Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Banking Crisis Hangs Over Economy, Rekindling Recession Fear

    Borrowing could become tougher, a particular blow to small businesses — and a threat to the recovery’s staying power.The U.S. economic recovery has repeatedly defied predictions of an impending recession, withstanding supply-chain backlogs, labor shortages, global conflicts and the fastest increase in interest rates in decades.That resilience now faces a new test: a banking crisis that, at times over the past week, seemed poised to turn into a full-blown financial meltdown as oil prices plunged and investors poured money into U.S. government debt and other assets perceived as safe.Markets remained volatile on Friday — stocks had their worst day of the week — as leaders in Washington and on Wall Street sought to keep the crisis contained.Even if those efforts succeed — and veterans of previous crises cautioned that was a big “if” — economists said the episode would inevitably take a toll on hiring and investments as banks pulled back on lending, and businesses struggled to borrow money as a result. Some forecasters said the turmoil had already made a recession more likely.“There will be real and lasting economic repercussions from this, even if all the dust settles well,” said Jay Bryson, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “I would raise the probability of a recession given what’s happened in the last week.”At a minimum, the crisis has complicated the already delicate task facing officials at the Federal Reserve, who have been trying to slow the economy gradually in order to bring inflation to heel. That task is as urgent as ever: Government data on Tuesday showed that prices continued to rise at a rapid clip in February. But now policymakers must grapple with the risk that the Fed’s efforts to fight inflation could be destabilizing the financial system.They don’t have long to weigh their options: Fed officials will hold their next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday amid unusual uncertainty about what they will do. As recently as 10 days ago, investors expected the central bank to reaccelerate its campaign of interest rate increases in response to stronger-than-expected economic data. Now, Fed watchers are debating whether the meeting will end with rates unchanged.The failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the midsize California institution, set the latest turmoil in motion.Ian C. Bates for The New York TimesThe notion that the rapid increase in interest rates could threaten financial stability is hardly new. In recent months, economists have remarked often that it is surprising that the Fed has been able to raise rates so much, so fast without severe disruptions to a marketplace that has grown used to rock-bottom borrowing costs.What was less expected is where the first crack showed: small and midsize U.S. banks, in theory among the most closely monitored and tightly regulated pieces of the global financial system.“I was surprised where the problem came, but I wasn’t surprised there was a problem,” Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and leading scholar of financial crises, said in an interview. In an essay in early January, he warned of the risk of a “looming financial contagion” as governments and businesses struggled to adjust to an era of higher interest rates.He said he did not expect a repeat of 2008, when the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market quickly engulfed virtually the entire global financial system. Banks around the world are better capitalized and better regulated than they were back then, and the economy itself is stronger.“Usually to have a more systemic financial crisis, you need more than one shoe to drop,” Professor Rogoff said. “Think of higher real interest rates as one shoe, but you need another.”Still, he and other experts said it was alarming that such severe problems could go undetected so long at Silicon Valley Bank, the midsize California institution whose failure set in motion the latest turmoil. That raises questions about what other threats could be lurking, perhaps in less regulated corners of finance such as real estate or private equity.“If we’re not on top of that, then what about some of these other, more shadowy parts of the financial system?” said Anil Kashyap, a University of Chicago economist who studies financial crises. Already, there are hints that the crisis may not be limited to the United States. Credit Suisse said on Thursday that it would borrow up to $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank after investors dumped its stock as fears arose about its financial health. The 166-year-old lender has faced a long series of scandals and missteps, and its problems aren’t directly related to those of Silicon Valley Bank and other U.S. institutions. But economists said the violent market reaction was a sign that investors were growing concerned about the stability of the broader system.Tougher lending standards could be a blow to small businesses and affect overall supply in the economy.Casey Steffens for The New York TimesThe turmoil in the financial world comes just as the economic recovery, at least in the United States, seemed to be gaining momentum. Consumer spending, which fell in late 2022, rebounded early this year. The housing market, which slumped in 2022 as mortgage rates rose, had shown signs of stabilizing. And despite high-profile layoffs at large tech companies, job growth has stayed strong or even accelerated in recent months. By early March, forecasters were raising their estimates of economic growth and marking down the risks of a recession, at least this year.‌Now, many of them are reversing course. Mr. Bryson, of Wells Fargo, said he now put the probability of a recession this year at about 65 percent, up from about 55 percent before the recent bank failures. Even Goldman Sachs, among the most optimistic forecasters on Wall Street in recent months, said Thursday that the chances of a recession had risen ‌10 percentage points, to 35 percent, as a result of the crisis and the resulting uncertainty.The most immediate impact is likely to be on lending. Small and midsize banks could tighten their lending standards and issue fewer loans, either in a voluntary effort to shore up their finances or in response to heightened scrutiny from regulators. That could be a blow to residential and commercial developers, manufacturers and other businesses that rely on debt to finance their day-to-day operations.Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, said Thursday that the federal government was “monitoring very carefully” the health of the banking system and of credit conditions more broadly.“A more general problem that concerns us is the possibility that if banks are under stress, they might be reluctant to lend,” she told members of the Senate Finance Committee. That, she added, “could turn this into a source of significant downside economic risk.”Tighter credit is likely to be a particular challenge for small businesses, which typically don’t have ready access to other sources of financing, such as the corporate debt market, and which often rely on relationships with bankers who know their specific industry or local community. Some may be able to get loans from big banks, which have so far seemed largely immune from the problems facing smaller institutions. But they will almost certainly pay more to do so, and many businesses may not be able to obtain credit at all, forcing them to cut back on hiring, investing and spending.The housing market, which slumped in 2022 as mortgage rates rose, had shown signs of stabilizing before the banking crisis arose.Jennifer Pottheiser for The New York Times“It may be hard to replace those small and medium-size banks with other sources of capital,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan. “That, in turn, could hinder growth.”Slower growth, of course, is exactly what the Fed has been trying to achieve by raising interest rates — and tighter credit is one of the main channels through which monetary policy is believed to work. If businesses and consumers pull back activity, either because borrowing becomes more expensive or because they are nervous about the economy, that could, in theory, help the Fed bring inflation under control.But Philipp Schnabl, a New York University economist who has studied the recent banking problems, said policymakers had been trying to rein in the economy by crimping demand for goods and services. A financial upheaval, by contrast, could result in a sudden loss of access to credit. That tighter bank lending could also affect overall supply in the economy, which is hard to address through Fed policy.“We have been raising rates to affect aggregate demand,” he said. “Now, you get this credit crunch, but that’s coming from financial stability concerns.”Still, the U.S. economy retains sources of strength that could help cushion the latest blows. Households, in the aggregate, have ample savings and rising incomes. Businesses, after years of strong profits, have relatively little debt. And despite the struggles of their smaller peers, the biggest U.S. banks are on much firmer financial footing than they were in 2008.“I still believe — not just hope — that the damage to the real economy from this is going to be pretty limited,” said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I can tell a very compelling story of why this is scary, but it should be OK.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Fed poised to approve quarter-point rate hike next week, despite market turmoil

