Evelyn Reynolds

After Republicans passed a bill that pairs spending cuts and fossil fuel support with raising the nation’s borrowing cap, the president must decide when and how to negotiateWASHINGTON — This week’s vote by House Republicans to couple deep spending cuts with an agreement to raise the debt limit for one year has put President Biden on the defensive, forcing him to confront a series of potentially painful choices at a perilous economic moment.Mr. Biden has long maintained that he would not negotiate spending cuts or other efforts to reduce the federal debt as part of discussions over raising the nation’s debt limit, which must be raised in order for the United States to keep borrowing money to pay its bills.But business groups, fiscal hawks and some congressional Democrats are calling on Mr. Biden to begin negotiating in earnest toward a deal that would avoid a default on the debt, which could come as soon as June or July.Mr. Biden and his aides now must choose how quickly to engage with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California — along with Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the majority leader; Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader; and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader — and on what terms.The president faces a cascading set of decisions as the nation, which has already bumped up against its $31.4 trillion debt limit, barrels toward default. He will need to find what, if any, common ground on spending cuts he has with Republicans, who do not share his preference for reducing the nation’s debt path largely by raising taxes on corporations and the rich. He will need to determine if he is prepared to sign any debt limit increase that is attached to conditions demanded by House conservatives.Ultimately, he may need to decide how aggressively to intervene in the delicate politics of House leadership. A potential debt-limit agreement could spur revolt by Mr. McCarthy’s most restless members, who laid the groundwork for the current brinkmanship when they held out against Mr. McCarthy’s ascension to the speaker’s gavel and retain the power to try to push him out.As administration officials describe it, they are all complicated choices. Mr. Biden and his aides do not want to encourage Republicans to habitually threaten economic collapse under Democratic presidents — and only under Democratic presidents — by allowing them to extract concessions to raise the limit now. They also recognize that a recession set off by default would hammer American families just as Mr. Biden is ramping up his re-election campaign, a dangerous scenario for an unpopular incumbent no matter which party voters blame for the default.House Speaker Kevin McCarthy after the House passed the debt limit bill.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSome of Mr. Biden’s next steps are clear. To the chagrin of some House conservatives, there was no scenario in which the president would sign the bill that barely cleared the chamber on Wednesday. Along with raising the limit, it included spending cuts, new supports for oil and gas drilling and the near-total reversal of Mr. Biden’s signature law meant to fight climate change.“The president has made clear this bill has no chance of becoming law,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Wednesday after the vote. “In our history, we have never defaulted on our debt or failed to pay our bills. Congressional Republicans must act immediately and without conditions to avoid default.”But that does not mean Mr. Biden will be able to maintain his current posture toward Mr. McCarthy indefinitely. Administration officials have pushed business groups to pressure Republicans to pass a no-strings debt limit increase. But on Wednesday, leading business lobby groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, lauded the House passage of the bill and called on Mr. Biden to engage.“Failing to raise the debt limit would trigger a strong market reaction with severe economic consequences, likely including widespread job losses, decimated retirement savings and serious hardship for millions of American families,” said Joshua Bolten, president and chief executive of the Business Roundtable. The group, he said, “is hopeful that today’s vote in the House will jump-start negotiations between Congress and the Biden administration on a bipartisan deal that takes default off the table and begins the hard work of dealing with our deficits and debt.”White House officials concede that Mr. Biden will have to convene negotiations with congressional leaders over taxes, spending and debt before the government runs out of money to pay its bills. In recent days, the president has suggested an openness to talk fiscal issues with Republicans, with the wink-nod stipulation that they have nothing to do with the borrowing limit.“I’m happy to meet with McCarthy, but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended,” Mr. Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “That’s not negotiable.”Mr. Biden still sees his position in any fiscal talks, and the public debate around them, as a political winner. In the early months of this year, he demonized Republican plans that included cuts to safety-net programs and forced Mr. McCarthy to make Social Security and Medicare — the two largest drivers of federal spending growth in the years to come — untouchable in the Republican bill.More recently, officials across the administration have blasted the Republican bill for potentially cutting spending on popular programs for veterans, students and more. They are able to do that because the bill does not specify where the bulk of its spending reductions would come from, leaving the task to future congressional appropriators.In a White House memo obtained this week by The New York Times, officials sketch out what they believe Republicans would have to cut in order to satisfy the spending caps in their legislation, while keeping military spending intact. Over a decade, the reductions would include $500 billion for veterans’ health care, $300 billion from scientific and other research and $100 billion from the early childhood education program Head Start.Some administration officials privately suggest that a more modest version of spending caps, lasting for a few years at most, could plausibly form the centerpiece of an agreement to continue funding the government and raise the borrowing limit. Some business groups agree, though they would also like to see lawmakers add in a bipartisan effort to streamline government permitting for fossil fuels, clean energy and other projects, which they say would enhance economic growth.But many House Republicans appear in no mood to move from the bill that passed with only one vote to spare on Wednesday, raising the possibility that a deal with smaller spending cuts would need a combination of Republican and Democratic votes to pass the House — and potentially set off an effort by conservatives to depose Mr. McCarthy as speaker.Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and a member of the Freedom Caucus, emerged from a closed-door briefing on the legislation ahead of the vote on Wednesday demanding that Republicans refuse to take anything less than their opening offer.“I wanted double what was in there,” Mr. Norman said. “I agreed to vote for it because that starts the ball and gets us in the arena to solve the debt problem. Now I’m not interested in anything coming back, anything but what we voted on.”Catie Edmondson More

