Evelyn Reynolds

The company moved to contain the labor push after it took off nationally. Now, with strikes and other tactics, organizers seek to regain momentum.For much of the summer, employees reliably turned up at a Starbucks near Boston University. But instead of going inside to serve coffee, they sat outside in lawn chairs — as part of a strike over what they said was retaliation for unionizing.When passers-by inquired how long the strike would last, workers responded, “As long as it has to.” Ultimately, they shut the store for more than two months, until satisfied that Starbucks would not impose new scheduling requirements in union stores that they said would force some of them to quit. Starbucks said it had told union stores for weeks that there would be no such change and denied retaliating against union supporters.The walkout was one of dozens at unionized Starbucks locations in recent months, meant partly to re-energize a labor organizing effort whose momentum has stalled since the spring and has so far yielded no contract.When workers at three Buffalo-area locations filed for union elections in August 2021, it appeared to catch the company off guard. The campaign spread rapidly, unionizing roughly 250 stores.But election filings dropped from about 70 in March to under 10 in August, ushering in a second phase of the campaign: an uneasy stalemate in which organizers struggled to sign up new stores even as the company was hard-pressed to reverse their gains.“In the context of the size of the organization as a whole, it’s a drop in the bucket,” said David Pryzbylski, a partner at the management-side firm Barnes & Thornburg, alluding to the company’s 9,000 corporate-owned locations. But he added: “Anyone who thinks it’s going back anywhere close to zero is foolish. It’s safe to assume they’ll have at least hundreds of cafes unionized going forward.”That has led to a third phase of the campaign, in which the union, Workers United, has stepped up efforts to win concessions from the company through collective bargaining, which is scheduled for the coming weeks.Some of the concessions sought by the union, like a commitment by the company to stay neutral in future elections, could make it easier for workers to unionize. Others, like paid leave tied to a pandemic, which the company has discontinued, could encourage more workers to join the union by showing it can deliver concrete benefits.But to win such concessions and greatly expand the union’s reach, labor experts say, supporters will almost certainly have to increase pressure on the company, through strikes or other means. And that has heightened the importance of a number of cities — in addition to Boston and Buffalo, places like Eugene, Ore.; Albany, N.Y.; and Ann Arbor, Mich. — where there are several unionized stores, dozens of workers willing to coordinate their actions and a community that is largely sympathetic.“Massing forces in a particular geographic region and attempting to spread the conflagration there has the potential to work,” said Peter Olney, a former organizing director of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. “I would focus on those metro areas.”One architect of the union’s strategy in Boston is a recent law school graduate named Kylah Clay, who works as a barista at a unionized store.On a blistering afternoon in August, Ms. Clay, wearing a tank top and green army pants, sat outside the Boston University store holding a stack of checks that workers came to collect, courtesy of the union’s Starbucks strike fund.In between, she recalled how she and a colleague had recently ambushed their district manager at another store after he had become slow to respond to their calls and text messages. “We went up to the district manager and started making our demands,” Ms. Clay said. As Ms. Clay tells it, she knew almost nothing about unions before last year, when company officials began pouring into Buffalo after the campaign had gone public. Among them was Howard Schultz, who was between tours as chief executive. “When Buffalo filed, Howard should have kept his mouth shut,” she said. “I would have never gotten involved.”Employees at her store, where she had first worked during law school, and another Boston-area store filed for union elections in December and won their votes in April. Since then, more than 15 stores in New England have also unionized, most of them with her help. Nationwide, the union has won about 250 out of just over 300 votes.But adding to the total has become more difficult. “Stores that are easy to organize, that had people in them who were natural leaders, who were excited about it — those have filed already,” said Brick Zurek, a former Starbucks employee in Chicago who helped organize workers there.Adjustments in the way that Starbucks treats workers have also appeared to play a role. During the early phase of the union campaign, the company generally did not fire workers involved in organizing. But this year, Starbucks began to do so more regularly — like when it fired seven workers in Memphis who were recently reinstated by a federal judge.The National Labor Relations Board issued multiple complaints against Starbucks for firing union supporters, and the agency’s judges have ruled against the company in a few cases so far.Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, denied that the company had unlawfully forced out workers, saying any increase in disciplinary action against union supporters reflected an increase in violations.In May, the company announced wage increases and new benefits, like faster sick leave accrual, that would apply only to employees of nonunion stores or those not in the process of organizing.Kylah Clay, a recent law school graduate, works at a unionized Starbucks in Boston, and she leads a committee that has helped other stores in New England organize.Tony Luong for The New York TimesJulie Langevin, a worker involved in organizing a Starbucks store near Boston that voted against the union, said several longtime employees in her store relied on Starbucks for health care and had become alarmed that unionized workers might miss out on benefits.“They were extremely concerned that they would actually lose health insurance,” Ms. Langevin said.The labor board has issued a complaint against the company for withholding new benefits and wage increases from unionized employees. Starbucks has said it is forbidden by federal law from adding certain benefits unilaterally in unionized stores.Workers United is an established union with more than 70,000 members across the United States and Canada, but has often relied on Starbucks workers to organize their own stores and plan their own labor actions.Ms. Clay leads a committee that helps New England stores organize, sending out union “starter kits” that include Starbucks Workers United T-shirts and union cards with envelopes addressed to the labor relations board. “I have one closet with 300 shirts in it,” she said in August.She also leads the region’s collective action committee, which came about after workers at a Boston-area store staged a daylong strike over a leaky roof in late May. (Starbucks said the leak had been repaired within a business day.)Six weeks later, as the committee was contemplating a series of daylong walkouts in response to the company’s withholding of new benefits from union stores, workers at the store near Boston University decided to strike. Spencer Costigan and Nora Rossi, two union leaders at the store, which is at 874 Commonwealth Avenue, said workers were fed up with what they described as retaliation for unionizing and the company’s refusal to bargain.“They texted me out of the blue and said, ‘I think we’re ready to do it,’” Ms. Clay said. “Not as many stores were interested at the time. But then they saw 874 and were like, ‘Ah, OK.’” Workers eventually waged strikes that closed five stores for one week; the strike at 874 Commonwealth sprawled across nine weeks.The actions seemed to build support for their cause. The Boston City Council passed a resolution backing the strikers, and politicians, activists, students and other union members joined the picket line at all hours of the day and night.Ms. Clay also leads the region’s collective action committee.Tony Luong for The New York TimesWorkers at the Boston University store called off the strike in late September, a few days after Starbucks posted an announcement to baristas saying stores that had unionized by early July would not be subject to a requirement that workers be available to work at least 18 hours a week. (The requirement would take effect at nonunion stores.)Ms. Rossi said that, before the workers went on strike in mid-July, their manager had pressured some union supporters to increase their availability under the new rule or leave their jobs. Other unionized workers in Massachusetts made similar complaints on a messaging app as recently as early September.Mr. Borges, the Starbucks spokesman, said the rule had never applied to union stores, citing communications to managers in July and a tweet by the Starbucks union the same month. He emphasized that the company had not negotiated with the striking workers or offered them concessions.A few days after the strike ended, Starbucks began sending letters to worker representatives at unionized stores proposing a window for bargaining in October. The union’s president, Lynne Fox, had sought to bargain on a regional or national scale as the union prepared proposals with input from thousands of workers, but the union has accepted the store-by-store approach preferred by the company. Starbucks has nonetheless continued to portray the union as resistant to store-level bargaining.The outcome of the negotiations could reverberate beyond Starbucks. In an email that Geico sent to employees in August, after some workers there began union organizing, the company emphasized that Starbucks had recently offered wage and benefit increases only to nonunion stores. Other large employers are surely watching closely as well.Ms. Clay, for one, believes the stakes are high enough that she has altered her career plans, declining a job in the local public defender’s office so she can stay at Starbucks and push for a contract.“There was some grieving to it — I spent the last five years trying to do that job,” she said. “But you have to go where the wind takes you.” More