    The Federal Reserve likely will approve a quarter-percentage-point interest rate increase next week, according to market pricing and many Wall Street experts.
    A rate increase would come just over a week after other regulators rolled out an emergency lending facility to halt a crisis of confidence in the banking industry.
    “This might be one of those times where there’s a difference between what they should do and what I think they will do. They definitely should not tighten policy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

    Even with turmoil in the banking industry and uncertainty ahead, the Federal Reserve likely will approve a quarter-percentage-point interest rate increase next week, according to market pricing and many Wall Street experts.
    Rate expectations have been on a rapidly swinging pendulum over the past two weeks, varying from a half-point hike to holding the line and even at one point some talk that the Fed could cut rates.

    However, a consensus has emerged that Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and his fellow central bankers will want to signal that while they are attuned to the financial sector upheaval, it’s important to continue the fight to bring down inflation.
    That likely will take the form of a 0.25 percentage point, or 25 basis point, increase, accompanied by assurances that there’s no preset path ahead. The outlook could change depending on market behavior in the coming days, but the indication is for the Fed to hike.

    U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell addresses reporters after the Fed raised its target interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point, during a news conference at the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, February 1, 2023.
    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    “They have to do something, otherwise they lose credibility,” said Doug Roberts, founder and chief investment strategist at Channel Capital Research. “They want to do 25, and the 25 sends a message. But it’s really going to depend on the comments afterwards, what Powell says in public. … I don’t think he’s going to do the 180-degree shift everybody’s talking about.”
    Markets largely agree that the Fed is going to hike.
    As of Friday afternoon, there was about a 75% chance of a quarter-point increase, according to CME Group data using Fed funds futures contracts as a guide. The other 25% was in the no-hike camp, anticipating that the policymakers might take a step back from the aggressive tightening campaign that began just over a year ago.

    Goldman Sachs is one of the most high-profile forecasters seeing no change in rates, as it expects central bankers in general “to adopt a more cautious short-term stance in order to avoid worsening market fears of further banking stress.”

    A question of stability

    Whichever way the Fed goes, it’s likely to face criticism.
    “This might be one of those times where there’s a difference between what they should do and what I think they will do. They definitely should not tighten policy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “People are really on edge, and any little thing might push them over the edge, so I just don’t get it. Why can’t you just pivot here a little and focus on financial stability?”
    A rate increase would come just over a week after other regulators rolled out an emergency lending facility to halt a crisis of confidence in the banking industry.
    The shuttering of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, along with news of instability elsewhere, rocked financial markets and set off fears of more to come.
    Zandi, who has been forecasting no rate hike, said it’s highly unusual and dangerous to see monetary policy tightening under these conditions.
    “You’re not going to lose your battle against inflation with a pause here. But you could lose the financial system,” he said. “So I just don’t get the logic for tightening policy in the current environment.”
    Still, most of Wall Street thinks the Fed will proceed with its policy direction.