Gross domestic product rose at a 1.1% annualized pace in the first quarter, below the 2% estimate.
Slumping inventories and a general decline in private investment held back early year gains.
Inflation was higher than expected in the quarter, with the PCE price index rising 4.2% against the 3.7% estimate.

Customers walk through a shopping mall on March 15, 2023 in Chicago, Illinois. Retail sales slipped 0.4 percent in February after being up more than 3 percent in January. 
Scott Olson | Getty Images

Growth in the U.S. slowed considerably during the first three months of the year as interest rate increases and inflation took hold of an economy largely expected to decelerate even further ahead.
Gross domestic product, a measure of all goods and services produced for the period, rose at a 1.1% annualized pace in the first quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting growth of 2%.

The growth rate followed a fourth quarter in which GDP climbed 2.6%, part of a year that saw a 2.1% increase.
The report also showed that the personal consumption expenditures price index, an inflation measure that the Federal Reserve follows closely, increased 4.2%, ahead of the 3.7% estimate. High inflation and slow growth is sometimes described as “stagflation,” which characterized the late 1970s and early ’80s U.S. economy.
Stocks initially reacted little to the report, with major indexes pointing to a higher open. Treasury yields increased.
The slowdown in growth came due to a decline in private inventory investment and a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment, the report said. The inventory slowdown took 2.26 percentage points off the headline number.
Consumer spending as measured by personal consumption expenditures increased 3.7% and exports were up 4.8%. Gross private domestic investment tumbled 12.5%.

“The U.S. economy is likely at an inflection point as consumer spending has softened in recent months,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “The backward nature of the GDP report is possibly misleading for markets as we know consumers were still spending in January but since March, have pulled back as consumers are getting more pessimistic about the future.”
In other economic news Thursday, jobless claims totaled 230,000 for the week ended April 22, a decline of 16,000 and below the estimate for 249,000.
The GDP report comes as the Federal Reserve is seeking to slow an economy burdened by inflation that had been running at its highest level in more than 40 years.
In a policy tightening regime that began in March 2022, the central bank has raised its benchmark interest rate by 4.75 percentage points, taking it to the highest level in nearly 16 years. Though inflation has pulled back some from its peak around 9% in June 2022, it remains well above the Fed’s 2% goal. Policymakers all say inflation is still too high and will require elevated interest rates.
At the same time, growth has taken a hit from troubles in the banking sector that are likely to infect the economy ahead. Those two issues – the Fed’s rate hiking cycle and an expected credit crunch ahead – are expected to tilt the economy into recession later this year.
Consumers, though, have remained resilient and are expected to use excess savings and purchasing power to make the economic contraction short and shallow. A strong jobs market, with an unemployment rate at 3.5%, also is expected to underpin growth. More

