Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Hurricane Milton could cause as much as $175 billion in damage, according to early estimates

    Hurricane Milton’s once-in-a-century potential could cause damage of more than $50 billion, with the potential to leave behind devastation approaching $175 billion or more in a worst-case scenario.
    “A 1-in-100 year event is estimated by some to result in $175 [billion] in losses for landfall in the Tampa region, and $70 [billion] in losses in the [Fort] Myers region,” Jefferies analysts said.

    Heavy traffic begins to back up on Interstate 275 South as residents evacuate St. Petersburg, Florida, ahead of Hurricane Milton, U.S., October 7, 2024. 
    Octavio Jones | Reuters

    Hurricane Milton’s once-in-a-century potential could cause damage of more than $50 billion, with the potential to leave behind devastation approaching $175 billion or more in a worst-case scenario, according to leading Wall Street analysts.
    That would be on top of the carnage already left behind by Hurricane Helene, posing a potential record-breaking path of wreckage.

    “While too early to make insured loss estimates, a major hurricane impact in one of Florida’s most heavily populated regions could result in mid-double-digit billion dollar loss,” Jefferies equity analyst Yaron Kinar and others said in a note. “A 1-in-100 year event is estimated by some to result in $175 [billion] in losses for landfall in the Tampa region, and $70 [billion] in losses in the [Fort] Myers region.”
    The extent of the potential is hard to pin down and will depend on timing and location, with a landfall closer to Fort Myers being less costly.
    For a historical comparison, analysts need only to look back two years, when Hurricane Ian hit near the Fort Myers area as a Category 4 storm and left behind more than $50 billion in losses. Ian was considered a 1-in-20-year event.

    “Should Milton’s path through the more developed Tampa region hold, potential losses could be greater,” Kinar said.
    Milton is currently at Category 4 as well, though it could weaken by the time its full force is felt.

    Wells Fargo noted that the “market seems to be factoring in a loss of over $50 billion (greater than Ian) at this point.” The firm set a wide range for potential damage, from $10 billion to $100 billion.
    The region already has been rocked — Helene barreled through the region 12 days ago, and left behind devastation that Moody’s on Tuesday estimated at some $11 billion. In addition to the property damage, Moody’s figures that the National Flood Insurance Program likely will see losses approaching $2 billion.
    The firm’s analysts have not yet estimated potential damage from Milton.

    Kiki Keen and his father Clinton Keen walk among the debris of their family’s beach house, following Hurricane Helene in Horseshoe Beach, Florida, U.S., September 28, 2024. 
    Marco Bello | Reuters

    “Hurricane Helene is by far the most impactful event of the current 2024 hurricane season thus far, though this may quickly change with Major Hurricane Milton due to impact Florida in the coming days,” said Mohsen Rahnama, chief risk modeling officer at Moody’s.
    Moody’s also noted that many in the worst-affected regions of where Helene hit do not have flood insurance, “meaning most of the damage will be uninsured, and economic property losses will far outweigh insured losses,” said Firas Saleh, the firm’s director of U.S. inland flood models.
    Milton weakened a bit Tuesday but was still carrying winds of 145 mph. It is expected to hit Tampa on Wednesday morning and bring 10- to 15-foot storm surges to Tampa Bay.
    While the danger and damage to the region are expected to be enormous, the storm does not pose the same danger to adjoining states that Helene pummeled.

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    As Hurricanes Persist, Soaring Insurance Costs Hit Commercial Real Estate

    Struggling landlords and developers are seeking leeway on coverage from their lenders — mostly in vain.Postpandemic vacancies and surging debt payments have eaten away at commercial real estate for more than two years. Even as those threats start to fade, owners of strip malls, apartment buildings and office towers face a problem that could last much longer: soaring insurance costs.The problem is familiar to homeowners across the country. The rise in climate-related natural disasters has insurance companies pushing rates substantially higher, or pulling out of markets. The rate increases have been fastest in coastal cities and towns vulnerable to damage from big storms or coastal floods, but insurers and banks are coming to terms with the notion that no area is truly safe from increasingly extreme and unpredictable weather events.Hurricane Helene, which hit Florida’s gulf coast before leaving a trail of deadly floods and landslides through Georgia and the western parts of the Carolinas, most likely caused at least $35 billion in economic losses along the way, according to an estimate by the reinsurance broker Gallagher Re.Building owners are also trapped between their insurers and lenders, who are afraid of being on the hook for catastrophic damage and won’t allow the smallest changes to policies — even those that might give a struggling borrower some breathing room.It isn’t possible to know comprehensively how many properties have gone into foreclosure solely because of insurance costs, but people in the industry say they know of deals that have fallen apart over the matter. Developers and investors say that in an industry grappling with higher interest rates and materials and labor expenses, insurance costs can tip the scales.“This current interest-rate environment has exposed the people that know what they’re doing and those that don’t,” said Mario Kilifarski, the head of asset management at Fundamental Advisors, a New York-based investor with $3.5 billion in assets.The insurance brokerage Marsh McLennan estimated that premiums on commercial properties rose an average of 11 percent across the country last year but as much as 50 percent in storm-vulnerable places like the Gulf Coast and California. This year, premiums may have doubled in some of those places, the brokerage said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase National Debt Twice as Much as Harris’s Proposal

