Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 188 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Job openings fell more than expected in March to lowest level in nearly two years

    Job vacancies totaled 9.59 million for the month, down from 9.97 million in February and below the FactSet estimate for 9.64 million.
    Layoffs and discharges jumped by 248,000, taking the rate as a share of the workforce up to 1.2% from 1%.
    Orders for manufactured goods increased 0.9% in March, less than the 1.3% estimate.

    An employee hiring sign with a QR code is seen in a window of a business in Arlington, Virginia, April 7, 2023.
    Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters

    Employment openings pulled back further in March, hitting a nearly two-year low in a sign that the ultra-tight U.S. job market is loosening and possibly putting less pressure on inflation, the Labor Department reported Tuesday.
    The department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey showed that job vacancies totaled 9.59 million for the month, down from 9.97 million in February and below the FactSet estimate for 9.64 million.

    At the same time, layoffs and discharges jumped by 248,000 to just over 1.8 million, taking the rate as a share of the workforce up to 1.2% from 1%.
    Though the data set runs a month behind the nonfarm payrolls number, the Federal Reserve watches the JOLTS report closely for signs of labor slack. A lower number is positive for inflation as it indicates less pressure on wages and could ease pressure on the Fed to continue raising interest rates.
    However, stocks fell following the release, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 500 points on the session as investors remained concerned over the state of the economy and news that the U.S. may hit its borrowing limit sooner than expected.
    A separate report from the Commerce Department at the same time showed orders for manufactured goods increased 0.9% in March, less than the 1.3% estimate.
    The level of job vacancies was the lowest total since April 2021 and cut the ratio of open jobs to available workers to 1.6 to 1 after being around 2 to 1 for most of the past two years or so.

    “The Fed should gain some comfort from the gradual decline in this ratio, but also is likely to see this data as reaffirming the need for another rate hike tomorrow,” said Ronald Temple, chief market strategist at Lazard.
    Quits, which are considered a measure of worker confidence in the ability to leave one’s job and find another, declined by 129,000 to 3.85 million, the lowest level since May 2021 amid what had been dubbed the Great Resignation.
    Hires for the month were unchanged at 6.15 million, while separations rose slightly.
    The release comes as the central bank began its two-day policy meeting Tuesday. Markets are assigning a nearly 100% probability that the central bank on Wednesday will announce a 0.25 percentage point rate increase. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Job Openings Slipped in March as Labor Market Continued Cooling

    The NewsJob openings in March fell to 9.6 million, the Labor Department reported on Tuesday, the lowest level in two years and a further indication that the slowdown in the labor market is becoming more entrenched. It was the third straight month that job openings have declined, a notable development after last year, when job openings bounced around month to month.“The labor market has been, through Q1, a resilient anchor for the economy,” said Aaron Terrazas, chief economist at the career site Glassdoor. “But we’re getting more and more signals that those foundations are really starting to tremble.”Transportation, warehousing and utilities, professional and businesses services and construction were among the sectors that posted large drops in open positions, as higher interest rates and fears of a pullback in consumer spending continued to discourage employers from hiring.Other readings in Tuesday’s report underscored the labor market’s restraint. The total number of open jobs per available unemployed worker, a ratio that the Federal Reserve has been watching as it tries to tame rapid inflation, decreased slightly to 1.6, the lowest level since October 2021. Layoffs, which have remained historically low outside of some big-name companies in the tech sector, rose to 1.8 million in March. The number of workers voluntarily leaving their jobs — a sign that workers are finding opportunities to switch to better-paid positions, or are confident they can do so — was relatively unchanged but has been inching down.Policymakers are interested in the number of open jobs per available unemployed worker, which has remained stubbornly high for months.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesWhy It Matters: The last major data release before the Fed’s rate decision.The report released on Tuesday, called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS, is one of many that the Federal Reserve watches closely each month to gauge its efforts to slow the economy and ease inflation without spurring widespread layoffs.The Fed has been raising interest rates for more than a year as it tries to bring down rapid inflation to its target of 2 percent. It will announce its next decision on Wednesday; officials are widely expected to raise rates by a quarter percentage point, to just above 5 percent. The JOLTS report is the last major piece of data that Fed policymakers will see before their decision.In particular, they are interested in the number of open jobs per available unemployed worker, which has remained stubbornly high for months. That mismatch has helped to drive up pay and contributed to inflation. More recently, however, the ratio has been declining, a welcome sign for the Fed that underscores the labor market’s gradual slowdown.Officials also track other details in the report, including the number of layoffs and workers who quit their jobs. The Background: Labor market resilience complicates the Fed’s plan.Month after month, the labor market has remained robust, defying expectations and complicating the Fed’s efforts to cool the economy. The latest evidence came on Friday, when government data showed that wages and salaries for private-sector workers were up 5.1 percent in March from a year earlier, the same growth rate as in December.Still, higher interest rates are taking a toll on the job market, albeit gradually. Employers added 236,000 jobs in March, a healthy number but down from an average of 334,000 jobs added over the prior six months. The year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings also fell to its slowest pace since July 2021.What’s Next: A big week for economic news.The report on Tuesday kicked off a big few days for economic news.In addition to the Fed decision on Wednesday, there will be the Labor Department’s monthly snapshot of the employment situation on Friday. The report, based on April data, will provide a clearer and more up-to-date picture of the labor market, including the change in the number of jobs — a figure that has been positive for 27 straight months — and the unemployment rate. More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Will Decide Next Rate Move After Bank Jitters