The U.S. budget deficit was sliced in half for fiscal 2022, the biggest drop in history following two years of huge Covid-related spending.
The shortfall declined to $1.375 trillion, compared to the 2021 deficit of $2.776 trillion. Revenue posted easily the highest one-year total on record.
The deficit decline would have been steeper had it not been for the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program.

The U.S. budget deficit was sliced in half for fiscal 2022, the biggest drop in history following two years of huge Covid-related spending.
Though still large in historical terms, the budget shortfall declined to $1.375 trillion, compared to the 2021 deficit of $2.776 trillion.

The decline would have been steeper had it not been for the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program. Education spending totaled $639.4 billion for the fiscal year, $408 billion higher than estimated.
The 2022 fiscal year saw $4.896 trillion in revenue against $6.272 trillion in outlays. The outlays number represented about a $550 billion decline in spending but an $850 billion increase in revenue. The revenue total is by far the highest ever for the U.S. government.
Deficits in the previous two years soared as Congress shelled out massive sums to combat the pandemic.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen listens to a reporter’s question at a news conference during the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, U.S., October 14, 2022. 
Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters

The shortfall hit a record $3.13 trillion in 2020 due to more than $5 trillion in CARES Act spending and other outlays. In 2019, the deficit was $983.6 billion. Prior to 2020, the highest deficit ever was $1.41 trillion in 2009 as the financial crisis came to a close. The U.S. briefly ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001.
In fiscal 2021, legislators passed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion spending package that the White House said helped get the nation through a severe health and economic crisis, but which critics say was unnecessary and helped fuel the highest inflation rate in more than 40 years.

President Joe Biden, however, placed the deficit blame on Republicans for approving the 2017 tax cut bill.
“The federal deficit went up every single year in the Trump administration — every single year he was president,” he said. “It went up before the pandemic. It went up during the pandemic. It went up every single year on his watch, Republican’s watch.”
Biden called the GOP fiscal approach “mega-MAGA trickle down” that he defined as “the kind of policies that have failed the country before and it’ll fail it again.”
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the budget statement released Friday “provides further evidence of our historic economic recovery, driven by our vaccination effort and the American Rescue Plan.”
Yellen added that the results also showed Biden’s “commitment to strengthening our nation’s fiscal health.”
Earlier this year, the White House pushed through the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at a variety of areas including reducing medical costs, boosting clean energy and reforming the tax code. However, inflation has continued to climb, and administration officials have stressed that the Federal Reserve’s primary role in fighting price increases is through interest rate hikes.
—CNBC’s Emma Kinery contributed reporting.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

LONDON — Britain’s economy has been buffeted by the effects of Brexit, the war in Ukraine and, most recently, the government’s dramatic reversal on a series of planned tax cuts that led to the resignation of Prime Minister Liz Truss. But for Scotland’s whisky producers, business is booming, and the British pound’s precipitous decline against major currencies is providing an extra boost, making whisky more affordable for buyers outside of Britain.“The currency has had a major effect — there’s no question about that,” said John Stirling, the co-founder of Arbikie Distillery in Scotland.The volume of whisky exports from Britain has grown over the past two years, including a 10.5 percent increase during the 12 months ending in July over the same period the year before, according to government data.At the Arbikie Distillery. Global demand for whisky has been growing.The surge in exports, driven by higher demand from the United States and the Asia-Pacific region, comes as 20 distilleries have opened in Scotland in the past six years, bringing the total number of distilleries there to 141.As demand for Scotch rises, the pound is trading near historically weak levels. Last month, the pound briefly sank to $1.035, a record low against the dollar in response to Ms. Truss’s economic overhaul, which included £45 billion ($50 billion) in unfunded tax cuts, spooking investors. Her government has since scrapped almost all of the planned cuts, but the pound’s decline has been part of a larger downward trend against major currencies, including those used in the United States, France, Taiwan, India, Singapore and China, the top destinations for Scotch. In the year ending in July, 18 percent of whisky exports, by value, went to the United States, according to government data.Britain is also facing systemic economic issues, such as weak productivity, low pay growth, a shortage of workers and unsteady business investment since the country voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. On Wednesday, the government reported that the country’s consumer prices had risen 10.1 percent in the year through September, driven in part by food prices that recorded their largest increase in more than 40 years.Mr. Perez-Solar with one of the casks at Arbikie Distillery. Twenty distilleries have opened in Scotland in the past six years.With high inflation expected to weigh on consumer spending and business investment, the International Monetary Fund predicted the British economy would go from 3.6 percent growth this year to a 0.3 percent contraction next year.But whisky companies like James Eadie have been able to weather the economic headwinds.“Overall if you look at the last two to three years, we’ve just been going through an incredibly buoyant time,” Rupert Patrick, the chief executive of James Eadie, said. “We’ve all been slightly scratching our heads saying, I wonder why it is so good at the moment.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet he thinks the global economic decline can last until the spring of 2024.
Musk becomes the latest corporate titan to express reservations about the economy, joining Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk attends the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, China August 29, 2019.
Aly Song | Reuters

Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk thinks the global economic decline can last for another year and a half.
In a Twitter exchange early Friday morning Eastern time, the mercurial electric car executive and world’s richest man said a recession could continue “until spring of ’24.”

The remarks came in response to a tweet from Shibetoshi Nakamoto, the online name for Dogecoin co-creator Billy Markus, who noted that current coronavirus numbers “are actually pretty low. i [sic] guess all we have to worry about now is the impending global recession and nuclear apocalypse.”
“It sure would be nice to have one year without a horrible global event,” Musk replied.
Tesla Owners Silicon Valley, a Twitter account with nearly 600,000 followers, then asked Musk how long he thought the recession would last, to which he replied, “Just guessing, but probably until spring of ’24.”
Global GDP grew 6% in 2021 but is expected to decelerate to 3.2% this year and 2.7% in 2023, according to the International Monetary Fund. That would mark the weakest pace of growth since 2021 outside of the financial crisis in 2008 and the brief plunge in the early days of the Covid pandemic. The Federal Reserve projects GDP in the U.S. to grow just 0.2% this year and 1.2% in 2023.
Musk becomes the latest corporate titan to express reservations about the economy.

In a tweet Wednesday, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said it’s time to “batten down the hatches” in preparation for rough economic waters ahead. That tweet accompanied a video of Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, who said in a CNBC interview that he thinks there’s a “good chance” of a recession in the U.S.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon also has been warning of economic turmoil ahead.
Musk’s comment also came amid a rough week for Tesla stock as the automaker missed revenue estimates and cautioned about a potential delivery shortfall this year.
During the analyst call, he expressed more confidence in the U.S. economy than other parts of the world. He did note the impact that interest rate increases are having on the economy.
“The U.S. actually is in – North America’s in pretty good health,” he said. “A little bit of that is raising interest rates more than they should, but I think they’ll eventually realize that and bring back down, I think.”
However, he said China is in “quite a burst of a recession of sorts” driven by the real estate market, while Europe “has a recession of sorts, driven by energy.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

There are more than 62 million Hispanic or Latino people in the U.S., according to the 2020 Census. That’s nearly 19% of the total population.
Nevertheless, Latinos made up 4% of large U.S. companies’ most senior executives, according to the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility.
Venture capital firms are emerging as a way for Latino investors to direct resources back to their communities and uplift small businesses.

U.S Treasury yields rose further on Friday as investors digested the need for further interest rate hikes to curb inflation.
Photo by Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Even though Latinos are the second-largest ethnic group in the U.S., they’re underrepresented across many industries, including finance, which can have long-term effects on the ability to grow wealth.
A group of Latino-led and focused venture capital firms is looking to change that.

There are more than 62 million Hispanic or Latino people in the U.S., according to the 2020 Census. That’s nearly 19% of the total population, second only to non-Hispanic whites. They also represent one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors: In 2019, the total economic output of the group was $2.7 trillion, up from $1.7 trillion in 2010, according to a report from the Latino Donor Collaborative.

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

But in 2021, Latinos made up only 4% of large U.S. companies’ most senior executives, per a survey from the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility. And a separate study in 2019 by the CFA Institute found that only 8% of workers in investment management firms were Latino compared to 9% Asian, 5% Black and 84% white.
Similarly, only 2% of venture capital professionals and partner-level professionals at institutional firms are Latino, a study from LatinxVC discovered.
“We’re trying to increase [Latino] venture capitalists within established venture organizations,” said Mariela Salas, the executive director of LatinxVC. “We’re also trying to retain those Latinos that are in institutional and smaller firms.”