Two years ago, high inflation was about supply shortages and pricier goods. Then it was about war in Ukraine and energy. These days, services are key.America is now two years into abnormally high inflation — and while the nation appears to be past the worst phase of the biggest spike in price increases in half a century, the road back to normal is a long and uncertain one.The pop in prices over the 24 months that ended in March eroded wage gains, burdened consumers and spurred a Federal Reserve response that has the potential to cause a recession.What generated the painful inflation, and what comes next? A look through the data reveals a situation that arose from pandemic disruptions and the government’s response, was worsened by the war in Ukraine and is now cooling as supply problems clear up and the economy slows. But it also illustrates that U.S. inflation today is drastically different from the price increases that first appeared in 2021, driven by stubborn price increases for services like airfare and child care instead of by the cost of goods.Fresh wage and price data set for release on Friday are expected to show continued evidence of slow and steady moderation in March. Now Fed officials must judge whether the cool-down is happening fast enough to assure them that inflation will promptly return to normal — a focus when the central bank releases its next interest rate decision on Wednesday.Inflation Is Slowly Coming DownYear-over-year percentage change in the Consumer Price Index

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure IndexBy The New York TimesThe Fed aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time using the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, which will be released on Friday. That figure pulls some of its data from the Consumer Price Index report, which was released two weeks ago and offered a clear picture of the recent inflation trajectory.Before the pandemic, inflation hovered around 2 percent as measured by the overall Consumer Price Index and by a “core” measure that strips out food and fuel prices to get a clearer sense of the underlying trend. It dropped sharply at the pandemic’s start in early 2020 as people stayed home and stopped spending money, then rebounded starting in March 2021.Some of that initial pop was due to a “base effect.” Fresh inflation data were being measured against pandemic-depressed numbers from the year before, which made the new figures look elevated. But by the end of summer 2021, it was clear that something more fundamental was happening with prices.Demand for goods was unusually high: Families had more money than usual after months at home and repeated stimulus checks, and they were spending it on cars, couches and deck furniture. At the same time, the pandemic had shut down many factories, limiting how much supply the world’s companies could churn out. Shipping costs surged, goods shortages mounted, and the prices of physical purchases from appliances to cars jumped.Higher Prices for Services Are Now Driving InflationBreakdown of the inflation rate, by category

Note: The services category excludes energy services, and the goods category excludes food and energy goods.Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; New York Times analysisBy The New York TimesBy late 2021, a second trend was also getting started. Services costs, which include nonphysical purchases like tutoring and tax preparation, had begun to climb quickly.As with goods prices, that tied back to the strong demand. Because households were in good spending shape, landlords, child care providers and restaurants could charge more without losing customers.Across the economy, firms seized the moment to pad their bottom lines; profit margins soared in late 2021 before moderating late last year.Businesses were also covering their growing costs. Wages had started to climb more quickly than usual, which meant that corporate labor bills were swelling.Pay Has Climbed Quickly, but Not as Fast as PricesYear-over-year percentage change in the Employment Cost Index, a measure of labor costs, and the Consumer Price Index, a measure of living costs