    The Federal Reserve will release a policy decision on Wednesday on the heels of another bank collapse.WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve officials are widely expected to lift borrowing costs by a quarter of a percentage point on Wednesday, the 10th consecutive rate increase since March 2022. But investors and economists think that this could be the central bank’s last move before it pauses.Fed officials face a complicated backdrop going into this week’s meeting: Risks to the financial system loom large, but inflation also remains stubborn.The banking system has been in turmoil since the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on March 10. Government officials spent this past weekend racing to find a buyer for First Republic, which had been struggling for weeks and was sold to JPMorgan Chase in a deal announced early Monday morning.Some of the banking sector tumult stems from the Fed’s rapid interest rate increases over the past year. Central bankers are expected to lift rates to just above 5 percent this week, up from near-zero as recently as March 2022. After that quick series of adjustments, many lenders are facing losses on older securities and loans, which pay relatively low interest rates compared with newer securities issued in a higher-rate world.Despite the Fed’s moves — which were meant to rein in quick inflation by slowing the economy — the job market has maintained some momentum and price increases have shown concerning staying power. Companies continue to hire at a solid clip, and data released last week showed that wages continued to climb quickly at the start of the year. While inflation has been slowing, it is increasingly driven by service price increases that have shown little sign of cooling off — which could make it difficult to wrestle price increases the whole way back to the Fed’s slow and steady goal.Policymakers will give the public a sense of how they are thinking about the fraught economic moment on Wednesday in their post-meeting statement at 2 p.m. Because the Fed will not release fresh economic projections at this meeting — those come out just once a quarter — investors will look to a news conference with the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, at 2:30 p.m. for clues about what comes next.The Fed could hint at a pauseWhen Fed policymakers released their economic estimates in March, they expected to raise interest rates to a range of 5 to 5.25 percent in 2023.If officials adjust policy as expected this week, they will have lifted rates to that level. The question now is whether they deem that sufficient, or whether policymakers think that the economy and inflation are resilient enough that they will need to adjust borrowing costs more to cool things down and lower inflation fully.Mr. Powell could offer some signal during his news conference, or he could opt to leave the Fed’s options open — which is what some economists expect.“They don’t need to rule anything out,” said Blerina Uruci, chief U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price. “The worst scenario for them would be to signal that they’re done, then have the data force them to do a U-turn.”Investors expect Fed officials to stop after this week, hold rates steady for a few months and then begin to lower them — perhaps substantially, to a range of 4.5 to 4.75 percent by the end of the year.Fed policymakers, however, have been adamant that they do not expect to lower rates imminently. And some have hinted that more increases might be warranted if inflation and economic strength show staying power.“Monetary policy needs to be tightened further,” Christopher Waller, a Fed governor and one of the central bank’s more inflation-focused members, said in an April 14 speech. “How much further will depend on incoming data on inflation, the real economy and the extent of tightening credit conditions.”Bank turmoil will influence policyFed officials have been clear that the upheaval in the banking system could slow the economy — but policymakers do not know by how much.Banking trouble is different from other types of business distress, because banks are like the yeast in the sourdough starter of the economy: If they aren’t working, nothing else grows. They lend out money to would-be home buyers, people who want to buy new cars or garage additions, and businesses that want to expand and hire.It is pretty clear that banks are going to pull back their lending at least somewhat in response to the recent turmoil. Anecdotal signs are already surfacing around the country. The question is how acute that shift will be.“If the response to recent banking problems leads to financial tightening, monetary policy has to do less,” Austan Goolsbee, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said in an April 11 speech. “It’s not clear by how much less.”He noted that private-sector estimates suggested that the hit to growth from the banking turmoil could be equivalent to one to three quarter-point rate increases. That estimate came well before First Republic’s demise, but after its troubles started.The economy’s resilience will be criticalOne big question for the Fed — and which will matter for everyone — is whether the U.S. economy will squeak through this episode without plunging into a painful recession.Fed staff members said at the central bank’s March meeting that they expected the economy to experience a “mild recession” in the wake of the recent banking turmoil. And Fed officials — including Mr. Powell — have suggested that a recession is possible as officials try to slow the economy enough to bring inflation under control.But if a recession hits, it is not obvious how painful it will be. Some economists warn that downturns usually build on themselves, as people respond to a little bit of economic weakness by pulling back on spending a lot: It may be hard to push the unemployment rate up just a little bit without pushing it significantly.Others point out that the post-pandemic economy is a weird one, characterized by unusually strong corporate profits and lots of job openings. Because there may be room to squeeze margins and cut unfilled positions, the economy may be able to cool down more gently than in the past — a so-called “soft landing.”Mr. Powell will get a chance to weigh in on which outcome he thinks is most likely on Wednesday. More

  • 163 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Ceiling: U.S. Could Run Out of Cash by June 1, Yellen Warns

