomerate Koch Industries: $60.4 billionMichael Dell, chief executive and chairman of Dell Technologies: $53.4 billionAlain Wertheimer, co-owner and chairman of Chanel: $45.9 billionGérard Wertheimer, co-owner of Chanel: $45.9 billionGiovanni Ferrero, executive chairman of the chocolate and confectionery company Ferrero Group, and family: $43.6 billionZhang Yiming, founder and chief executive of the technology company ByteDance: $42.3 billionPhil Knight, co-founder of Nike, and family: $41.5 billionKlaus-Michael Kühne, honorary chairman and majority owner of the transport company Kuehne+Nagel: $40.9 billionFrançois Pinault, founder of the luxury group Kering: $39.6 billion More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Time Is Running Out for Congress to Raise the Debt Ceiling

    With a June 5 deadline looming, there is much to be done to prevent the default that leaders of both parties said would never happen.Senator Mitch McConnell had a message for Americans growing increasingly worried that the economy is going to crash if the federal debt ceiling is not raised: Just chill.“Look, I think everybody needs to relax,” Mr. McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader with deep experience in debt limit showdowns, told reporters back home earlier this week. “Regardless of what may be said about the talks on a day-to-day basis, the president and the speaker will reach an agreement. It will ultimately pass on a bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate. The country will not default.”That may be a case of easier said than done. While Mr. McConnell, President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy have repeatedly assured Americans that there will be no default, that guarantee is looking a little shakier with little more than a week to go before the U.S. Treasury is projected to run out of cash to pay its obligations.Even if negotiators agree to a deal soon — an outcome that appeared within reach but still had not materialized as talks continued on Friday — there is still much to be done, not the least of which is winning approval in the House and Senate. That outcome is nowhere near certain given rising uneasiness — and some outright opposition — on both the right and left. At this point, no one can be absolutely certain that the United States won’t tumble over the default cliff, even if no one involved wants that to happen. Time is short.President Biden said last weekend there was a chance a default could happen. “I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” he told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Doug Mills/The New York Times“No one can guarantee there won’t be a default, if for no other reason than the clock is ticking down here pretty quickly,” said G. William Hoagland, a longtime Republican budget guru on Capitol Hill who is now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “We are on thin ice in a big way.”Negotiators got some breathing room Friday afternoon with the Treasury secretary’s announcement that the default deadline had moved four days later, to June 5. But Congress will still be hard-pressed to act by then, and the brief extension might even be counterproductive, sapping some urgency to seal a deal.“We’re within the window of being able to perform this, and we have to come to some really tough terms in these closing hours,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry, Republican of North Carolina and a lead negotiator for Mr. McCarthy. “We’re going back on final, important matters, and it’s just not resolved.”Since the beginning of the impasse, Mr. Biden and congressional leaders have sought to tamp down concern that a default would occur, essentially saying that it was unthinkable because Congress has narrowly avoided default before. After one of the high-level meetings at the White House, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, cheered the fact that all four leaders had said default was off the table.Part of their motivation in offering these constant reassurances was to bolster their own forces, calm the public and keep the financial markets from cratering as the talks wore on.But President Biden changed his tune slightly during his visit to Japan last weekend, saying for the first time that if Republicans insisted on pushing the issue to the hilt, maybe default was an option after all.“I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” Mr. Biden told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House, suggested some Republicans might want a default if they could benefit from it politically.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesRepresentative Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic of New York and the minority leader, expressed a similar sentiment when asked this week if he could still be certain the government would not default.“Not with this group,” he said, referring to Republicans, some of whom he suspects would not mind the financial chaos resulting from a default if they thought it could help them politically in 2024.Mr. McCarthy, the House leader and a California Republican, has also stated repeatedly that there would be no default and on Friday emphasized that he believed that a positive outcome would be the result.“I’m a total optimist,” he told reporters as negotiations continued with no apparent breakthrough.One way Mr. McCarthy has said a default could be avoided is for the Senate to pass and the president to sign the measure Republicans passed in the House raising the debt limit while making steep budget cuts and rolling back other Biden administration initiatives. But that is unlikely to happen even if the Treasury runs out of money. Mr. McCarthy has also ruled out an emergency short-term suspension of the debt ceiling.Representatives Garret Graves, left, and Patrick McHenry are two of the negotiators for the Republicans.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesEven an agreement between House Republicans and Mr. Biden would not end the drama; in some respects, it would be just the beginning.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, a timeline that pushes the showdown ever closer to the Treasury’s early June deadline.Plus, with hard-right elements of the Republican conference joining progressive Democrats in expressing reservations about the deal taking shape, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Jeffries may have to thread the needle to produce the necessary votes from both sides to win approval of the deal.Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team will have to assess extremely accurately the number of Republicans committed to voting for any final budget deal with a debt limit increase attached. Then they will need to let Mr. Jeffries know the number of votes Democrats need to produce to make sure at least 218 lawmakers will support the package.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, which makes the deadline to tight.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMiscalculation could mean disaster. With the nation in a dire financial crisis in September 2008, the House stunned the Bush administration by failing to pass its bank bailout program. In a chaotic turn of events on the House floor, the measure failed as many Republicans refused to back it despite presidential pleas and some Democrats balked as well. The stock market tumbled in real time as the vote unfolded. Four days later, rattled House members came back and approved the proposal with a few changes.Some believe that it might require a similar scenario now to push the debt limit plan through Congress — a failed vote and market drop that underscores the economic consequences of a default and motivates lawmakers to act. Others would prefer it not come to that given the potentially severe ramifications of even a brief default.“I have been of the optimistic view that it wouldn’t happen, but the longer it goes on, the more likely it seems to me,” said Mr. Hoagland, the budget expert. “Time has run out for getting this done, but I am just praying a default doesn’t happen.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Ceiling Crisis: How a Default Could Unfold

    Here’s a look at what markets are expecting and planning for, and how a default might happen.The United States is inching closer to calamity, as lawmakers continue to spar over what it will take to raise the country’s $31.4 trillion debt limit.That has raised questions about what will happen if the United States does not raise its borrowing cap in time to avoid defaulting on its debt, along with how key players are preparing for that scenario and what would actually happen should the Treasury Department fail to repay its lenders.Such a situation would be unprecedented, so it’s difficult to say with certainty how it would play out. But it’s not the first time investors and policymakers have had to contemplate “what if?” and they’ve been busy updating their plans for how they think things may play out this time.While negotiators appear to be moving toward an agreement, time is short. There is no certainty that the debt limit will be lifted before June 5, when the Treasury now estimates the government will run out of cash to pay all of its bills on time, a moment known as the “X-date.”“We’ve got to be in the closing hours because of the timeline,” said Representative Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who is involved in the talks. “I don’t know if it’s in the next day or two or three, but it’s got to come together.”Big questions remain, including what could happen in the markets, how the government is planning for default and what happens if the United States runs out of cash. Here’s a look at how things could unfold.Before the X-DateFinancial markets have become more jittery as the United States moves closer to the X-date. While exuberance over the profit-boosting expectations of artificial intelligence has helped the stock market recover, fears about the debt limit persist. On Friday, the S&P 500 rose 1.3 percent, a modest gain of 0.3 percent for the week.This week, Fitch Ratings said it was placing the nation’s top AAA credit rating on review for a possible downgrade. DBRS Morningstar, another rating firm, did the same on Thursday.For now, the Treasury is still selling debt and making payments to its lenders.That has helped mollify some concerns that the Treasury won’t be able to repay debt coming due in full, as opposed to just an interest payment. That’s because the government has a regular schedule of new Treasury auctions where it sells bonds to raise fresh cash. The auctions are scheduled in a way so that the Treasury receives its new borrowed cash at the same time that it pays off its old debts.That allows the Treasury to avoid adding much to its outstanding $31.4 trillion debt load — something it can’t do right now since it enacted extraordinary measures after coming within a whisker of the debt limit on Jan. 19. And it should give the Treasury the cash it needs to avoid any disruption to payments, at least for now.This week, for example, the government sold two-year, five-year and seven-year bonds. However, that debt doesn’t “settle” — meaning the cash is delivered to the Treasury and the securities delivered to the buyers at the auction — until May 31, coinciding with three other securities coming due.More precisely, the new cash being borrowed is slightly larger than the amount coming due, with the tricky act of balancing all of the money coming in and out pointing to the Treasury’s challenge in the days and weeks ahead.When all the payments are tallied, the government ends up with a little over $20 billion of extra cash, according TD Securities.Some of that could go to the $12 billion of interest payments that the Treasury also has to pay that day. But as time goes on, and the debt limit becomes harder to avoid, the Treasury may have to postpone any incremental fund-raising, as it did during the debt limit standoff in 2015.After the X-Date, Before DefaultThe U.S. Treasury pays its debts through a federal payments system called Fedwire. Big banks hold accounts at Fedwire, and the Treasury credits those accounts with payments on its debt. These banks then pass the payments through the market’s plumbing and via clearing houses, like the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, with the cash eventually landing in the accounts of holders from domestic retirees to foreign central banks.The Treasury could try to push off default by extending the maturity of debt coming due. Because of the way Fedwire is set up, in the unlikely event that the Treasury chooses to push out the maturity of its debt it will need to do so before 10 p.m. at the latest on the day before the debt matures, according to contingency plans laid out by the trade group Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, or SIFMA. The group expects that if this is done, the maturity will be