Note: The Consumer Price Index is reported monthly. The Employment Cost Index is reported quarterly and is as of Q4 2022. Early 2023 data is a Goldman Sachs forecast.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesFed officials had expected goods shortages to fade, but the combination of faster inflation for services and accelerating wage growth captured their attention.Even if pay gains had not been the original cause of inflation, policymakers were concerned that it would be difficult for price increases to return to a normal pace with pay rates rising briskly. Companies, they thought, would keep raising prices to pass on those labor expenses.Worried central bankers started raising interest rates in March 2022 to hit the brakes on growth by making it more expensive to borrow to buy a car or house or expand a business. The goal was to slow the labor market and make it harder for firms to raise prices. In just over a year, they lifted rates to nearly 5 percent — the fastest adjustment since the 1980s.Yet in early 2022, Fed policy started fighting yet another force stoking inflation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that February caused food and fuel prices to surge. Between that and the cost increases in goods and services, overall inflation reached its highest peak since the 1980s: about 9 percent in July.In the months since, inflation has slowed as cost increases for energy and goods have cooled. But food prices are still climbing swiftly, and — crucially — cost increases in services remain rapid.In fact, services prices are now the very center of the inflation story.They could soon start to fade in one key area. Housing costs have been picking up quickly for months, but rent increases have recently slowed in real-time private sector data. That is expected to feed into official inflation numbers by later this year.That has left policymakers focused on other services, which span an array of purchases including medical care, car repairs and many vacation expenses. How quickly those prices — often called “core services ex-housing” — can retreat will determine whether and when inflation can return to normal.Excluding Housing Costs, Prices of Core Services Are RisingYear-over-year percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for services, stripping out housing and energy costs

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; New York Times analysisBy The New York TimesNow, Fed officials will have to assess whether the economy is poised to slow enough to bring down the cost of those critical services.Between the central bank’s rate moves and recent banking turmoil, some officials think that it may be. Policymakers projected in March that they would raise interest rates just once more in 2023, a move that is widely expected at their meeting next week.But market watchers will listen intently when Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, gives his postmeeting news conference. He could offer hints at whether officials think the inflation saga is heading for a speedy conclusion — or another chapter.Ben Casselman More

The gross domestic product increased for the third straight quarter as consumer spending remained robust despite higher interest rates.Higher interest rates took a toll on the U.S. economy in early 2023, but free-spending consumers are keeping a recession at bay, at least for now.Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, rose at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. That was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the last three months of 2022 but nonetheless represented a third straight quarter of growth after output contracted in the first half of last year.The figures are preliminary and will be revised at least twice as more complete data becomes available.Growth in the first quarter was dragged down by weakness in housing and business investment, both of which are heavily influenced by interest rates. The Federal Reserve has raised rates by nearly five percentage points since early last year in an effort to tamp down inflation.Consumers, however, have proved resilient in the face of both rising prices and higher borrowing costs. Inflation-adjusted spending rose at a 3.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter, up from 1 percent in the prior period. Consumers have been buoyed by a strong job market and rising wages, which have helped offset high prices.Spending slowed as the quarter progressed, however, and forecasters warn that it could weaken further amid headlines about layoffs, bank failures and warnings of a possible recession.“Consumer spending is still moving up, but I don’t know how long that can last,” said Ben Herzon, an economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “Confidence is weak and has been weakening. You’ve got to wonder, will that soon translate into a pullback in spending?”A gradual slowdown would be welcomed by Fed policymakers, who have been trying to cool off the economy enough to bring down inflation, but not by so much that it leads to widespread layoffs and unemployment.“It’s not a free fall,” said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board, a business group. “It’s a controlled descent, and that’s what the Fed is trying to achieve with higher interest rates.” More