    President Biden said he would meet with lawmakers on May 9 to discuss ways to avoid a default.WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Monday that the United States could run out of money to pay its bills by June 1 if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt limit, putting pressure on President Biden and lawmakers to reach a swift agreement to avoid defaulting on the nation’s debt.The more precise warning over when the United States could hit the so-called X-date dramatically reduces the projected amount of time lawmakers have to reach a deal before the government runs out of money to pay all of its bills on time.The new timeline could accelerate negotiations between the House, Senate and Mr. Biden over government spending — a high-stakes standoff between the president and the House Republicans who have refused to raise the limit without deep spending cuts attached.In response to Ms. Yellen’s new timeline, Mr. Biden on Monday called the top four leaders in Congress to ask for a meeting on May 9 to discuss fiscal issues. The president reached out to Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, along with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.Economists have warned that failure to raise the debt limit, which caps the total amount of money the United States can borrow, threatens to rock financial markets and throw the global economy into a financial crisis.Because the United States runs a budget deficit — meaning it spends more money than it takes in — it must borrow huge sums of money to pay its bills. In addition to paying Social Security benefits, along with salaries for the military and government workers, the United States is also required to make interest and other payments to the bondholders who own its debt.The Treasury Department had previously projected that it could run out of cash sometime in early June, but the new estimate raises the alarming prospect that the United States could be unable to make some payments, including to bondholders, in a matter of weeks.“Given the current projections, it is imperative that Congress act as soon as possible to increase or suspend the debt limit in a way that provides longer-term certainty that the government will continue to make its payments,” Ms. Yellen said in a letter to Congress.The Congressional Budget Office also warned on Monday that time was running out more quickly than previously thought. The nonpartisan budget office said tax receipts from income payments that were processed in April were smaller than it had anticipated and that future tax payments were unlikely to have much impact.“That, in combination with less-than-expected receipts through April, means that the Treasury’s extraordinary measures will be exhausted sooner than we previously projected,” Phillip Swagel, the C.B.O. director, wrote in an analysis posted on the agency’s website.White House officials had not expected the date of possible default to arrive so soon, and the accelerated timetable could scramble the president’s approach to the potential crisis.Mr. Biden has continued to insist he will not negotiate directly over the limit, saying Congress must raise the cap without conditions. The newly compressed calendar leaves little time for the president and congressional leaders to find agreement on raising the limit. Mr. McCarthy is traveling in the Middle East this week. Later this month, Mr. Biden is scheduled to attend the Group of 7 nations leaders’ summit in Japan, then travel on to Australia for a summit with the leaders of Japan, India and Australia.House Republicans passed legislation in April that would raise the debt limit in exchange for deep spending cuts and roll back recent climate legislation that Democrats passed along party lines. Mr. Biden has blasted that bill, saying it would hurt working families while benefiting the oil and gas industry, and he has accused Republicans of putting America’s economy on the line.On Monday, the president called on Republicans “to make sure the threat by the Speaker of the House to default on the national debt is off the table.”“For over 200 years, America has never, ever, ever failed to pay its debt. To put in the capital — in colloquial terms, America is not a deadbeat nation. We have never, ever failed to meet the debt,” Mr. Biden said.Republican Senators reacted to the news on Monday by emphasizing the onus was now on Mr. Biden to negotiate to avoid economic calamity.“It is very scary,” Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa and a member of Republican leadership said of the looming crisis. “President Biden needs to step it up and get to the table. Kevin McCarthy and the folks in the house, they did their part.”Some expressed optimism that the approaching deadline would force action.