The investing gap

Latinos also are less likely to have access to investing. Latino household wealth lags that of white counterparts, and only 26% of Hispanic households have access to an employer-sponsored 401(k) plan, compared to 37% of Black households and half of white ones, the Economic Policy Institute found.  

Lack of access to capital markets makes it harder for Latinos to build meaningful wealth. It also means they’re underrepresented as shareholders of companies if they aren’t holding stocks and that they’re not lending a proportional voice to investing decisions.
“We should be mindful of the connection of finance and the capital markets to the broader economy,” said Rodrigo Garcia, global chief financial officer of Talipot Holdings, an investment management group. “It’s always been a critical piece that we have representation in asset management, in the people who are making decisions on the purchases of stocks, bonds, venture capital private equity and more.”

Latino-focused venture capital

There are several Latino-focused venture capital firms that are working on at least one piece of the puzzle: investing in their communities.
One of those firms is the Boston Impact Initiative, which just launched a $20 million fund focused on investing in entrepreneurs of color.
“We take the earliest risk, we’re funding the teeny-tiny startups that hopefully one day will grow into those companies that become publicly traded and become available in the retail finance sector,” said Betty Francisco, CEO of the Boston Impact Initiative. Those businesses include Synergy Contracting, a women-owned construction company, and Roundhead Brewing, the first Latino-owned craft brewery in Massachusetts.
Another group, Mendoza Ventures, was started in 2016 to address the lack of both women and Latinos writing checks to fund new companies. The Boston-based firm run by Adrian Mendoza has raised $10 million across two funds.
“We give the opportunity to first-time accredited investors, people of color and women to get access to venture capital,” Mendoza said. Accredited investors are individuals or entities that meet specific earned income, net worth or asset thresholds in order to invest in sophisticated or complex securities.
“The majority of wealth in America comes from [mergers and acquisitions] and that comes through venture capital and private equity, so why not be able to diversify on the other end?” Mendoza added.

What investors can do

To be sure, there has been some progress in the financial industry. In 2021, the number of Latino certified financial planners rose by 15% from the prior year. Still, of the overall class of professionals who passed the exam that year, only 2.7% identified as Latino.
Those in the industry see that there’s a benefit to having more people with diverse experiences in all areas of finance.
“You cannot replicate anyone’s lived experience,” said Marcela Pinilla, director of sustainable investing at Zevin Asset Management. She added that as a Latina in finance, she wants to bring more people of color into the industry.
From the perspective of the retail investors themselves, one of the most powerful things they can do is look at what they’re investing in and ask how many of those dollars are going to Latino fund managers, Latino-led funds or even companies with Hispanic leadership.
“I think just the simple question of ‘who is managing my money?'” is important, said Mendoza.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicators index indicated that conditions worsened in September.
While not usually considered a major data point, the LEI, combined with Fed rate hikes, is signaling trouble for the economy.
“We went from a Fed that was way too easy to being irresponsibly tight,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at SMBC Capital Markets.

Employees work at the BMW manufacturing plant in Greer, South Carolina, October 19, 2022.
Bob Strong | Reuters

The economy sent a low-key signal Thursday that a recession is looming — and that the Federal Reserve could be making a policy mistake by continuing to try to slow things down.
According to the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicators index, conditions worsened in September, with the gauge down 0.4% from the month before and off 2.8% for the six-month period.

“The US LEI fell again in September and its persistent downward trajectory in recent months suggests a recession is increasingly likely before year end,” said Ataman Ozyildirim, senior director of economics at the Conference Board. Ozyildrim noted that the weakness in the index was “widespread” as high inflation, a decelerating jobs picture and tighter credit conditions are pressuring the economy.

The index looks forward using 10 metrics that include manufacturing hours worked, jobless claims, building permits, stock market indexes and credit spreads.
Normally, the LEI is not considered a major data point. It’s not necessarily that the measure isn’t a good snapshot of the economy, but more that the data points that go into the index are already known, so there’s not much new information.