The bank is sitting on big losses and paying more to borrow money than it is making on its loans to homeowners and businesses.First Republic Bank is sliding dangerously into a financial maelstrom, one from which an exit appears increasingly difficult.Hardly a household name until a few weeks ago, First Republic is now a top concern for investors and bankers on Wall Street and officials in Washington. The likeliest outcome for the bank, people close to the situation said, would need to involve the federal government, alone or in some combination with a private investor.While the bank, with 88 branches focused mostly on the coasts, is still open for business, no one connected to it, including its executives and some board members, would say how much longer it could exist in its current form.First Republic, based in San Francisco, has been widely seen as the most in-danger bank since Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed last month. Like Silicon Valley Bank, it catered to the well-off — a group of customers able to pull their money en masse — and amassed a hoard of loans and assets whose value has suffered in an era of rising interest rates.Yet while SVB and Signature survived just days under pressure, First Republic has neither fallen nor thrived. It has withstood a deposit flight and a cratering stock price. Every attempt by the bank’s executives and advisers to project confidence appears to have had the opposite effect.The bank’s founder and executive chairman, Jim Herbert, until recently one of the more admired figures in the industry, has disappeared from public view. On March 13, Jim Cramer, the CNBC host, said on the air that Mr. Herbert had told him that the bank was doing “business as usual,” and that there were “not any sizable number of people wanting their money.”That was belied by the bank’s earnings report this week, which stated that “First Republic began experiencing unprecedented deposit outflows” on March 10.Neither Mr. Herbert nor the bank’s representatives would comment Wednesday, as First Republic’s stock continued a harrowing slide, dropping about 30 percent to close the day at just $5.69 — down from about $150 a year earlier. On Tuesday, the stock plummeted 49 percent. The company is now worth a little more than $1 billion, or about one-twentieth its valuation before the banking turmoil began in March.In what has become a disquieting pattern, the New York Stock Exchange halted trading in the shares 16 times on Wednesday because volatility thresholds were triggered.

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

First Republic Bank’s share price
Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesStock prices are always an imperfect measure of a lender’s health, and there are strict rules about what types of entities can acquire a bank. Still, First Republic’s stock slide means that its branches and $103 billion in deposits could be bought for, theoretically, an amount less than the market capitalization of Portillo’s, the Chicago-area hot dog purveyor. Of course, any company that buys First Republic would be taking on multibillion-dollar losses on its loan portfolio and assets.The bank is more likely to fall into the hands of the government. That outcome would likely wipe out shareholders and put the bank’s fate in the hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.The F.D.I.C. by its own rules guarantees that deposit accounts only up to $250,000 will be made whole, though in practice — and in the case of SVB and Signature — it can make accounts of all sizes whole if several top government officials invoke a special legal provision. Of First Republic’s remaining deposits, roughly half, or nearly $50 billion, were over the insured threshold as of March 31, including the $30 billion deposited by big banks in March.In conversations with industry and government officials, First Republic’s advisers have proposed various restructuring solutions that would involve the government, in one form or another, according to people familiar with the matter. The government could seek to minimize a buyer’s financial risk, the people said, asking not to be identified.Thus far, the Biden administration and Federal Reserve appear to have demurred. Policy experts have said officials would find it more difficult to intervene to save First Republic because of restrictions Congress enacted after the 2008 financial crisis.As a result, six weeks of efforts by First Republic and its advisers to sell all or part of its business have not resulted in a viable plan to save the bank — at least thus far.The state of affairs became plain after the close of trading on Monday, when First Republic announced first-quarter results that showed that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits since early March. Those withdrawals were slightly ameliorated by the coordinated emergency move of 11 large U.S. banks to temporarily deposit $30 billion into First Republic.To plug the hole, First Republic borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Fed and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans. While the move helped keep the bank going, it essentially undermined its business model, replacing relatively cheap deposits with more expensive loans.The bank is paying more in interest to the government on that new debt than it is earning on its long-term investments, which include mortgage loans to its well-heeled customers on the coasts, funding for real estate projects and the like.One of the biggest parts of the bank’s business was offering large home loans with attractive interest rates to affluent people. And unlike other banks that make a lot of mortgages, First Republic kept many of those loans rather than packaging them into mortgage-backed securities and selling them to investors. At the end of December, the bank had nearly $103 billion in home loans on its books, up from $80 billion a year earlier.But most of those loans were made when the mortgage interest rates were much lower than they are today. That means those loans are worth a lot less, and anybody looking to buy First Republic would be taking on those losses.It is not clear what First Republic can realistically do to make itself or its assets more attractive to a buyer.Among the only tangible changes that the bank has committed to is cutting as much as 25 percent of its staff and slashing executive compensation by an unspecified amount. On its earnings call, First Republic’s executives declined to take questions and spoke for just 12 minutes. More