    Cuts still expected by year’s end

    In fact, Bank of America said the policy moves of last Sunday to backstop depositor cash and support liquidity-strapped banks allows the Fed the flexibility to hike.
    “The recent market turbulence stemming from distress in several regional banks certainly calls for more caution, but the robust action by policymakers to trigger systemic risk exceptions … is likely to limit fallout,” Bank of America economist Michael Gapen said in a client note. “That said, events remain fluid and other stress events could materialize between now and next Wednesday, leading the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle.”
    Indeed, more bank failures over the weekend could again throw policy for a loop.
    One important caveat to market expectations is that traders don’t think any further rate hikes will hold. Current pricing indicates rate cuts ahead, putting the Fed’s benchmark funds rate in a target range around 4% by year end. An increase Wednesday would put the range between 4.75%-5%.
    Citigroup also expects a quarter-point hike, reasoning that central banks “will turn attention back to the inflation fight which is likely to require further increases in policy rates,” the firm said in a note.
    The market, though, has not had the benefit of hearing from Fed speakers since the financial tumult began, so it will be harder to gauge how officials feel about the latest events and how they fit into the policy framework.
    The biggest concern is that the Fed’s moves to arrest inflation eventually will take the economy into at least a shallow recession. Zandi said a hike next week would raise those odds.
    “I think more rational heads will prevail, but it is possible that they are so focused on inflation that they are willing to take their chance with the financial system,” he said. “I thought we could make our way through this period without a recession, but it required some reasonably good policymaking by the Fed.
    “If they raise rates, that qualifies as a mistake, and I would call it an egregious mistake,” Zandi added. “The recession risks will go meaningfully higher at that point.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    One year after the first rate hike, the Fed stands at policy crossroads

    Exactly one year ago, on March 16, 2022, the Federal Open Market Committee enacted the first of what would be eight interest rate increases.
    The anniversary raises questions about what’s ahead as policymakers continue to grapple with a persistently high cost of living, on top of a banking crisis.

    U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell responds to a question from David Rubenstein (not pictured) during an on-stage discussion at a meeting of The Economic Club of Washington, at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C., U.S, February 7, 2023. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades
    Amanda Andrade-rhoades | Reuters

    The Federal Reserve is one year down its rate-hiking path, and in some ways it’s both closer and further away from its goals when it first set sail.
    Exactly one year ago, on March 16, 2022, the Federal Open Market Committee enacted the first of what would be eight interest rate increases. The goal: to arrest a stubborn inflation wave that central bank officials spent the better part of a year dismissing as “transitory.”

    In the year since, inflation as measured by the consumer price index has come down some, from an 8.5% annual rate then to 6% now and trending lower. While that’s progress, it still leaves the Fed well short of its 2% goal.
    And it raises questions about what’s ahead and what the ramifications will be as policymakers continue to grapple with a persistently high cost of living and a shocking banking crisis.

    “The Fed will acknowledge that they were late to the game, that inflation has been more persistent than they were expecting. So they probably should have tightened sooner,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. “That being said, given the fact the Fed has tightened as aggressively as they have, the economy is still very good.”
    There’s an argument for that point about growth. While 2022 was a lackluster year for the U.S. economy, 2023 is starting off, at least, on solid footing with a strong labor market. But recent days have shown the Fed has another problem on its hands besides inflation.
    All of that monetary policy tightening — 4.5 percentage points in rate increases, and a $573 billion quantitative tightening balance sheet roll-off — has been tied to significant dislocations that are rippling through the banking industry now, particularly hitting smaller institutions.

    Unless the contagion is stanched soon, the banking issue could overshadow the inflation fight.

    ‘Collateral damage’ from rate hikes

    “The chapters are now only beginning to get written” about ramifications from the past year’s policy moves, said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group. “There’s a lot of collateral damage when you not just raise rates after a long period at zero, but the speed at which you’re doing so creates a bull in a china shop.”
    “The bull was able to skate around, not knocking anything over, until recently,” he added. “But now it’s starting to knock things over.”
    Rising rates have hammered banks holding otherwise secure products like Treasurys, mortgage-backed securities and municipal bonds.

    Because prices fall when rates go up, the Fed hikes have cut into the market value of those fixed income holdings. In the case of Silicon Valley Bank, it was forced to sell billions on holdings at a substantial loss, contributing to a crisis of confidence that has now spread elsewhere.
    That leaves the Fed and Chairman Jerome Powell with a critical decision to make in six days, when the rate-setting FOMC releases its post-meeting statement. Does the Fed follow through on its oft-stated intention to keep raising rates until it’s satisfied inflation is coming down toward acceptable levels, or does it step back to assess the current financial situation before moving forward?

    Rate hike expected

    “If you’re waiting for inflation to go back to 2% and that’s what’s caused you to raise rates, you’re making a mistake,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities. “If you’re on the Fed, you want to buy optionality. The easiest way to buy optionality is to just pause next week, stop QT and just wait and see how things play out.”
    Market pricing has whipsawed violently in recent days over what to expect from the Fed.
    As of Thursday afternoon, traders had gone back to expecting a 0.25 percentage point rate increase, pricing in an 80.5% chance of a move that would take the federal funds rate to a range of 4.75%-5%, according to CME Group data.
    With the banking industry in tumult, LaVorgna thinks that would be a bad idea at a time when confidence is waning.
    Since the rate increases started, depositors have pulled $464 billion from banks, according to Fed data. That’s a 2.6% decline after a massive surge in the early days of the Covid pandemic, but it could accelerate as the soundness of community banks comes into question.