“Washington’s at its best when it has a deadline to respond to,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said.Mr. Schumer and Mr. Jeffries urged Republicans to lift the limit immediately with no strings attached. “We do not have the luxury of waiting until June 1 to come together, pass a clean bill to avoid a default and prevent catastrophic consequences for our economy and millions of American families,” the lawmakers wrote in a joint statement on Monday. While there is bipartisan agreement that the nation needs to find a way to reduce the gap between when it spends and what it collects, even the most ardent supporters of fiscal reform say the debt limit must be raised.“We need to raise the debt limit as soon as possible, without drama and without serious risk of default,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “To threaten default or drag one’s feet is the height of irresponsibility. Lawmakers need to commence serious discussions immediately.”The possibility of a default by June 1 could compel lawmakers to agree to a short-term increase or suspension of the debt limit to provide more time for negotiations. But even that temporary salve is far from assured given competing factions within the Republican Party.The United States technically hit its $31.4 trillion debt limit in January, forcing the Treasury Department to employ accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to allow the government to keep paying its bills, including payments to bondholders who own government debt. Ms. Yellen said at the time that her powers to delay a default — in which the United States fails to make its payments on time — could be exhausted by early June. She cautioned, however, that the estimate came with considerable uncertainty.Tax receipts depend on a complicated array of factors such as the jobless rate, wages and whether taxpayers submit their returns on time. On Monday, the Treasury secretary underscored the challenges of predicting the default date, noting that the new estimate was based on currently available data that is inherently variable, such as tax payments from individuals.“The actual date that Treasury exhausts extraordinary measures could be a number of weeks later than these estimates,” Ms. Yellen said.A Treasury Department official said that, as of April 30, the government had a cash balance of about $300 billion. Ms. Yellen’s ability to delay a default will depend in part on how much tax revenue comes into the federal government this spring.Payments for the 2022 tax year are still arriving. Goldman Sachs economists projected last week that by the second week of June, the Treasury Department could have about $60 billion of cash remaining, which would allow the government to keep making its payments until late July.Some budget analysts have suggested that winter storms could complicate the Treasury Department’s ability to delay a default. Severe storms, flooding and mudslides in California, Alabama and Georgia this year prompted the Internal Revenue Service to push the April 18 filing deadline to October for dozens of counties.The I.R.S. also gave those affected areas more time to make contributions to retirement and health savings accounts, potentially affecting their taxable income.Ms. Yellen has already been taking steps to ensure that the federal government has sufficient cash on hand.Earlier this year, she announced that she would redeem some existing investments and suspend new investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.Ms. Yellen said on Monday that the Treasury Department was suspending the issuance of State and Local Government Series Treasury securities to help manage the risks associated with the debt limit. She lamented that the move would deprive state and local governments of an important tool to manage their finances.Brinkmanship over the debt limit has revived debates over how far the executive branch can go to avoid a default. Ms. Yellen, however, has dismissed the notion that she could prioritize certain payments or mint a platinum coin worth $1 trillion to ensure that the United States remains solvent.Although markets have broadly remained calm about the prospect of a default, there are some signs that investors are becoming nervous.They have sold government bonds that mature in three months — around the time policymakers have said the United States could run out of cash — and snapped up bonds with just one month until they are repaid.The cost of insuring existing bond holdings against the possibility that the United States will default on its debts has also risen sharply. Still, some analysts say the market reaction would need to be much more pronounced to force a fast deal.In a separate report issued by the Treasury Department on Monday about the risks facing the economy, Eric Van Nostrand, the acting assistant secretary for economic policy, laid out the dire consequences of failing to raise the debt limit.“A default by the U.S. government — including the failure to pay any of the United States’ obligations — would be an economic catastrophe, sparking a global downturn of unknown but substantial severity,” Mr. Van Nostrand said.Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Late-Night Negotiating Frenzy Left First Republic in JPMorgan’s Control