The bank’s shares fell by about 50 percent on Tuesday, a day after it said customers had pulled $100 billion in deposits in the first quarter.First Republic Bank’s stock closed down 50 percent Tuesday, a day after a troubling earnings report and a conference call with analysts in which the company’s executives refused questions. The speed of the decline set off a series of volatility-induced trading halts by the New York Stock Exchange.On Monday, after the close of regular stock trading, First Republic released results that showed just how perilous the bank’s future had become since mid-March following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. First Republic said its clients pulled $102 billion in deposits in the first quarter — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year.The bank received a temporary $30 billion lifeline last month from the nation’s biggest banks to help shore up its business. Those banks, however, can withdraw their deposits as soon as July. In the first quarter, First Republic also borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Federal Reserve and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans.First Republic is considered the most vulnerable regional bank after the banking crisis in March. What happens to it could also affect investors’ confidence in other regional banks and the financial system more broadly.The bank’s executives did little to establish confidence during its conference call, offering just 12 minutes of prepared remarks. The bank also said on Monday that it would cut as much as a quarter of its work force, and slash executive compensation by an unspecified sum.“This is a trust issue, as it is for any bank, and when trust is lost, money will flee,” Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, wrote in an email.An analyst at Wolfe Research, Bill Carcache, laid out what he called “the long list of questions we weren’t allowed to ask” in a research note on Tuesday. Among them: How can the bank survive without raising new money, and how can it continue to provide attentive customer service — a staple of its reputation among wealthy clients — while cutting the very staff who provide it?The bank’s options to save itself absent a government seizure or intervention are limited and challenging. No buyer has emerged for the bank in its entirety. Any bank or investor group interested in taking over the bank would have to take on First Republic’s loan portfolio, which could saddle the buyer with billions of dollars in losses based on the recent interest rate moves. The bank is also difficult to sell off in pieces because its customers use many different services like checking accounts, mortgages and wealth management.There are no easy solutions for First Republic’s situation, said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School. “If there were attractive options, they would have pursued them already,” Ms. Judge explained.The Fed can no longer take on some of a bank’s financial risk to ease a takeover in the way it did in 2008, because reforms after the financial crisis changed its powers. And while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation might be able to help in some way, that would most likely involve failing the bank and invoking a “systemic risk exception,” which would require sign-off by officials across several agencies, Ms. Judge said.Yet if the bank does fail, the government will have to decide whether to protect its uninsured depositors, which could also be a tough call, she said.“There’s really no easy answer,” Ms. Judge said.Representatives for the Fed and the F.D.I.C. declined to comment.Shares of other banks also fell on Tuesday, though not nearly as much as First Republic. The KBW Bank Index, a proxy for the industry, closed down about 3.5 percent.Separately, the Fed said on Tuesday that its review of the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank will be released at 11 a.m. on Friday.Rob Copeland More

A banking crisis that erupted less than two months ago now appears to be less a major broadside to the U.S. economy than a slow bleed.
“The small banks are going to be lending less. That’s a credit hit on Middle America, on Main Street,” said Steven Blitz, chief U.S. economist at TS Lombard.
The reading on first-quarter economic growth is expected to be largely positive despite the banking problems.
Where things go from here depends greatly on the consumers who account for more than two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity.

People walk by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on February 14, 2023 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

A banking crisis that erupted less than two months ago now appears to be less a major broadside to the U.S. economy than a slow bleed that will seep its way through and act as a potential catalyst for a much-anticipated recession later this year.
As banks report the impact that a run on deposits has had on their operations, the picture is a mixed one: Larger institutions like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America sustained far less of a hit, while smaller counterparts such as First Republic face a much tougher slog and a fight for survival.