extended for only one day at a time.Investors are more nervous that should the government exhaust its available cash, it could miss an interest payment on its other debt. The first big test of that will come on June 15, when interest payments on notes and bonds with an original maturity of more than a year come due.Moody’s, the rating agency, has said it is most concerned about June 15 as the possible day the government could default. However, it may be helped by corporate taxes flowing into its coffers next month.The Treasury can’t delay an interest payment without default, according to SIFMA, but it could notify Fedwire by 7:30 a.m. that the payment will not be ready for the morning. It would then have until 4:30 p.m. to make the payment and avoid default.If a default is feared, SIFMA — alongside representatives from Fedwire, the banks and other industry players — has plans in place to convene up to two calls the day before a default could occur and three further calls on the day a payment is due, with each call following a similar script to update, assess and plan for what could unfold.“On the settlement, infrastructure and plumbing, I think we have a good idea of what could happen,” said Rob Toomey, head of capital markets at SIFMA. “It’s about the best we can do. When it comes to the long-term consequences, we don’t know. What we are trying to do is minimize disruption in what will be a disruptive situation.”Default and BeyondOne big question is how the United States will determine if it has actually defaulted on its debt.There are two main ways the Treasury could default: missing an interest payment on its debt, or not repaying its borrowings when the full amount becomes due.That has prompted speculation that the Treasury Department could prioritize payments to bondholders ahead of other bills. If bondholders are paid but others are not, ratings agencies are likely to rule that the United States has dodged default.But Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has suggested that any missed payment will essentially amount to a default.Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said an early warning sign that a default was coming could arrive in the form of a failed Treasury auction. The Treasury Department will also be closely tracking its expenditures and incoming tax revenue to forecast when a missed payment could happen.At that point, Mr. Akabas said, Ms. Yellen is likely to issue a warning with the specific timing of when she predicts the United States will not be able to make all of its payments on time and announce the contingency plans she intends to pursue.For investors, they will also receive updates through industry groups tracking the key deadlines for the Treasury to notify Fedwire that it will not make a scheduled payment.A default would then set off a cascade of potential problems.Rating firms have said a missed payment would merit a downgrade of America’s debt — and Moody’s has said it will not restore its Aaa rating until the debt ceiling was no longer subject to political brinkmanship.International leaders have questioned whether the world should continue to tolerate repeated debt-ceiling crises given the integral role the United States plays in the global economy. Central bankers, politicians and economists have warned that a default would most likely tip America into a recession, leading to waves of second order effects from corporate bankruptcies to rising unemployment.But those are just some of the risks known to be lurking.“All of this is uncharted waters,” Mr. Akabas said. “There’s no playbook to go by.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Consumer Spending Rose More Than Expected in April

    New data on spending and income suggest that the economy remains robust despite the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases.Americans’ income and spending both rose in April, a sign of economic resilience amid rising prices and warnings of a possible recession.Consumer spending increased 0.8 percent in April, the Commerce Department said Friday. The uptick followed a two-month slowdown in spending and exceeded forecasters’ expectations, as Americans shelled out for cars, restaurant meals, movie tickets and other goods and services.After-tax income rose 0.4 percent, fueled by a strong job market that continues to push up wages and bring more people into the work force. Data from the Labor Department this month showed that Americans in their prime working years were employed in April at the highest rate in more than two decades.Separate data released by the Commerce Department on Friday showed that a key measure of business investment also picked up in April, a sign that corporate executives aren’t expecting a major slump in demand in coming months.Consumers’ resilience is a mixed blessing for officials at the Federal Reserve, who worry that robust spending is contributing to inflation, but who also don’t want it to slow so rapidly that the economy falls into a recession. The gradual slowdown in spending seen in recent months is broadly consistent with the “soft landing” scenario that policymakers are aiming for, but they have been wary of declaring victory too soon — a concern that April’s data, which showed persistent inflation alongside stronger spending, could underscore.“The odds of a recession dropped again,” wrote Robert Frick, corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union, in a note to clients on Friday. “The one problem from the report is inflation remains stubbornly high, and may tempt the Fed to raise the federal funds rate even more, when a pause was on the table,” he added, referring to the upcoming meeting of policymakers in June.It is unclear how long consumers can continue to prop up the economic recovery. Savings that some households built up in the pandemic have begun to dwindle, and there are signs companies are beginning to pull back on hiring. The standoff over the debt limit could further sap the economy’s momentum, although there were signs on Thursday evening that leaders in Washington were closing in on a deal to avert a default. More

  • 225 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation rose 0.4% in April and 4.7% from a year ago, according to key gauge for the Fed

    Inflation stayed stubbornly high in April, potentially reinforcing the chances that interest rates could stay higher for longer, according to a gauge released Friday that the Federal Reserve follows closely.