    The resolution of First Republic Bank came after a frantic night of deal making by government officials and executives at the country’s biggest bank.Lawmakers and regulators have spent years erecting laws and rules meant to limit the power and size of the largest U.S. banks. But those efforts were cast aside in a frantic late-night effort by government officials to contain a banking crisis by seizing and selling First Republic Bank to the country’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase.At about 1 a.m. Monday, hours after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had been expected to announce a buyer for the troubled regional lender, government officials informed JPMorgan executives that they had won the right to take over First Republic and the accounts of its well-heeled customers, most of them in wealthy coastal cities and suburbs.The F.D.I.C.’s decision appears, for now, to have quelled nearly two months of simmering turmoil in the banking sector that followed the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in early March. “This part of the crisis is over,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, told analysts on Monday in a conference call to discuss the acquisition.For Mr. Dimon, it was a reprise of his role in the 2008 financial crisis when JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual at the behest of federal regulators.But the resolution of First Republic has also brought to the fore long-running debates about whether some banks have become too big too fail partly because regulators have allowed or even encouraged them to acquire smaller financial institutions, especially during crises.“Regulators view them as adults and business partners,” said Tyler Gellasch, president of Healthy Markets Association, a Washington-based group that advocates greater transparency in the financial system, referring to big banks like JPMorgan. “They are too big to fail and they are afforded the privilege of being so.”He added that JPMorgan was likely to make a lot of money from the acquisition. JPMorgan said on Monday that it expected the deal to raise its profits this year by $500 million.JPMorgan will pay the F.D.I.C. $10.6 billion to acquire First Republic. The government agency expects to cover a loss of about $13 billion on First Republic’s assets.`Normally a bank cannot acquire another bank if doing so would allow it to control more than 10 percent of the nation’s bank deposits — a threshold JPMorgan had already reached before buying First Republic. But the law includes an exception for the acquisition of a failing bank.The F.D.I.C. sounded out banks to see if they would be willing to take First Republic’s uninsured deposits and if their primary regulator would allow them to do so, according to two people familiar with the process. On Friday afternoon, the regulator invited the banks into a virtual data room to look at First Republic’s financials, the two people said. The government agency, which was working with the investment bank Guggenheim Securities, had plenty of time to prepare for the auction. First Republic had been struggling since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, despite receiving a $30 billion lifeline in March from 11 of the country’s largest banks, an effort led by Mr. Dimon of JPMorgan.By the afternoon of April 24, it had became increasingly clear that First Republic couldn’t stand on its own. That day, the bank revealed in its quarterly earnings report that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits in the last weeks of March, or more than half what it had at the end of December.Ahead of the earnings release, First Republic’s lawyers and other advisers told the bank’s senior executives not to answer any questions on the company’s conference call, according to a person briefed on the matter, because of the bank’s dire situation.The revelations in the report and the executives’ silence spooked investors, who dumped its already beaten-down stock.When the F.D.I.C. began the process to sell First Republic, several bidders including PNC Financial Services, Fifth Third Bancorp, Citizens Financial Group and JPMorgan expressed an interest. Analysts and executives at those banks began going through First Republic’s data to figure out how much they would be willing to bid and submitted bids by early afternoon Sunday.Regulators and Guggenheim then returned to the four bidders, asking them for their best and final offers by 7 p.m. E.T. Each bank, including JPMorgan Chase, improved its offer, two of the people said.Regulators had indicated that they planned to announce a winner by 8 p.m., before markets in Asia opened. PNC executives had spent much of the weekend at the bank’s Pittsburgh headquarters putting together its bid. Executives at Citizens, which is based in Providence, R.I., gathered in offices in Connecticut and Massachusetts. But 8 p.m. rolled by with no word from the F.D.I.C. Several hours of silence followed.For the three smaller banks, the deal would have been transformative, giving them a much bigger presence in wealthy places like the San Francisco Bay Area and New York City. PNC, which is the sixth-largest U.S. bank, would have bolstered its position to challenge the nation’s four large commercial lenders — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.Ultimately, JPMorgan not only offered more money than others and agreed to buy the vast majority of the bank, two people familiar with the process said. Regulators also were more inclined to accept the bank’s offer because JPMorgan was likely to have an easier time integrating First Republic’s branches into its business and managing the smaller bank’s loans and mortgages either by holding onto them or selling them, the two people said.As the executives at the smaller banks waited for their phones to ring, the F.D.I.C. and its advisers continued to negotiate with Mr. Dimon and his team, who were seeking assurances that the government would safeguard JPMorgan against losses, according to one of the people.At around 3 a.m., the F.D.I.C. announced that JPMorgan would acquire First Republic.An F.D.I.C. spokesman declined to comment on other bidders. In its statement, the agency said, “The resolution of First Republic Bank involved a highly competitive bidding process and resulted in a transaction consistent with the least-cost requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” The announcement was widely praised in the financial industry. Robin Vince, the president and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon, said in an interview that it felt “like a cloud has been lifted.”Some financial analysts cautioned that the celebrations might be overdone.Many banks still have hundreds of billions of dollars in unrealized losses on Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities purchased when interest rates were very low. Some of those bond investments are now worth much less because the Federal Reserve has sharply raised rates to bring down inflation.Christopher Whalen of Whalen Global Advisors said the Fed fueled some of the problems at banks like First Republic with an easy money policy that led them to load up on bonds that are now performing poorly. “This problem will not go away until the Fed drops interest rates,” he said. “Otherwise, we’ll see more banks fail.”But Mr. Whalen’s view is a minority opinion. The growing consensus is that the failures of Silicon Valley, Signature and now First Republic will not lead to a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis that brought down Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.The assets of the three banks that failed this year are greater than of the 25 banks that failed in 2008 after adjusting for inflation. But 465 banks failed in total from 2008 to 2012.One unresolved issue is how to deal with banks that still have a high percentage of uninsured deposits — money from customers well in excess of the $250,000 federally insured cap on deposits. The F.D.I.C. on Monday recommended that Congress consider expanding its ability to protect deposits.Many investors and depositors are already assuming that the government will step in to protect all deposits at any failing institution by invoking a systemic risk exception — something they did with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. But that’s easy to do when it is just a few banks that run into trouble and more difficult if many banks have problems.Another looming concern is that midsize banks will pull back on lending to preserve capital if they are subject to the kind of bank runs that took place at Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. Depositors might also move their savings to money market funds, which tend to offer higher returns than savings or checking accounts.Midsize banks also need to brace for more exacting oversight from the Fed and the F.D.I.C., which criticized themselves in reports released last week about the bank failures in March.Regional and community banks are the main source of financing for the commercial real estate industry, which encompasses office buildings, apartment complexes and shopping centers. An unwillingness by banks to lend to developers could stymie plans for new construction.Any pullback in lending could lead to a slowdown in economic growth or a recession.Some experts said that despite those challenges and concerns about big banks getting bigger, regulators have done an admirable job in restoring stability to the financial system.“It was an extremely difficult situation, and given how difficult it was, I think it was well done,” said Sheila Bair, who was chair of the F.D.I.C. during the 2008 financial crisis. “It means that big banks becoming bigger when smaller banks begin to fail is inevitable,” she added.Reporting was contributed by More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    A Timeline of How the Banking Crisis Has Unfolded