That means the money pipeline to Wall Street remains mostly alive and well while the situation on Main Street is much more in flux.
“The small banks are going to be lending less. That’s a credit hit on Middle America, on Main Street,” said Steven Blitz, chief U.S. economist at TS Lombard. “That’s negative for growth.”
How negative will come to light both in the approaching days and months months as data flows through.
First Republic, a regional lender seen as a bellwether for how hard the deposit crunch will hit the sector, posted earnings that beat expectations but reflected a struggling company otherwise.
Bank earnings largely have been decent for the first quarter, but the sector’s future is uncertain. Stocks have been under pressure, with the SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE) off more than 3% in Tuesday afternoon trading.

“Rather than bringing concerning new information, this week’s earnings are confirming that the banking stress stabilized by the end of March and was contained at a limit set of banks,” Citigroup global economist Robert Sockin said in a client note. “That’s about the best macro outcome that could have been hoped for when stresses emerged last month.”

Watching growth ahead

In the immediate future, the reading on first-quarter economic growth is expected to be largely positive despite the banking problems.
When the Commerce Department releases its initial estimate on gross domestic product gains for the first three months of the year, it’s expected to show an increase of 2%, according to the Dow Jones estimate. The Atlanta Fed’s data tracker is projecting an even better gain of 2.5%.
That growth, though, isn’t expected to last, due primarily to two interconnected factors: the Federal Reserve interest rate hikes aimed purposely at cooling the economy and bringing down inflation, and the constraints on small-bank lending. First Republic, for one, reported that it suffered a more than 40% decline in deposits, part of a $563 billion drawdown this year among U.S. banks that will make it tougher to lend.
Yet Blitz and many of his colleagues still expect any recession to be shallow and short-lived.

“Everything keeps telling me that. Can you have a recession that is not led by autos and housing? Yes, you can. It’s a recession created by a loss of assets, a loss of income and that eventually flows through to everything,” he said. “Again, it’s a mild recession. A 2008-2009 recession occurs every 40 years. It’s not a 10-year event.”
In fact, the most recent recession was just two years ago in the early days of the Covid crisis. The downturn was historically steep and short, ended by an equally unprecedented fusillade of fiscal and monetary stimulus that continues to flow through the economy.
Consumer spending has seemed to hold up fairly well in the face of the banking crisis, with Citigroup estimating excess savings of about $1 trillion still available. However, delinquency rates and balances are both rising: Moody’s reported Tuesday that credit card charge-offs were 2.6% in the first quarter, rising by 0.57% from the fourth quarter of 2022, while balances soared 20.1% on an annual basis.
Personal savings rates also have tumbled, falling from 13.4% in 2021 to 4.6% in February.

But the most comprehensive report released so far that takes into account the period when Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were shuttered indicated that the damage has been confined. The Federal Reserve’s periodic “Beige Book” report released, April 19, indicated only that lending and demand for loans “generally declined” and standards tightened “amid increased uncertainty and concerns about liquidity.”
“The fallout from the crisis seems less serious than I had expected just a few weeks ago,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. The Fed report “was a lot less hair-on-fire than I had expected. [The banking situation] is a headwind, but it’s not a gale-force headwind, it’s just kind of a nuisance.”

It’s all about the consumer

Where things go from here depends greatly on the consumers who account for more than two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity.
While the demand for services is catching up to pre-pandemic levels, cracks are forming. Along with the rise in credit card balances and delinquencies is likely to come the further obstacle of tightening credit standards, both by necessity and through an increased likelihood of tougher regulation.
Lower-income consumers have been facing pressure for years as the share of wealth held by the top 1% of earners has continued to climb, up from 29.7% when Covid hit to 31.9% as of mid-2022, according to the most recent Fed data available.