    The personal consumption expenditures price index, which measures a variety of goods and services and adjusts for changes in consumer behavior, rose 0.4% for the month excluding food and energy costs, higher than the 0.3% Dow Jones estimate.

    On an annual basis, the gauge increased 4.7%, 0.1 percentage point higher than expected, the Commerce Department reported.
    Including food and energy, headline PCE also rose 0.4% and was up 4.4% from a year ago, higher than the 4.2% rate in March.
    Despite the higher inflation rate, consumer spending held up well as personal income increased.
    The report showed that spending jumped 0.8% for the month, while personal income accelerated 0.4%. Both numbers were expected to increase 0.4%.
    Price increases were spread almost evenly, with goods rising 0.3% and services up 0.4%. Food prices fell less than 0.1% while energy prices increased 0.7%. On an annual basis, goods prices increased 2.1% and services rose by 5.5%, a further indication that the U.S. was tilting back towards a services-focused economy.

    Food prices rose 6.9% from a year ago while energy fell 6.3%. Both PCE gains were the most since January.
    Markets reacted little to the news, with stock market futures pointing higher as investors focused on improving prospects for a debt ceiling deal in Washington. Treasury yields were mostly higher.
    “With today’s hotter-than-expected PCE report, the Fed’s summer vacation may need to be cut short as consumers’ vacations fuel spending,” noted George Mateyo, chief investment officer at Key Private Bank. “Prior to today’s release, we believe that the Fed may have been hoping to take the summer off (i.e., pause and reassess), but now, it seems as if the Fed’s job of getting inflation down is not over.”
    The report comes just a few weeks ahead of the Fed’s policy meeting June 13-14.
    The Fed targets annual inflation around 2%, meaning that the current levels remain well above the goal and leading to the likelihood that the aggressive moves the central bank has made over the last year or so could remain intact.
    One way the Fed’s rate hikes are supposed to work is by bringing down demand. The April spending numbers, however, shows that consumers have continued spending in the face of both higher rates and strong inflation, meaning policymakers may have more to do.
    Immediately following the report, market pricing swung to a 57% chance that the Fed will enact another quarter percentage point interest rate hike at the June meeting. There are only two key data points before then, with the May nonfarm payrolls report due next Friday and the consumer price index out June 13.
    Along with the uptick in consumer spending, demand for durable goods also unexpectedly increased 1.1% in April, according to a separate Commerce Department report. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a decline of 0.8%. Excluding transportation, which increased 3.7%, new orders fell 0.2%.
    Consumers had to dip into savings to keep up their spending, with the personal savings rate of 4.1% representing a 0.4 percentage point drop from March.
    The data comes amid a high level of uncertainty about where the economy heads from here. Expectations for a recession later this year are high, considering rising interest rates, an expected credit crunch in the banking industry and consumer pressure on a variety of fronts.
    However, a report Thursday showed the economy grew more in the first quarter than initially reported, with GDP rising at a 1.3% annualized pace compared to the previous estimate of 1.1%.