A reverse trend for the Fed

However, in the present conditions, the index is of greater significance as it comes at a time when the Federal Reserve is looking to tighten the screws further on growth in an effort to bring down rampant inflation.
That bucks a general historical trend where the Fed is usually loosening policy when the outlook turns darker. However, Fed officials are stressing that they’re far from finished when it comes to raising rates.

“We went from a Fed that was way too easy to being irresponsibly tight,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at SMBC Capital Markets and a former senior economic advisor to then-President Donald Trump. “When this basket is signaling the weakness that it’s showing, what the Fed typically does is not raise rates. But in this case, it’s not only raising rates aggressively, but with a commitment to continue raising rates aggressively.”
LaVorgna’s research shows that in previous downturns in the leading indicators, the Fed was always cutting rates or in pause at the same time. This was the case in early 2020, the financial crisis in 2008 and the recession in the early part of the 21st century — among multiple other economic contractions.

He is concerned that the Fed’s insistence on tightening policy will have even worse outcomes ahead.
“The lags in the policy mean the full effects of Fed actions have not yet been wholly felt. Worryingly, the Fed is not done,” LaVorgna said in a client note.
LaVorgna is not alone in his belief that the Fed is overdoing its efforts to tamp down inflation that continues to run around its highest levels since the early 1980s.
In a recent CNBC interview, Starwood Capital Group CEO Barry Sternlicht said the central bank is risking “unbelievable calamities if they keep up their action, and not just here, all over the globe.” Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in recent days all have expressed concern about a recession ahead, though they have not singled out the Fed’s actions.

Disappointment on inflation

However, Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said Thursday he thinks the central bank still has work to do before it can relax as he said he’s seen a “disappointing lack of progress” in the inflation fight.
“What we really need to see is a sustained decline in a number of inflation indicators before we let up on tightening monetary policy,” said the central bank official, who is a nonvoting member of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee.
Thus far, the inflation data indeed has not been on the Fed’s side.
In addition to the typical headline metrics such as the consumer price index and the Fed’s preferred personal consumption expenditures price index, the Cleveland Fed’s “sticky price” CPI rose 8.5% on an annualized basis in September, up from 7.7% in August. The measure looks at items such as rent, the price of food away from home and recreation costs.
Services inflation has been particularly nagging, rising 7.4% in September on a 12-month basis, up from 6.8% in August, according to Trading Economics. That has happened as the economy has transitioned back to services from high goods demand for much of the Covid era.

Critics, though, say the Fed is following too many backward-looking data points. But policymakers also are fighting a battle against inflation expectations that, while drifting lower now, could turn higher especially now that gasoline prices are rising again.
“The challenge for the Fed is we haven’t seen the true leading indicators be leading in the sense that inflation has still stayed persistently elevated in the face of these leading indicators that would suggest otherwise,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist for LPL Financial.
In Roach’s view, the only bright spot is that financial markets could be close to pricing in all of the damage from higher rates and inflation. Also, the continued decline in the LEI at least could give the Fed reason to slow the pace of its rate hikes. Roach expects the Fed to hike by another 0.75 percentage point in November, then decelerate to a 0.5-point move in December, which is not the market expectation.
“In a nutshell, this report does not likely change anything for the November meeting,” Roach said. “However, you could argue that this does build a case for a downshift in December.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