    “They corrected one policy mistake with another,” said LaVorgna, who was chief economist for the National Economic Council under former President Donald Trump. “I don’t know if it was political, but they went from one extreme to the other, neither of which is good. I wish the Fed had a more honest appraisal of what they got wrong. But you typically don’t get that from government.”
    Indeed, there will be plenty to chew on when analysts and historians look back on the recent history of monetary policy.
    Warning signals on inflation began in the spring of 2021, but the Fed stuck to a belief that the increase was “transitory” until it was forced into action. Since July 2022, the yield curve also has been sending signals, warning of a growth slowdown as shorter-term yields exceed longer duration, a situation that also has caused acute problems for banks.
    Still, if regulators can solve the current liquidity problems and the economy can avoid a steep recession this year, the Fed’s missteps will have exacted only minimal damage.
    “With the experience of the past year, there are legitimate criticisms of Powell and the Fed,” PNC’s Faucher said. “Overall, they have responded appropriately, and the economy is in a good place considering where we were at this time in 2020.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Low Rates Were Meant to Last. Without Them, Finance Is In for a Rough Ride.

    Economists expected inflation and rates to stay low for years. With Silicon Valley Bank’s implosion, Wall Street is starting to reckon with how wrong that prediction has proved.WASHINGTON — If a number defined the 2010s, it was 2 percent. Inflation, annual economic growth, and interest rates at their highest all hovered around that level — so persistently that economists, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street began to bet that the era of low-everything would last.That bet has gone bad. And with the implosion of Silicon Valley Bank, America is beginning to reckon with the consequences.Inflation surprised economists and policymakers by spiking after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, and at 6 percent in February, it is proving difficult to stamp out. The Fed has lifted interest rates by 4.5 percentage points in just the past 12 months as it tries to slow the economy and wrestle price increases under control. The central bank’s decision next Wednesday could nudge rates even higher. And that jump in borrowing costs is catching some businesses, investors and households by surprise.Silicon Valley Bank is the most extreme example of an institution’s being caught off guard so far. The bank had amassed a big portfolio of long-term bonds, which pay more interest than shorter-term ones. But it wasn’t paying to sufficiently protect its assets against the possibility of an interest rate spike — and when rates jumped, it found the market value of its holdings seriously dented. The reason: Why would investors want those old bonds when they could buy new ones at more attractive rates?Those impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed the institution and shot tremors across the American banking system.The bank’s mistake was a bad — and ultimately lethal — one. But it wasn’t wholly unique.Many banks are holding big portfolios of long-term bonds that are worth a lot less than their original value. U.S. banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses from securities that had dropped in price at the end of 2022, based on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data, with many regional banks facing big hits.Adding in other potential losses, including on mortgages that were extended when rates were low, economists at New York University have estimated that the total may be more like $1.75 trillion. Banks can offset that with higher earnings on deposits — but that doesn’t work if depositors pull their money out, as in Silicon Valley Bank’s case.“How worried should we be comes down to: How likely is it that the deposit franchise leaves?” said Alexi Savov, who wrote the analysis with his colleague Philipp Schnabl.Regulators are conscious of that potentially broad interest rate risk. The Fed unveiled an emergency loan program on Sunday night that will offer banks cash in exchange for their bonds, treating them as though they were still worth their original value in the process. The setup will allow banks to temporarily escape the squeeze they are feeling as interest rates rise.But even if the Fed succeeds at neutralizing the threat of bank runs tied to rising rates, it is likely that other vulnerabilities grew during decades of relatively low interest rates. That could trigger more problems at a time when borrowing costs are substantially higher.Impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed Silicon Valley Bank and shot tremors across the U.S. banking system.Jason Henry for The New York Times“There’s an old saying: Whenever the Fed hits the brakes, someone goes through the windshield,” said Michael Feroli, chief economist at J.P. Morgan. “You just never know who it’s going to be.”America has gone through regular bouts of financial pain brought about by rising interest rates. A jump in rates has been blamed for helping to burst the bubble in technology stocks in the early 2000s, and for contributing to the decline in house prices that helped to set off the crash in 2008.Even more closely related to the current moment, a sharp rise in interest rates in the 1970s and 1980s caused acute problems in the savings and loan industry that ended only when the government intervened.There’s a simple logic behind the financial problems that arise from rising interest rates. When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash — and that typically means that they tie up their money for longer or they throw their cash behind risky ventures.When the Fed raises interest rates to cool the economy and control inflation, though, money moves toward the comparative safety of government bonds and other steady investments. They suddenly pay more, and they seem like a surer bet in a world where the central bank is trying to slow the economy.That helps to explain what is happening in the technology sector in 2023, for example. Investors have pulled back from tech company stocks, which tend to have values that are predicated on expectations for growth. Betting on prospective profits is suddenly less attractive in a higher-rate environment.A more challenging business and financial backdrop has quickly translated into a souring job market in technology. Companies have been making high-profile layoffs, with Meta announcing a fresh round just this week.That is more or less the way Fed rate moves are supposed to work: They diminish growth prospects and make access to financing tougher, curb business expansions, cost jobs and end up slowing demand throughout the economy. Slower demand makes for weaker inflation.But sometimes the pain does not play out in such an orderly and predictable way, as the trouble in the banking system makes clear.“This just teaches you that we really have these blind spots,” said Jeremy Stein, a former Fed governor who is now at Harvard. “You put more pressure on the pipes, and something is going to crack — but you never know where it is going to be.”The Fed was conscious that some banks could face trouble as rates rose meaningfully for the first time in years.“The industry’s lack of recent experience with rising and more volatile interest rates, coupled with material levels of market uncertainty, presents challenges for all banks,” Carl White, the senior vice president of the supervision, credit and learning division at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, wrote in a research note in November. That was true “regardless of size or complexity.”But it has been years since the central bank formally tested for a scenario of rising rates in big banks’ formal stress tests, which examine their expected health in the event of trouble. While smaller regional banks aren’t subject to those tests, the decision not to test for rate risk is evidence of a broader reality: Everyone, policymakers included, spent years assuming that rates would not go back up.When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash.John Taggart for The New York TimesIn their economic forecasts a year ago, even after months of accelerating inflation, Fed officials projected that interest rates would peak at 2.8 percent before falling back to 2.4 percent in the longer run.That owed to both recent experience and to the economy’s fundamentals: Inequality is high and the population is aging, two forces that mean there are lots of savings sloshing around the economy and looking for a safe place to park. Such forces tend to reduce interest rates.The pandemic’s downswing upended those forecasts, and it is not clear when rates will get back on the lower-for-longer track. While central bankers still anticipate that borrowing costs will hover around 2.5 percent in the long run, for now they have pledged to keep them high for a long time — until inflation is well on its way back down to 2 percent.Yet the fact that unexpectedly high interest rates are putting a squeeze on the financial system could complicate those plans. The Fed will release fresh economic forecasts alongside its rates decision next week, providing a snapshot of how its policymakers view the changing landscape.Central bankers had previously hinted that they might raise interest rates even higher than the roughly 5 percent that they had previously forecast this year as inflation shows staying power and the job market remains strong. Whether they will be able to stick with that plan in a world colored by financial upheaval is unclear. Officials may want to tread lightly at a time of uncertainty and the threat of financial chaos.“There’s sometimes this sense that the world works like engineering,” Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, said of the way central bankers think about monetary policy. “How the machine actually works is such a complex and fickle thing that you have to be paying attention.”And policymakers are likely to be attuned to other pockets of risk in the financial system as rates climb: Mr. Stein, for instance, had expected rate-related weakness to show up in bond funds and was surprised to see the pain surface in the banking system instead.“Whether it is stabler than we thought, or we just haven’t hit the air pocket yet, I don’t know,” he said.Joe Rennison More