    Minutes released Wednesday from the May Fed meeting showed policymakers split on their next move, as members sought to balance higher than expected inflation against the spillover effects from troubles in the banking industry. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Restaurant Chain Franchises Face Scrutiny From the FTC

    Troubles at the restaurant chain Burgerim highlight concerns about whether franchisees need more protection in their contracts with franchisers.“Making It Work” is a series about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.When Kenneth Laskin flew to California to meet with executives at Burgerim, a start-up chain of restaurants, he was made to feel not just like another prospective franchisee, but like part of a family.The company’s executives, he said, made a point one evening of highlighting their common Jewish faith by praying with him in Hebrew.At the time, in 2017, Mr. Laskin believed he was being offered a plum deal. He paid $50,000 for the right to open up as many Burgerim franchised restaurants as he wanted in Oregon. “I got an entire state,” Mr. Laskin recalled.Today, Burgerim has run into trouble, leaving a trail of financial problems, a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and broader regulatory scrutiny of whether protections for franchisees like Mr. Laskin are adequate.The challenges highlighted by Burgerim come as franchising continues to grow as a way that people are choosing to start small businesses.There has been rising concern about whether franchisees need more protection in their contracts with franchisers. That concern has found a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration and in several state legislatures, and has resulted in multiple proposed limits on franchisers’ powers.In the end, Mr. Laskin opened only one Burgerim restaurant, in Eugene, Ore., which closed in 2020 during the pandemic. Since then, Mr. Laskin has been depleting his savings to pay the bills.Burgerim, which boasted of having inventive high-quality burgers, has been criticized by former franchisees for making grand promises and poor disclosure about business risks. Of the more than 1,500 franchises Burgerim sold, most never opened, the commission said in a lawsuit that the agency filed last year against the company and its founder in U.S. District Court in California.Peter Bronstein, a lawyer for Oren Loni, who was the company’s principal executive in the United States, said that Burgerim made some business mistakes but that it was often trying to help its franchisees succeed. The two sides have been in mediation, according to the court file. Kenneth Laskin believed he got a plum deal to start as many Burgerim franchised restaurants as he wanted in Oregon. He ended up opening only one, which closed during the pandemic.Zack Wittman for The New York TimesEven as the pandemic was still bearing down, the number of franchised establishments in the country grew 2.8 percent in 2021 and 2 percent in 2022. That number is expected to increase an additional 2 percent this year, bringing the total to 805,436 franchises, according to the latest data released by the International Franchise Association, an industry group.As the franchising network expands, so does its contribution to the broader economy. Franchises employed 8.4 million people last year, a 3 percent increase from 2021.There is historical evidence, according to the International Franchise Association, that the first U.S. franchise dates back to Ben Franklin, who created a network of printing partnerships.Franchising took root in the American business landscape in the decades following World War II, with the growth of franchised brands like Howard Johnson’s hotels.Sam Falk/The New York TimesToday a fundamental symbiosis drives the business model: Franchisees pay an upfront fee to an franchiser like Dunkin’ Donuts or Applebee’s, which gets them access to all of that brand’s suppliers, advertising and technology. The franchisee can lean on these established systems to get their business up and running quickly rather than having to start from scratch. And the franchiser, in turn, receives the franchising fee, typically tens of thousands of dollars, in addition to a regular royalty payment from the franchisee.“Franchising has always been an on-ramp for the middle class to open their own business,” said Charlie Chase, the chief executive of FirstService Brands, a franchiser of home renovation and painting services.Over the years, Mr. Chase, who has served on the board of directors of the International Franchise Association, said he had helped hundreds of successful franchisees get their start. “We have created a lot of millionaires,” he said.Still, Mr. Chase said he was concerned about how some franchisees were being pushed into businesses without understanding all of the risks.He blames aggressive internet advertising for some of this (Mr. Laskin learned about Burgerim from a Facebook advertisement, for example), and also a network of third-party brokers that often push prospective franchisees to buy multiple franchises at a time.The Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of Lina Khan, is looking broadly at industry practices including disclosure and issues such as franchisers’ unilaterally changing the terms of an agreement with a franchisee.“Franchising can be a good business model, but it can also lead to a lot of harm,” Elizabeth Wilkins, the director of the commission’s Office of Policy and Planning, said. “We are concerned about instances where the promise does not match with reality. We believe there is a significant gap that is worth our investigation.”In the case against Burgerim,  federal officials said that the company executives told franchisees they would refund their franchise fees if their business did not open, but that many people never got their money back. Mr. Bronstein, the lawyer for Mr. Loni, said offering refunds “was not the best way to run a business.”In the years since the 2008 financial crisis and mortgage meltdown, regulators have bolstered protections for consumers by improving disclosure by banks and banning certain fees they can charge. But small businesses, including franchisees, have not benefited from the same extensive regulatory scrutiny.