A government committee issued new guidelines for how it determines penalties for foreign companies that break agreements to protect U.S. national security.WASHINGTON — The federal government on Thursday laid out for the first time how it will determine penalties for foreign companies that break agreements to protect American national security.When some foreign companies buy American firms, they sign agreements with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a group of federal agencies, in order to mitigate national security concerns about the new ownership. The committee, known as CFIUS, has the ability to levy fines, some of them very large, on companies that break those agreements.The new guidelines issued on Thursday give insight into how the committee, which wields considerable power over foreign transactions but is often seen as a black box, makes its decisions. In recent years, CFIUS has forced a Chinese company to sell the dating app Grindr and has made another Chinese firm divest an American maker of hotel management software. The committee is currently negotiating an agreement with TikTok, the popular video app, to resolve concerns posed by its Chinese ownership.According to the new guidelines, the committee could consider more serious penalties when a foreign company’s failure to follow an agreement causes an especially grave risk to national security. CFIUS would also consider whether it took a long time for the committee to learn of a foreign company’s failure to comply with an agreement. And it would take into account whether a company’s failings had been intentional or simply negligent, according to the new guidelines, which are not binding.President Biden has been trying to limit the sway that China and other adversaries have over American companies and consumers. Lawmakers and regulators have grown increasingly concerned that China could use its proximity to major computer chip manufacturers in Asia to influence the supply of a device that is central to a vast array of products, including appliances and automobiles. Many are also worried that Chinese-owned apps like TikTok and WeChat might hand over Americans’ data to Beijing under Chinese laws.This month, the Biden administration issued restrictions that stop Americans from working with Chinese chip companies. Last month, Mr. Biden signed an executive order directing CFIUS to closely scrutinize whether corporate deals involving foreign companies, including from China, would expose the personal data of Americans or involve crucial emerging technologies.The guidelines issued on Thursday do not name any specific foreign country.Paul Rosen, the assistant secretary for investment security at the Treasury Department, which oversees CFIUS, said in a statement that most foreign companies abided by their agreements on national security. But, he said, “those who fail to comply with CFIUS mitigation agreements or other legal obligations will be held accountable.”The committee has been busy in recent years, reviewing hundreds of corporate deal filings in 2021, according to the reports it sends to Congress. In some of those cases, the committee agreed to approve a deal only if the foreign company agreed to carry out measures designed to reduce its concerns.Mr. Rosen said in his statement that the guidelines sent a “clear message” that it was “not optional” for companies to follow their agreements with the government.Under federal law, the government can fine companies that violate their agreements with the committee. The fines can be significant, reaching as high as the total value of the corporate deal in question.The guidelines also publicly explain how companies can challenge a penalty from the government, and they shed more light on how the committee monitors for violations. According to the memo, the government learns of possible violations from “across the U.S. government, publicly available information, third-party service providers (e.g., auditors and monitors), tips” and participants in the deal itself. More