    First Republic’s downfall was just the latest in a series of problems affecting midsize banks.First Republic Bank was seized by regulators and sold to JPMorgan Chase on Monday, the latest casualty of a banking crisis that has seen other troubled lenders collapse in March.Silicon Valley Bank, one of the most prominent lenders to technology start-ups and venture capital firms, was the first to implode on March 10. Regulators seized Silicon Valley Bank, and later, Signature Bank, a New York financial institution with a large real estate lending business. The panic also led to Wall Street’s biggest banks stepping in to give $30 billion to First Republic and UBS’s takeover of its rival, the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.As investors and bank customers have fretted over the stability of the financial system, federal officials have tried to ease concerns, taking steps to protect depositors and reassuring them they could access all their money.Here is a timeline of events related to the global financial turmoil.March 8In a letter to stakeholders, Silicon Valley Bank said it needed to shore up its finances, announcing a roughly $1.8 billion loss and a plan to raise $2.25 billion in capital to handle increasing withdrawal requests amid a dim economic environment for tech companies.Moody’s, a credit ratings firm, downgraded the bank’s bonds rating.Silvergate, a California-based bank that made loans to cryptocurrency companies, separately announced that it would cease operations and liquidate its assets after suffering heavy losses.March 9Gregory Becker, the chief executive of Silicon Valley Bank, urged venture capital firms to remain calm on a conference call. But panic spread on social media and some investors advised companies to move their money away from the bank.A Silicon Valley Bank executive wrote in a note to clients that it had “been a tough day” but the bank was “actually quite sound, and it’s disappointing to see so many smart investors tweet otherwise.”The bank’s stock plummeted 60 percent and clients pulled out about $40 billion of their money.March 10In the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed after a run on deposits. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced that it would take over the 40-year-old institution.Investors began to dump stocks of the bank’s peers, including First Republic, Signature Bank and Western Alliance, which had similar investment portfolios. The nation’s largest banks were more insulated from the fallout, with shares of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup generally flat.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen reassured investors that the banking system was resilient, expressing “full confidence in banking regulators.”Signature Bank, a 24-year-old institution that provided lending services for real estate companies and law firms, saw a torrent of deposits leaving its coffers after customers began panicking.March 12New York regulators shut down Signature Bank, just two days after Silicon Valley Bank failed, over concerns that keeping the bank open could threaten the stability of the financial system. Signature was one of the few banks that had recently opened its doors to cryptocurrency deposits.The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the F.D.I.C. announced that “depositors will have access to all of their money” and that no losses from either bank’s failure would be “borne by the taxpayer.”The Fed said it would set up an emergency lending program, with approval from the Treasury, to provide additional funding to eligible banks and help ensure they could “meet the needs of all their depositors.”March 13President Biden said in a speech that the U.S. banking system was safe and insisted that taxpayers would not pay for any bailouts in an attempt to ward off a crisis of confidence in the financial system.Regional bank stocks plunged after the unexpected seizure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, with shares of First Republic tumbling 60 percent.The Bank of England announced that banking giant HSBC would buy Silicon Valley Bank’s British subsidiary.March 14Bank stocks recouped some of their losses as investor fears began to ease.The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly opened investigations into Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.March 15Credit Suisse shares tumbled after investors started to fear that the bank would run out of money. Officials at Switzerland’s central bank said it would step in and provide support to Credit Suisse if necessary.March 16Eleven of the largest U.S. banks came together to inject $30 billion into First Republic, which was teetering on the brink of collapse. The plan was hatched by Ms. Yellen and Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. The Treasury secretary believed the actions by the private sector would help underscore confidence in the stability of the banking system. Shares of the bank rallied on the announcement.Credit Suisse said it planned to borrow as much as $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank to stave off concerns about its financial health.Ms. Yellen testified before the Senate Finance Committee and sought to reassure the public that U.S. banks were “sound” and deposits were safe.March 17The shares of many banks continued to slide, wiping out the previous day’s gains as investors continued to worry about the financial turmoil.One day after the $30 billion lifeline was announced, First Republic’s stock plummeted again and it was in talks to sell a piece of itself to other banks or private equity firms.March 19UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, agreed to buy its smaller rival, Credit Suisse, for about $3.2 billion. The Swiss National Bank agreed to lend up to 100 billion Swiss francs to UBS to help close the deal. The Swiss financial regulatory agency also wiped out $17 billion worth of Credit Suisse’s bonds and eliminated the need for UBS shareholders to vote on the deal.The Fed and five other global central banks took steps to ensure that dollars would remain readily available in a move intended to ease pressure on the global financial system.The F.D.I.C. said it had entered into an agreement to sell the 40 former branches of Signature Bank to New York Community Bancorp.March 26First Citizens BancShares agreed to acquire Silicon Valley Bank in a government-backed deal that included the purchase of about $72 billion in loans at a discount of $16.5 billion. It also included the transfer of all the bank’s deposits, which were worth $56 billion. About $90 billion in the bank’s securities and other assets were not included in the sale and remained in the F.D.I.C.’s control.March 30Mr. Biden called on financial regulators to strengthen oversight of midsize banks that faced reduced scrutiny after the Trump administration weakened some regulations. The president proposed requiring banks to protect themselves against potential losses and maintain enough access to cash so they could better endure a crisis, among other things.March 28While testifying before Congress, officials at the Fed, the F.D.I.C. and the Treasury Department faced tough questions from lawmakers about the factors that led to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, blamed bank executives and said the Fed was examining what went wrong, but provided little explanation as to why supervisors did not prevent the collapse.April 14The country’s largest banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — reported robust first-quarter earnings, signaling that many customers had developed a strong preference for larger institutions they viewed as safer.April 24First Republic’s latest earnings report showed that the bank lost $102 billion in customer deposits during the first quarter — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year — not including the temporary $30 billion lifeline. The bank said it would cut up to a quarter of its work force and reduce executive compensation by an unspecified amount.In a conference call with Wall Street analysts, the bank’s executives said little and declined to take questions.The bank’s stock dropped about 20 percent in extended trading after rising more than 10 percent before the report’s release.April 25First Republic’s stock closed down 50 percent after the troubling earnings report.April 26First Republic’s stock continued its tumble, dropping about 30 percent and closing the day at just $5.69, a decline from about $150 a year earlier.April 28The Fed released a report faulting itself for failing to “take forceful enough action” ahead of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. The F.D.I.C. released a separate report that criticized Signature Bank’s “poor management” and insufficient risk policing practices.May 1First Republic was taken over by the F.D.I.C. and immediately sold to JPMorgan Chase, making it the second biggest U.S. bank by assets to collapse after Washington Mutual in 2008. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    White House Considers Two Key Nominations at the Fed