“Before any of this really started unfolding in early March, you were already starting to see signs of contraction and reining in of credit,” said Jim Baird, chief investment officer at Plante Moran Financial Advisors. “You’re seeing reduced demand for credit as consumers and businesses start to pull in the deck chairs.”
Baird, though, also sees chances slim for a steep recession.
“When you look at how all the forward-looking data lines up, it’s hard to envision how we sidestep at least a minor recession,” he said. “The real question is how far can the strength of the labor economy and still-significant cash reserves that many households have propel consumers forward and keep the economy on track.” More

The Biden administration announced its strategy for the National Semiconductor Technology Center, a string of facilities aimed at propelling U.S. innovation.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration outlined plans on Tuesday to propel research on the type of cutting-edge microchips needed to power computers, cars and other devices, saying it would establish a new national organization with locations in various parts of the United States.The Commerce Department, which is in charge of the administration’s efforts to revitalize the American chip industry, said its new National Semiconductor Technology Center would bring together companies, universities and others to collaborate on next-generation chip technology. The organization would include a string of research centers, the locations of which have yet to be chosen, and aim to be operational by the end of this year.The organization would help “regain America’s leadership in research and development and technologies of the future, and importantly, make sure we stay there for decades to come,” Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said in a briefing Monday.“It’s a place where industry and academia and start-ups and investors can come together to solve the biggest, grandest challenges and set priorities,” she added.The plans are part of the Biden administration’s effort to reinvigorate semiconductor manufacturing and ensure that the United States has a steady supply of chips necessary to feed its factories and support its national defense. The Commerce Department has been charged with doling out $50 billion to revitalize the industry, including $11 billion devoted to research and development.The technology center is expected to be central to that effort. Some of its locations would be capable of end-to-end manufacturing of new chip designs, while others would focus on experimenting with new materials and equipment, or with new ways of putting chips together to make them more powerful, Ms. Raimondo said.Laurie Giandomenico, the vice president and chief acceleration officer of MITRE, a nonprofit organization that operates federally funded research centers, called the $11 billion investment by the United States “pretty significant,” given that the semiconductor industry has in past years spent about $70 billion on research and development globally.The challenge, she said, would be to ensure that the money was spent to encourage collaborative research to solve the industry’s biggest problems, not the “siloed innovation” now carried out by chip firms that carefully guard their creations from competitors.“It should be on areas that no one company can solve alone,” she said.Companies, universities, lawmakers and local governments have been lobbying the administration to set up an outpost of the new organization in their area. Ms. Raimondo emphasized that the organization would be an independent “trusted” player, with board members appointed by a separate selection committee and strict controls for protecting intellectual property.One of the organization’s primary goals, Ms. Raimondo said, would be making it easier and less expensive for start-ups and other new entrants to develop and commercialize new chip technologies.“We want to cut in half the projected cost of moving a new chip from concept to commercialization over the next decade,” she said.Chris Miller, the author of “Chip War,” which chronicles the industry’s development, said it was comparatively easy for a researcher to develop a new idea for a chip in a laboratory. But given the high cost of producing chips, researchers can have a hard time getting their inventions manufactured.Designing an advanced chip, which may have tens of billions of transistors, can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, according to analysts. The latest systems for defining the smallest circuitry on wafers cost more than $100 million each, while the new factories called “fabs” that make advanced chips can cost $10 billion to $20 billion.“The big fabs are interested in producing 100 million chips for an iPhone, not 10 chips for a professor at M.I.T.,” Mr. Miller said.Venture capitalists also often shy away from investing in chip start-ups because they require more initial funding than other kinds of tech companies and more time to generate a return on that investment.To help address some of these issues, the government’s technology center will establish an investment fund to support start-ups, and provide manufacturing facilities for small players to experiment with new technologies.“I see a world where the U.S. can actually revitalize this microelectronics industry because we could bring down the costs of doing a chip start-up by a factor of five to a factor of ten,” said Gilman Louie, a tech investor and chief executive of a nonprofit investment organization called America’s Frontier Fund.The center’s research priorities are expected to be refined in the coming months. But the Commerce Department specified several areas it would focus on, including advancing the technology for analyzing the microscopic components of chips and setting technical standards for new kinds of chip packaging.As progress slows in squeezing ever-smaller transistors onto each piece of silicon, many companies are now breaking up big products into smaller “chiplets” that are placed side by side or stacked on top of one another.The Commerce Department said that setting new standards for these practices would pave the way for the creation of marketplaces in which companies can assemble new products using chiplets from multiple vendors. More