“There is a view in the consumer protection world that small businesses do not get the same level of protections as other consumers,” Samuel Levine, the director of the F.T.C.’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said. “Yet, consumers and small businesses, including franchisees, face many of the same challenges. That is something we are trying to address.”The F.T.C., under the leadership of Lina Khan, above, is looking broadly at industry practices at franchises including disclosure about business risks. Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesAs part of that effort, the Federal Trade Commission is looking at how to apply laws like the Robinson-Patman Act, an antitrust law that prevents large corporations from using discriminatory pricing to take advantage of small businesses. The agency also has proposed a rule banning noncompete clauses in employment contracts and may consider limiting the use of noncompete clauses in franchise agreements.When Mr. Laskin bought a franchise, he was not looking to become a millionaire, but rather to build a stable middle-class life.He opened his sole Burgerim store in Oregon in September 2019.But the problems started soon after his grand opening, Mr. Laskin said. Burgerim had not established a reliable food distribution system in Oregon, he said, forcing Mr. Laskin to fend for himself to supply his restaurant. In trying to help new locations get off the ground, the company never collected royalties from the franchisees, which limited its ability to support its restaurant network over the long term, Mr. Bronstein said. Still, he added, there are many Burgerim restaurants that operated successfully.Mr. Laskin kept the business going during the pandemic by offering take out. But he couldn’t find people to work during the lockdowns, which meant he and his wife ran the entire operation themselves.Mr. Laskin, who has severe back pain from years of restaurant work, hoped a franchise would offer him the chance to delegate work to employees and spare his back.But some days, Mr. Laskin would return from the burger restaurant at night unable to walk the final few yards up his driveway because of the pain from standing on his feet all day.The Burgerim leadership, Mr. Laskin said, provided no support during the pandemic.A Burgerim restaurant in Walnut Creek, Calif., last year.Gado/Getty ImagesHe closed his restaurant in May 2020 and moved to Florida. Mr. Laskin, 57, said that his back problems limited the type of work he can do and that it had been difficult finding work after his burger business closed.The struggles of the former Burgerim franchisees were brought to light in 2020 by the publication Restaurant Business, which focuses on the food service industry, in a series of articles.Some franchisees say improving disclosure or increasing regulations on fee structures will not be a panacea in rooting out the industry’s troubled actors.“Transparency is a great thing, but I am not sure more disclosure is going to change any outcomes,” said Greg Flynn, the founder and chief executive of Flynn Restaurant Group, the largest franchisee in the country with 2,400 locations and 73,000 employees, operating brands like Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Panera.“There are a lot of stories of franchisees buying into a system and then it goes badly for them,” he added. “I would just suggest that they might have had a similar experience outside of a franchise system.”Mr. Laskin says it is not just bad timing or circumstances that were to blame. “The system is fundamentally crippled,’’ he said. “There is too much secrecy. It shouldn’t be this difficult.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    White House and GOP Close In on Deal to Raise Debt Ceiling

    The details had yet to be finalized, but negotiators were discussing a compromise that would allow Republicans to point to spending reductions and Democrats to say they had protected against large cuts.Top White House officials and Republican lawmakers were closing in Thursday on a deal that would raise the debt limit for two years while capping federal spending on everything but the military and veterans for the same period. Officials were racing to cement an agreement in time to avert a federal default that is projected in just one week.The deal taking shape would allow Republicans to say that they were reducing some federal spending — even as spending on the military and veterans’ programs would continue to grow — and allow Democrats to say they had spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.Negotiators from both sides were talking into the evening and beginning to draft legislative text, though some details remained in flux.“We’ve been talking to the White House all day, we’ve been going back and forth, and it’s not easy,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters as he left the Capitol on Thursday evening, declining to divulge what was under discussion. “It takes a while to make it happen, and we are working hard to make it happen.”The compromise, if it can be agreed upon and enacted, would raise the government’s borrowing limit for two years, past the 2024 election, according to three people familiar with it who insisted on anonymity to discuss a plan that was still being hammered out.The United States hit the legal limit, currently $31.4 trillion, in January and has been relying on accounting measures to avoid defaulting since then. The Treasury Department has projected it will exhaust its ability to pay bills on time as early as June 1.In exchange for lifting the debt limit, the deal would meet Republicans’ demand to cut some federal spending, albeit with the help of accounting maneuvers that would give both sides political cover for an agreement likely to be unpopular with large swaths of their base voters.It would impose caps on discretionary spending for two years, though those caps would apply differently to spending on the military than to nondefense discretionary spending. Spending on the military would grow next year, as would spending on some veterans’ care that falls under nondefense discretionary spending. The rest of nondefense discretionary spending would fall slightly — or roughly stay flat — compared with this year’s levels.The deal would also roll back $10 billion of the $80 billion Congress approved last year for an I.R.S. crackdown on high earners and corporations that evade taxes — funding that nonpartisan scorekeepers said would reduce the budget deficit by helping the government collect more of the tax revenue it is owed — though that provision was still under discussion. Democrats have championed the initiative, but Republicans have denounced it, claiming falsely that the money would be used to fund an army of auditors to go after working people.“The president and his negotiating team are fighting hard for his agenda, including for I.R.S. funding so it can provide better customer service to taxpayers and crack down on wealthy tax cheats,” a White House spokesman, Michael Kikukawa, said in an email on Thursday in response to a question about the provision.As the deal stood on Thursday, the I.R.S. money would essentially shift to nondefense discretionary spending, allowing Democrats to avoid further cuts in programs like education and environmental protection, according to people familiar with the pending agreement.The plan had yet to be finalized, and the bargainers continued to haggle over crucial details that could make or break any deal.“Nothing is done until you actually have a complete deal,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, one of the lead G.O.P. negotiators, who also declined to discuss the specifics of the negotiations. “Nothing’s resolved.”The cuts contained in the package were all but certain to be too modest to win the votes of hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House. Liberal groups were already complaining on Thursday about the reported deal to reduce the I.R.S. funding increase.But people familiar with the developing deal said that negotiators had agreed to fund military and veterans’ programs at the levels envisioned by President Biden in his budget for next year. They would reduce nondefense discretionary spending below this year’s levels — but much of that cut would be covered by the shift in the I.R.S. funding and other budgetary maneuvers. White House officials have contended those shifts would functionally make nondefense discretionary spending the same next year as it was this year.All discretionary spending would then grow at 1 percent in 2025, after which the caps would lift.Mr. McCarthy on Thursday had nodded to the idea that a compromise to avert a default would likely draw detractors from both parties.“I don’t think everybody is going to be happy at the end of the day,” he said. “That’s not how this system works.”Another provision of the deal seeks to avert a government shutdown later in the year, and would attempt to take away Republicans’ ability to seek deeper cuts to government programs and agencies through the appropriations process later in the year.The exact details on how such a measure would work remained unclear on Thursday evening. But it was based on a penalty of sorts, which would adjust the spending caps in the event that Congress failed to pass all 12 stand-alone spending bills that fund the government by the end of the calendar year.Negotiators were still at loggerheads over work requirements for social safety net programs and permitting reform for domestic energy and gas projects.“We have legislative work to do, policy work to do,” Mr. McHenry said. “The details of all that stuff really are consequential to us being able to get this thing through.”As negotiators inched closer to a deal, hard-right Republicans on Thursday were becoming increasingly anxious that Mr. McCarthy would sign off on a compromise they view as insufficiently conservative. Several right-wing Republicans have already vowed to oppose any compromise that retreats from cuts that were part of their debt-limit bill.“Republicans should not cut a bad deal,” Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning, shortly after telling a local radio station that he was “going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team” because he did not like “the direction they are headed.”Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, said he was reserving judgment on how he would vote on a compromise until he saw the bill, but added: “What I’ve seen now is not good.”Former President Donald J. Trump, who has said that Republicans should force a default if they do not get what they want in the negotiations, also was weighing in. Mr. McCarthy told reporters he had spoken with Mr. Trump briefly about the negotiations — “it came up just for a second,” the speaker said. “He was talking about, ‘Make sure you get a good agreement.’”After playing a tee shot on his golf course outside of Washington, Mr. Trump approached a reporter for The New York Times, iPhone in hand, and showed a call with Speaker Kevin McCarthy.“It’s going to be an interesting thing — it’s not going to be that easy,” said Mr. Trump, who described his call with the speaker as “a little, quick talk.”“They’ve spent three years wasting money on nonsense,” he added, saying, “Republicans don’t want to see that, so I understand where they’re at.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Military Spending Emerges as Big Dispute in Debt-Limit Talks