    Administration officials are considering Adriana Kugler, an official at the World Bank, for a Fed governor job, while elevating a sitting governor to the role of vice chair.WASHINGTON — President Biden is closing in on two nominations for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors that would give the Fed its first Latina board member and its second ever Black vice chair, according to several people familiar with the process.Mr. Biden is close to nominating Adriana Kugler, an economist with Colombian heritage who is the U.S. executive director of the World Bank, to the Fed’s only remaining open governor position. In a corresponding move, he is likely to elevate Philip Jefferson, an economist who was confirmed overwhelmingly to the board when Mr. Biden nominated him to an open governor position, to be the board’s vice chair.The decisions are not yet final.A White House spokesman declined to comment on Monday. The Federal Reserve did not comment.If she is both nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Ms. Kugler would fill a governor position recently vacated by Lael Brainard, who became director of the White House National Economic Council in February.The Fed board is made up of seven members, with one serving as chair, another as vice chair and another as vice chair for bank supervision. Ms. Brainard was both a governor and the Fed’s vice chair.The leadership shuffle at the Fed — the world’s most powerful central bank and a key economic policy setter in America — would reflect the complicated set of priorities that the Biden administration is trying to balance. The administration is under pressure, especially from Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, to appoint a Latino or Latina to the Fed Board.Ms. Kugler, who was formerly both an economist and administrator at Georgetown University, was not on the list of potential candidates that Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, put forth. But a spokesperson for Mr. Menendez said, without commenting on specific candidates, that the senator’s priority was elevating a qualified Latino or Latina to the Fed Board — whomever that person might be.A Latino person has never served on the Fed Board of Governors in the central bank’s more than 109-year history, so Ms. Kugler’s nomination would be a historical first if it ended in a successful confirmation.The Fed is also approaching a challenging policy juncture as it slows the economy to contain inflation. The vice chair at the central bank traditionally plays a key role both in communicating what the Fed is doing and in helping the chair, in this case Jerome H. Powell, to rally a policy consensus. That could call for someone with experience at the central bank. The job is likely to be a difficult one as the Fed slows the economy, weakens the job market and draws ire from both progressive Democrats and — if history is any guide — potentially the broader public.Mr. Jefferson, who took office at the Fed last May, is an economist who most recently served as an administrator at Davidson College and who has a doctorate in economics from the University of Virginia. During his tenure at the Fed, he has built up a reputation for being an inquisitive listener with an interest in staff economic research, according to a person familiar with his time there.Ms. Kugler would bring with her extensive knowledge of the labor market. She was formerly chief economist of the Labor Department during the Obama administration, serving in that job from 2011 to 2013. She has worked in the economics departments at the University of Houston and at University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, and she has a doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley.Another open job within the Fed’s leadership ranks could also be filled soon: The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.While the White House nominates leaders to the Fed’s public Board of Governors, the central bank’s 12 regional reserve banks across the country are semiprivate, and their leaders are selected by community members and business leaders on their boards.Phillip Swagel, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, is on the list of potential candidates for that position, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Congressional Budget Office did not comment on Mr. Swagel’s candidacy, nor did the Kansas City Fed.If he is picked and approved by the Fed’s Board of Governors, Mr. Swagel would vote on monetary policy in 2025. While governors at the Fed and the head of the New York branch hold constant votes on monetary policy, other regional bank presidents rotate in and out of voting seats.The Fed meets this week to decide on whether to raise interest rates at a moment when the banking system is experiencing tumult — the government announced that First Republic was being acquired by J.P. Morgan in the early hours of Monday — but inflation is also proving stubborn.Central bankers are expected to raise rates by a quarter point, but then to leave them unchanged at just above 5 percent in the coming months as the economy slows and unemployment rises.The economic moment makes the Fed nominations unusually high stakes: Whoever fills the open positions at the Fed could provide an important voice at the table as officials debate how to strike the delicate balance between controlling inflation and harming the labor market.While economists broadly agree that some economic pain may be necessary to get price increases back under control, how much — and how rapidly inflation must be wrestled back — will require difficult choices.“The challenges that this Fed faces are so different than at any point in the last 40 years,” said Blerina Uruci, chief U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price. “How do they safety land this economy into an equilibrium where inflation is not sticky, and where we’re not creating too much unemployment?” More