  • 150 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    European Central Bank hikes rates despite market mayhem, pledges support if needed

    Credit Suisse shares tumbled by as much as 30% in Wednesday intraday trade.
    The whole banking sector ended Wednesday’s session down by about 7%.
    Initial pressures on the banking sector emerged last week, when U.S. authorities deemed Silicon Valley Bank insolvent.

    Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (ECB), pauses during a rates decision news conference in Frankfurt, Germany, on Thursday, March 16, 2022.
    Alex Kraus | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    The European Central Bank on Thursday announced a further rate hike of 50 basis points, signaling it is ready to supply liquidity to banks if needed, amid recent turmoil in the banking sector.
    The ECB had signaled for several weeks that it would be raising rates again at its March meeting, as inflation across the 20-member region remains sharply above the targeted level. In February, preliminary data showed headline inflation of 8.5%, well above the central bank’s target of 2%.

    related investing news

    Some market players questioned whether President Christine Lagarde would still go ahead with the move, given recent shocks in the banking sector. Credit Suisse shares tumbled by as much as 30% in Wednesday intraday trade, and the whole banking sector ended the Wednesday session down by about 7%.
    “Inflation is projected to remain too high for too long. Therefore, the Governing Council today decided to increase the three key ECB interest rates by 50 basis points,” the ECB said in a statement. One basis point is equal to 0.01%.
    This latest move brings the bank’s main rate to 3%. It was in negative territory before July last year.
    “The Governing Council is monitoring current market tensions closely and stands ready to respond as necessary to preserve price stability and financial stability in the euro area. The euro area banking sector is resilient, with strong capital and liquidity positions,” the central bank said in the same statement.
    Initial pressures on the banking sector emerged last week, when U.S. authorities deemed Silicon Valley Bank insolvent. The event threw international subsidiaries of the bank into collapse and raised concerns about whether central banks are increasing rates at too aggressive of a pace. Goldman Sachs quickly adjusted its rate expectations for the Federal Reserve, due to meet next week — the bank now anticipates a 25 basis point increase, after previously forecasting a 50 basis point hike.

    European officials were keen to stress that the situation in Europe is different from the one in the United States. Overall, there is less deposit concentration — SVB was an important lender to the tech and health-care sectors — deposit flows seem stable, and European banks are well capitalized since the regulatory transformation that followed the global financial crisis.
    Equity action Thursday showed some relief across the banking sector, after Credit Suisse said it will borrow up to $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank, the country’s central bank.

    ‘I was around in 2008’

    Lagarde was keen to stress that the recent market turmoil is different from what happened during the global financial crisis of 2008.
    “Given the reforms that have taken place, and I was around in 2008, so I have a clear recollection of what happened and what we had to do, we did reform the framework, we did agree on Basel III [a regulatory framework], we did increase the capital ratios … the banking sector is currently in a much, much stronger position,” Lagarde said during a news conference.
    “Added to which, if it was needed, we do have the tools, we do have the facilities that are available, and we also have a toolbox that also has other instruments that we always stand ready to activate, if and when needed,” she added, reiterating that the central bank is ready to step in, if required.