    President Biden has offered to freeze discretionary spending, including for defense. Republicans want to spend more for the military, and cut more elsewhere.Funding for the military has emerged as a key sticking point in reaching an agreement to raise the nation’s borrowing limit and prevent a catastrophic default, with Republicans pushing to spare the Defense Department from spending caps and make deeper cuts to domestic programs like education.President Biden has balked at that demand, pointing to a long series of past budget agreements that either cut or increased military spending in tandem with discretionary programs outside of defense.How the sides resolve that issue will be critical for the final outcome of any debt deal. It remains possible that in order to reach a deal that prevents a default, Democrats will accept an agreement that allows military spending to grow even as nondefense spending falls or stays flat.Mr. Biden’s aides and congressional Republicans deputized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy are trying to negotiate an agreement to lift the borrowing limit before the government runs out of money to pay its bills on time, which could be as soon as June 1. Republicans have refused to raise the limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to cuts in federal spending outside of the military.The talks over spending cuts have narrowed in focus to mostly cover a relatively small corner of the budget — what is known as discretionary spending. That spending is split into two parts. One is money for the military, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will total $792 billion for the current fiscal year. The other half funds a wide range of domestic programs, like Head Start preschool and college Pell Grants, and federal agencies like the Interior and Energy Departments. It will total $919 billion this year, the budget office estimates.A separate category known as mandatory spending has largely been deemed off limits in the talks. That spending, which is the primary driver of future spending growth, includes programs like Social Security and Medicare.Administration officials have proposed freezing both halves of discretionary spending for next year. That would amount to a budget cut, compared with projected spending, under the way the budget office accounts for spending levels. Spending for both parts of the discretionary budget would be allowed to grow at just 1 percent for the 2025 fiscal year. That could also amount to a budget cut since 1 percent would almost certainly be less than the rate of inflation. That proposal would save about $1 trillion over the span of a decade, compared with current budget office forecasts.Republicans rejected that plan at the bargaining table. They are pushing to cut nondefense spending in actual terms — meaning, spend fewer dollars on it next year than the government spent this year. They also want to allow military spending to continue to grow.“It just sends a bad message and Republicans feel like it would not be in our best interest to cut spending at this juncture, when you’re looking at China and Russia and a lot of instability around the world,” said Representative Robert B. Aderholt, Republican of Alabama, who sits on an Appropriations panel that oversees Pentagon spending. “That’s been the basic position that most Republicans have.”Mr. McCarthy sounded a similar note when speaking to reporters on Thursday. “Look, we’re always looking where we could find savings and others, but we live in a very dangerous world,” he said. He added, “I think the Pentagon has to actually have more resources.”Republicans included 10-year caps on discretionary spending in a bill they passed last month that also raised the debt ceiling through next year, and party leaders said they would exempt the military from those caps. Mr. Biden has vowed to veto the bill if it passes the Senate in its current form, which is unlikely.White House officials have hammered Republicans over concentrating their proposed discretionary savings on domestic programs, saying their bill would gut spending on border enforcement, some veterans’ care, Meals on Wheels for older Americans and a host of other popular programs.“Speaker McCarthy and I have a very different view of who should bear the burden of additional efforts to get our fiscal house in order,” Mr. Biden said on Thursday at the White House. “I don’t believe the whole burden should fall on the backs of the middle class and working-class Americans.”Congressional Democrats, including members of committees that oversee military spending, have attacked Republicans for focusing largely on nondefense programs.“If you’re going to freeze discretionary spending, there’s no reason on earth why defense shouldn’t be part of that conversation,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Republicans, he said, “are taking a hostage to advance their very narrow agenda. I’m not a fan of that. That’s not something I’m going to want to support.”Any agreement that increased military spending while freezing or cutting other discretionary spending would break from a budget-deal tradition that dates to 2011, when House Republicans refused to raise the debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to spending cuts. The deal that avoided default was centered on spending caps that split their reductions evenly between defense and nondefense programs.The push to increase military funding while cutting more heavily elsewhere reflects a divide in the House Republican caucus. It includes a large faction of defense hawks who say the military budget is too small, alongside another large faction of spending hawks who want to significantly shrink the fiscal footprint of the federal government.Mr. McCarthy needs both factions to retain his hold on the speakership, which he narrowly won this year after a marathon week of efforts to secure the votes. And he will need to navigate them both as he tries to pass any debt-limit agreement with Mr. Biden through the House.Catie Edmondson More