  • 188 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    The First Republic deal has come at a crucial point for the markets and economy

    JPMorgan Chase’s takeover of First Republic Bank started off an important week on Wall Street.
    Ahead is a key decision on interest rates along with earnings from Apple and a jobs report expected to show a further deceleration in hiring.
    “Crises don’t sort of end this easily. There will be other issues out there in the banking world,” said former Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn.
    Most experts see tighter credit conditions ahead that could weigh on spending, particularly as inflation and interest rates both remain elevated.

    Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 26, 2023 in New York City. 
    Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

    JPMorgan Chase’s takeover of First Republic likely ends the panic phase of the banking crisis, with the fallout left to come in a pivotal week for markets and the economy.
    Following an unsuccessful effort to keep First Republic open, the largest U.S. bank by deposits reached a deal to take over the 14th-largest financial institution. In doing so, JPMorgan helped avert a destabilizing broad collapse in the sector, but by no means solved all the banking problems likely to come.

    “This is not the end,” said Gary Cohn, former chief operating officer at Goldman Sachs, in an interview Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “I don’t think we’re going to get three and done. Crises don’t sort of end this easily. There will be other issues out there in the banking world.”
    With financial services covering such a wide swath of activities in the $26.5 trillion U.S. economy, the failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and now First Republic Bank will reverberate.

    Critical week ahead

    The takeover kicks off an important week on Wall Street, with a key decision on interest rates looming along with earnings from Apple and a jobs report that is expected to show a further deceleration in hiring.
    Stocks nudged higher Monday morning on hopes that the worst of a banking crisis that began in early March has drifted into the rear view.
    “The wall of worry may ease,” said Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo in a note to clients. “Resolving FRC should end the 7-week post SVB bank crisis phase.”

    One of the first places markets can turn to gauge the larger impact is this week’s Federal Reserve meeting. Traders on Monday morning intensified their bets that the central bank would enact another quarter percentage point interest rate hike as the First Republic resolution provided some clarity to the question of regional bank health.
    But Cohn, who was the National Economic Council director under former President Donald Trump, said the broader impact of the Fed’s rate-hiking cycle will continue to be felt. If the Fed follows through on the increase, it will mark 5 percentage points worth of hikes in a 14-month period, the fastest tightening cycle since the early 1980s.
    “The unintended consequences of that on banks and balance sheets is fairly substantial. We will see something in the commercial real estate market,” he said. “But that’s what we’re talking about. What you learn in the banking industry is it’s usually the problem you’re not talking about.”
    Cohn said one area he is watching is what happens with consumer spending, which makes up 68% of all economic activity.
    As it relates to the banking situation, most experts see tighter credit conditions ahead that could weigh on spending, particularly as inflation and interest rates both remain elevated.
    “The seizure and subsidized on-sale of First Republic completes the obvious unfinished business from the initial acute phase of the bank stress,” Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy for Evercore ISI, said in a client note.
    “But we think this is only the very early stages of the chronic phase and that for every First Republic or Silicon Valley Bank there will be hundreds of smaller and mid-sized US banks that will act more conservatively in the months ahead in order to minimize any risk that they end up in the same situation,” he added.

    Pressure to ‘tone it down’

    With stresses still present in the banking system, that will put pressure on the Fed at least to hold the line on monetary policy despite inflation that policymakers see as still too high.
    Gross domestic product increased just 1.1% annualized in the first quarter, well below expectations and another signal that a slowdown or outright recession is ahead. Markets expect the central bank will be forced to cut by at least half a percentage point before the end of the year to combat the possible contraction, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tracker of futures pricing.
    “The Fed is going to basically have to really tone it down a lot and maybe project that this is the last hike,” said Larry McDonald, founder of “The Bear Traps Report,” also speaking on “Squawk Box.” “Anything they do on the hawkish side will really cause much more financial instability.”
    An indication Wednesday of more hikes is not something investors want to see, particularly in the midst of a jumbled earnings season and ahead of a looming jobs report.
    S&P 500 profits are tracking at a loss of 3.7% for the first quarter, even with 79% of companies beating Wall Street estimates, according to FactSet. Apple earnings are on tap this week, with the Silicon Valley bellwether on Thursday expected to post profit of $1.43 a share, down from $1.88 the previous quarter.
    “Apple is going to be crucial,” said Quincy Krosby, chief global strategist at LPL Financial. “The reason is it gives you perspective on global demand. Apple is in so many portfolios in so many different sectors. Obviously, it’s extremely important, probably the most important of all the big-tech earnings.”
    A day later, the Labor Department’s nonfarm payroll report for April is projected to show job growth of 180,000, down from 236,000 in March and what would be the smallest monthly gain since December 2020.
    Policymakers, though, could be more keyed on wage numbers and the impact on inflation. So a soft payrolls report with softening wages might be greeted positively by a market looking for a less aggressive Fed.
    “This is a market trying to discern which direction the economy is going to go and are we headed for recession, and if so what kind of recession,” Krosby said. “I think we’re still going to have a split market. I don’t think we’re going to have insight as direct as the market would like.” More