    Determined to bring down inflation

    The ECB on Thursday also revised its inflation expectations. It now sees headline inflation averaging 5.3% this year, followed by 2.9% in 2024. In December, the bank had projected a 6.3% inflation figure for 2023 and a 3.4% rate in 2024.
    Lagarde said the ECB remains committed to bringing down inflation.
    “We are determined to return inflation back to 2% in the medium term, that should not be doubted, the determination is intact,” she said.
    An open question remains: how quickly will the ECB proceed with further rate hikes? Until the recent market instability, expectations pointed to another 25 basis point increase in May, followed by the same move in June.
    Lagarde did not provide an indication about future decisions.
    “We know that we have a lot more ground to cover, but it is a big caveat, if our base line were to persist,” she said, highlighting that “the pace we will take will be entirely data dependent.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 163 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Credit Suisse to Borrow as Much as $54 Billion From Swiss Central Bank

    Credit Suisse said on Thursday that it plans to borrow as much as $54 billion from the Swiss central bank to improve its liquidity after the lender’s shares plunged to a new low.The bank will also access a “short-term liquidity facility” and will buy back about $3 billion in debt, it said in a statement released on its website.Credit Suisse, a 166-year-old institution, ended Wednesday fighting for its life. Its shares tumbled 24 percent on the SIX Swiss Exchange, hitting a new low, and the price of its bonds dropped sharply as well. The cost of financial contracts that insure against a default by the bank spiked to their highest levels on record.After European markets closed on Wednesday, the Swiss National Bank and Finma, the country’s financial regulator, issued a joint statement certifying Credit Suisse’s financial health and saying the central bank would backstop the bank if needed. Hours later, Credit Suisse said it planned to borrow 50 billion Swiss francs from the Swiss National Bank.The immediate catalyst for a perilous drop in the bank’s stock price was a comment by Ammar al-Khudairy, the chairman of the Saudi National Bank, which is the bank’s largest shareholder. In a televised interview with Bloomberg News, Mr. al-Khudairy said that the state-owned bank would not put more money into Credit Suisse.Credit Suisse has been battered by years of mistakes and controversies that have cost it two chief executives over three years. These include huge trading losses tied to the implosions of the investment firm Archegos and the lender Greensill Capital; they also include an array of scandals, from involvement in money laundering to spying on former employees.The firm has embarked on a sweeping turnaround plan, which includes thousands of layoffs and the spinoff of its Wall Street investment bank. But investors have questioned whether continuing losses and client departures — the firm lost about $147 billion worth of customer deposits in the last three months of 2022 — have endangered that effort. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    French Protesters Rally in Last Angry Push Before Pension Bill Vote

    Many believe the legislation to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62 will pass Parliament, and they are looking beyond the vote to fight on.PARIS — Hundreds of thousands of French protesters on Wednesday swarmed cities across the country, and striking workers disrupted rail lines and closed schools to protest the government’s plan to raise the legal retirement age, in a final show of force before the contested bill comes to a vote on Thursday.The march — the eighth such national mobilization in two months — and strikes embodied the showdown between two apparently unyielding forces: President Emmanuel Macron, who has been unwavering in his resolve to overhaul pensions, and large crowds of protesters who have vowed to continue the fight even if the bill to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62 passes Parliament — which many believe it will.“Macron has not listened to us, and I’m no longer willing to listen to him,” said Patrick Agman, 59, who was marching in Paris on Wednesday. “I don’t see any other option than blocking the country now.”But it remains unclear what shape the protest movement will take from here, with plenty of room for it either to turn into the kind of unbridled social unrest that France has experienced before or to slowly die out.Even as throngs marched in cities from Le Havre in Normandy to Nice on the French Riviera on Wednesday, a joint committee of lawmakers from both houses of Parliament agreed on a joint version of the pension bill, sending it to a vote on Thursday.While it remained unclear if Mr. Macron had gathered enough support from outside his centrist political party to secure the vote, the prime minister could still use a special constitutional power to push the bill through without a ballot. It’s a tool the government used to pass a budget bill in the fall, but it risks exposing it to a no-confidence motion.Although many French people surveyed expect the bill to pass, opponents of the legislation signaled they intended to keep fighting.Laurent Cipriani/Associated PressIn a sense, the demonstrations on Wednesday were a last call to try to prevent the bill from becoming law. “It’s the last cry, to tell Parliament to not vote for this reform,” Laurent Berger, the head of the country’s largest union, the French Democratic Confederation of Labor, said at the march in Paris.Three-quarters of French people believe the bill will pass, according to a study released by the polling firm Ellabe on Wednesday. And many protesters were looking beyond the vote, convinced that a new wave of demonstrations could force the government to withdraw the law after it is passed.Some teachers said they had already given notice of another strike to their principals. Others said they had saved money in anticipation of future strike-related wage losses.“The goal is really to hold on as long as possible,” said Bénédicte Pelvet, 26, who was demonstrating while holding a cardboard box in which she was collecting money to support striking train workers.All along the march route in Paris, colorful signs, banners and graffiti echoed the determination to continue the fight regardless of the consequences. “Even if it’s with garbage, we’ll get out of this mess,” red graffiti on a wall read, a reference to the heaps of trash that have piled up throughout cities in France because garbage workers have gone on strike.Rémy Boulanger, 56, who has participated in all eight national demonstrations against the pension bill, said anger had grown among protesters toward a government that he said “has turned a deaf ear to our demands.”France relies on payroll taxes to fund the pension system. Mr. Macron has long argued that people must work longer to support retirees who are living longer. But his opponents say the plan will unfairly affect blue-collar workers, who have shorter life expectancies, and they point to other funding solutions, such as taxing the rich.A strike by garbage workers has led to a pileup of trash on French streets.Christophe Archambault/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAbout 70 percent of French people want the protests to continue, and four out of 10 say they should intensify, according to the Ellabe poll.Union leaders have hinted that the mobilization would not stop, but they have yet to reveal their plans. “It’s never too late to be in the street,” Philippe Martinez, the head of the far-left C.G.T union, said on Wednesday.France has a long history of street demonstrations as a means to win, or block, changes. Most recently, the Yellow Vest movement that was born in 2018 led to demonstrations that went on for months and forced the government to withdraw plans to raise fuel taxes. But the last time the French government bowed to demonstrators and withdrew a law that had already passed was in 2006, when a contested youth-jobs contract was repealed.“Redoing 2006 would be ideal,” Mr. Boulanger said. But he acknowledged that a sense of fatigue was spreading among protesters — Wednesday’s protests were smaller than those a week ago. He said he was instead looking to the next presidential election, more than four years away, to bring about change.Other protesters pointed to 1995, when strikes against another pension bill paralyzed France for weeks, forcing the government to abandon its plan to send the proposed law to a vote.Ms. Pelvet, another demonstrator, acknowledged that the unions’ vow to bring the country “to a standstill” last week had failed, with a fair number of trains and public services still operating.“Nobody wants to go home,” Ms. Pelvet said. “But the road ahead is not clear yet.”Catherine Porter More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    After SVB Collapse, Fed and Lawmakers Eye Bank Rules