James Bullard, who leads the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, appeared at a Citigroup forum last week in Washington. Reporters were not invited.James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, spoke last Friday at an off-the-record, invitation-only forum held by Citigroup, and open to clients, on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings in Washington.Mr. Bullard’s remarks touched on both monetary policy and issues of financial stability during a tumultuous week in the global economy. It was the kind of speaking event that the news media would typically be able to attend given the potential for market-moving news, but Mr. Bullard and his staff did not alert reporters.Mr. Bullard was not compensated for his speech, a spokesperson for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said. But he appeared behind closed doors and in front of Wall Street investors at a critical juncture for markets, when every comment a central banker makes has the potential to move stocks and bonds. It gave the attendees a behind-the-scenes snapshot into the thinking of a voting Fed policymaker and Citi a possible chance to profit from his comments, inasmuch as clients may use the bank’s services in hopes of receiving similar access in the future.“This is not normal,” said Narayana Kocherlakota, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. With a bank’s clients involved, he added, “the optics are terrible.”The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis called the discussion informal and said Mr. Bullard had participated in the event in the past. It also noted that he had given an interview to Reuters earlier in the day with remarks similar to those he made at the Citi event, and appeared at other forums in Washington on Friday and Saturday. As a result, they said, the public had access to his views.But a person who attended the speech, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the forum was meant to be off the record, said Mr. Bullard had also suggested during his comments that based on the historical record, the market gyrations in response to the Fed’s moves had been less pronounced than might have been expected given how much rates have increased. The Reuters article did not include that observation.Mr. Bullard had shared that view on financial stability in public before, the St. Louis Fed spokesperson said.Mr. Bullard gave an interview to Reuters earlier in the day with remarks similar to those he made at the Citi event, a spokesperson at the St. Louis Federal Reserve said.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesAt the Citi event, Mr. Bullard also reiterated his view that another large three-quarter-point rate increase could be appropriate in December, which the Reuters article noted.This was not the first time that a Fed official had spoken before an invitation-only group of people who may have benefited from talking to him. In March 2017, Stanley Fischer, then the Fed’s vice chair, gave a closed-door speech at the Brookings Institution that drew some outcry. More commonly, Fed officials meet with economists and traders from banks and investment funds in small-group settings to exchange information about markets and the economy.Our Coverage of the Investment WorldThe decline of the stock and bond markets this year has been painful, and it remains difficult to predict what is in store for the future.A Bad Year for Bonds: This has been the most devastating time for bonds since at least 1926 — and maybe in centuries. But much of the damage is already behind us.Discordant Views: Some investors just don’t see how the Federal Reserve can lower inflation without risking high unemployment. The Fed appears more optimistic.Weathering the Storm: The rout in the stock and bond markets has been especially rough on people paying for college, retirement or a new home. Here is some advice.College Savings: As the stock and bond markets wobble, 529 plans are taking a tumble. What’s a family to do? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but you have options.And Fed officials regularly speak at bank events, though their remarks are typically flagged to the news media and either open to them, streamed or recorded. That was the case with a UBS event where Mr. Bullard was a speaker on Saturday..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.What is notable about Mr. Bullard’s Citi meeting is that it was neither an information-gathering excursion with a handful of people nor a publicly available speech. About 40 people attended the event, which had a formal agenda and was advertised to Citi clients, two people familiar with it said. Mr. Bullard spoke for 10 minutes before answering attendee questions.“It’s important, even mission-critical, that the Fed is in open dialogue with all sectors of the economy,” said Kaleb Nygaard, who studies the central bank at the University of Pennsylvania. “Much of the letter, as well as the spirit, is that the central bankers are supposed to be on the receiving end of the information.”The Citi forum also featured central bankers from outside the United States — including Anna Breman, deputy governor of Sweden’s Riksbank, and Olli Rehn of the European Central Bank’s governing council — but at least some of their appearances were flagged to the news media and some of their speeches were published.It is not clear if Mr. Bullard’s speech violated the Fed’s communication rules, but some outside experts said they seemed to tiptoe near the line.The Fed’s rules do not explicitly bar central bankers from closed-door meetings, though they do say that, “to the fullest extent possible, committee participants will refrain from describing their personal views about monetary policy in any meeting or conversation with any individual, firm or organization who could profit financially” unless those views have already been expressed in their public communications.The rules also say officials’ appearances should “not provide any profit-making person or organization with a prestige advantage over its competitors.” That Citi was able to offer a closed sit-down with a central bank official may have given it such an advantage, even if his remarks did not break major news.“Citi is flexing here” in its ability to offer “privileged access,” said Jeff Hauser, director of the watchdog group the Revolving Door Project, explaining that for investors, a chance to understand a central banker’s thinking in real life is a valuable source of financial intelligence.“There are few better sources of information on the planet than a member of the Federal Open Market Committee,” he added. “Their every utterance is treated as potentially market moving.”Raphael Bostic, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, had failed to correctly report trading activity in a managed retirement account for several years.Valerie Plesch/BloombergThe Federal Reserve Board and Citi declined to comment.The news comes just as an ethics scandal that has dogged the central bank for more than a year appears to be on the verge of bubbling back up.The Fed’s ethics rules came under scrutiny last year after three central bank officials were found to have made financial transactions during 2020, when the Fed was actively shoring up markets at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and officials had access to market moving information.All three resigned early, though some cited unrelated reasons, and the Fed ushered in a sweeping overhaul of its trading rules. But last week, one official — Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta — disclosed that he had failed to correctly report trading activity in a managed retirement account for several years. His retirement account had several trades on key dates in the market meltdown of 2020, though he said he had no knowledge of the specific trades, since he used an outside money manager.Norman Eisen, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and an expert on law, ethics and anti-corruption, said Mr. Bostic’s trades appeared “benign” relative to those of the other officials.Of Mr. Bullard’s appearances, he said that at first glance, “it’s not an ethics violation, but it’s not a great look.” More