    The stunning demise of Silicon Valley Bank has spurred soul-searching about how large and regional banks are overseen.The Federal Reserve is facing criticism over Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, with lawmakers and financial regulation experts asking why the regulator failed to catch and stop seemingly obvious risks. That concern is galvanizing a review of how the central bank oversees financial institutions — one that could end in stricter rules for a range of banks.In particular, the episode could result in meaningful regulatory and supervisory changes for institutions — like Silicon Valley Bank — that are large but not large enough to be considered globally systemic and thus subject to tougher oversight and rules. Smaller banks face lighter regulations than the largest ones, which go through regular and extensive tests of their financial health and have to more closely police how much easy-to-tap cash they have to serve as a buffer in times of crisis.Regulators and lawmakers are focused both on whether a deregulatory push in 2018, during the Trump administration, went too far, and on whether existing rules are sufficient in a changing world.While it is too early to predict the outcome, the shock waves that Silicon Valley Bank’s demise sent through the financial system, and the sweeping response the government staged to prevent it from inciting a nationwide bank run, are clearly intensifying the pressure for stronger oversight.“There are a lot of signs of a supervisory failure,” said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School, who also noted that it was too early to draw firm conclusions. “We do need more rigorous regulations for large regional banks that more accurately reflect the risks these banks can pose to the financial system,” she said.The call for tougher bank rules echoes the aftermath of 2008, when risky bets by big financial firms helped to plunge the United States into a deep recession and exposed blind spots in bank oversight. The crisis ultimately led to the Dodd-Frank law in 2010, a reform that ushered in a series of more stringent requirements, including wide-ranging “stress tests” that probe a bank’s ability to weather severe economic situations.But some of those rules were lightened — or “tailored” — under Republicans. Randal K. Quarles, who was the Fed’s vice chair for supervision from 2017 to 2021, put a bipartisan law into effect that relaxed some regulations for small and medium-size banks and pushed to make day-to-day Fed supervision simpler and more predictable.Critics have said such changes could have helped pave the way for the problems now plaguing the banking system.“Clearly, there’s a problem with supervision,” said Daniel Tarullo, a former Fed governor who helped shape and enact many post-2008 bank regulations and who is now a professor at Harvard. “The lighter touch on supervision is something that has been a concern for several years now.”Jerome H. Powell, right, the chair of the Federal Reserve, and Randal K. Quarles, then the vice chair for supervision, at the Fed, in 2018. “The events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent and swift review,” Mr. Powell said in a statement this week.Aaron P. Bernstein/ReutersThe Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was in charge of overseeing Silicon Valley Bank, and experts across the ideological spectrum are questioning why growing risks at the bank were not halted. The firm grew rapidly and took on a large number of depositors from one vulnerable industry: technology. A large share of the bank’s deposits were uninsured, making customers more likely to run for the exit in a moment of trouble, and the bank had not taken care to protect itself against the financial risks posed by rising interest rates.Worsening the optics of the situation, Greg Becker, the chief executive of Silicon Valley Bank, was until Friday on the board of directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The Fed has said reserve bank directors are not involved in matters related to banking supervision.Questions about bank oversight ultimately come back to roost at the Fed’s board in Washington — which, since the 2008 crisis, has played a heavier role in guiding how banks are overseen day to day.The board has indicated that it will take the concerns seriously, putting its new vice chair of supervision, Michael Barr, in charge of the inquiry into what happened at Silicon Valley Bank, the Fed announced this week.“The events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent and swift review by the Federal Reserve,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said in a statement.It is unclear how much any one of the 2018 rollbacks would have mattered in the case of Silicon Valley Bank. Under the original postcrisis rules, the bank, which had less than $250 billion in assets, most likely would have faced a full Fed stress test earlier, probably by this year. But the rules for stress tests are complex enough that even that is difficult to pinpoint with certainty.“Nobody can say that without the 2018 rollbacks none of this would have happened,” Ms. Judge said. But “those rules suggested that banks in this size range did not pose a threat to financial stability.”But the government’s dramatic response to Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, which included saving uninsured depositors and rolling out a Fed rescue program, underlined that even the 16th-largest bank in the country could require major public action.Given that, the Fed will be paying renewed attention to how those banks are treated when it comes to both capital (their financial cushion against losses) and liquidity (their ability to quickly convert assets into cash to pay back depositors).There could be a push, for instance, to lower the threshold at which the more onerous regulations begin to apply. As a result of the 2018 law, some of the stricter rules now kick in when banks have $250 billion in assets.Another major focal point will be the content of stress tests. While banks used to be run through an “adverse” scenario that included creative and unexpected shocks to the system — including, occasionally, a jump in interest rates like the one that bedeviled Silicon Valley Bank — that scenario ended with the deregulatory push.An interest rate shock will be included in this year’s stress test scenarios, but the larger question of what risks are reflected in those exercises and whether they are sufficient is likely to get another look. Many economists had assumed that inflation and interest rates would stay low for a long time — but the pandemic upended that. It now seems clear that bank oversight made the same flawed assumption.The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank could precipitate changes for financial institutions that are not large enough to be considered globally systemic and thus subject to tougher oversight and rules.Jason Henry for The New York TimesMany people were wrong about the staying power of low rates, and “that includes regulators and supervisors, who are supposed to think about: What are the possibilities, and what are the scenarios?” said Jonathan Parker, the head of the finance department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.And there is a bigger challenge laid bare by the current episode: Several financial experts said the run on Silicon Valley Bank was so severe that more capital would not have saved the institution. Its problem, in part, was its huge share of uninsured deposits. Those depositors ran rapidly amid signs of weakness.That could spur greater attention in Congress and among regulators regarding whether deposit insurance needs to be extended more broadly, or whether banks need to be limited in how many uninsured deposits they can hold. And it could prompt a closer look at how uninsured deposits are treated in bank oversight — those deposits have long been looked at as unlikely to run quickly.In an interview, Mr. Quarles pushed back on the idea that the changes made under his watch helped to precipitate Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. But he acknowledged that they had created new regulatory questions — including how to deal with a world in which technology enables very rapid bank runs.“Certainly, none of this resulted from anything that we changed,” Mr. Quarles said. “You had this perfect flow of imperfect information that really increased the speed and intensity of this run.”In the days after the collapse, some Republicans focused on supervisory failures at the Fed, while many Democrats focused on the aftershocks of deregulation and possible wrongdoing by the bank’s executives.“All the regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem,” Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana and a member of the Banking Committee, said on the Senate floor.By contrast, two Senate Democrats — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday urging the agencies to investigate whether senior executives involved in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank had fallen short of their regulatory responsibilities or violated laws.Ms. Warren also unveiled legislation this week, co-sponsored by roughly 50 Democrats in the House and Senate, that would reimpose some of the Dodd-Frank requirements that were rolled back in 2018, including regular stress testing.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and chairman of the Banking Committee, told reporters that he intended to hold a hearing examining what happened “as soon as we can.”Mr. Barr, who started at the Fed last summer, was already reviewing a number of the Fed’s regulations to try to determine whether they were appropriately stern — a reality that had spurred intense lobbying as financial institutions resisted tougher oversight.But the episode could make those counterefforts more challenging.Late on Monday, the Bank Policy Institute, which represents 40 large banks and financial services companies, emailed journalists a list of its positions, including claims that the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were caused by “primarily a failure of management and supervision rather than regulation” and that the panic surrounding the collapses proved how resilient big banks were to stress, since they were largely unaffected by it.The trade group also emailed those talking points to congressional Democrats, but other trade groups, including the American Bankers Association, have stayed silent, according to a person familiar with the matter.“We share President Biden’s confidence in the nation’s banking system,” a spokesman with the American Bankers Association said. “Every American should know that their accounts are safe and their deposits are protected. Our industry will work with the administration, regulators and Congress to further bolster that trust.”The fallout could also kill big banks’ attempts to roll back regulations that they say are inefficient. The largest banks had wanted the Fed to stop forcing them to hold cash equivalents to what they say are safe securities like U.S. government debt. But Silicon Valley Bank’s failure was caused in part by its decision to keep a large portion of depositors’ cash in longer-dated U.S. Treasury bonds, which lost value as interest rates rose.“This definitely underscores why it is important that there be some capital requirement against government-backed securities,” said Sheila Bair, a former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.Catie Edmondson More