    A new analysis finds that Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump’s plans would both add to the deficit, but Mr. Trump’s proposals could create a fiscal hole twice as big.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” said Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    E.V. Tax Credits Are a Plus, but Flaws Remain, Study Finds

    The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.

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

    The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
    Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase U.S. Debt While Raising Costs for Most Americans

    A new analysis estimates that the former president’s proposals could grow deficits by as much as $15 trillion over a decade.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P., said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Ports Rush to Reopen After Dockworker Strike Is Suspended

    Days after tens of thousands of longshoreman along the East and Gulf Coasts walked out, their union and their bosses reached a tentative agreement on wages.Hours after a longshoremen’s union on the East and Gulf Coasts agreed to suspend its strike, major ports rushed to reopen on Friday and get cargo to businesses that have spent the last few days racked with fear over lost sales.The strike, which began on Tuesday and shut down many of the nation’s largest shipping hubs, threatened to weaken the economy weeks ahead of a national election. The Biden administration spent the last few days pressing the United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing port employers, and the union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, to find a way to end the strike.The two sides announced late Thursday that they had reached a tentative agreement on wages — a 62 percent increase over six years — and said they were extending the current contract until mid-January to negotiate other issues. The biggest remaining one is the use of automated machinery at the ports, which the I.L.A. considers a job killer. It was the first full-scale stoppage at East and Gulf Coast ports since 1977.Labor experts say the I.L.A. has more leverage in contract negotiations than unions in most other industries, because a walkout can shut down shipping facilities for which there are no practical alternatives. Labor experts said the wage increase was a big victory for the I.L.A. and its combative president, Harold J. Daggett, a 78-year-old, third-generation dockworker.“The I.L.A. seized the moment,” said William Brucher, an assistant professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations. “Things really aligned in their favor.”Analysts said the strike was unlikely to lead to higher prices for consumers. Many businesses, anticipating the walkout, sped up their shipments so they could receive them before this week, softening the blow for many.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Port Strike’s End Is an Economic Relief to Savannah, Ga.

    Viewed through a narrow lens, Savannah is a popular tourist destination with a seemingly aesthetic profile, accentuated by its Revolutionary War history, historic Black churches and colorful Victorian homes surrounded by Spanish moss.For big companies, the city’s primary attraction has been a grittier side that has fueled an economic transformation over the decades: Savannah is the No. 2 ocean cargo complex on the East Coast, home to thriving container terminals that handle millions of tons of freight each year.That economic motor for the city and the region sputtered to a stop this week after thousands of dockworkers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association, or I.L.A., went on strike from Maine to Texas.Instead of a stream of trucks moving big boxes in and out of the port, a group of around 100 dockworkers stood outside the main gates on Tuesday, intermittently chanting, “No contract, no work,” with traffic reduced to vehicles that drove by honking in solidarity with the striking workers.But after three days, the group representing port operators made a new pay offer, and the union suspended the walkout.On Friday, the Port of Savannah was humming again.Trucks started lining up in front of the gates of the Garden City Terminal before sunrise, and by midmorning, large container ships made their way down the Savannah River, in clear view of the city’s downtown.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Employers Add 254,000 Jobs in September as Economic Growth Remains Solid

    U.S. employers added 254,000 jobs in September, a sign that economic growth remained solid. The unemployment rate fell to 4.1 percent.Many have doubted it. Even the optimists have worried about it. But despite the hand-wringing, the American economy appears to be in remarkably good shape.Businesses added 254,000 jobs in September, the government reported on Friday, far surpassing forecasts. It was a sign that the economy, rather than stumbling into a slowdown, still has a spring in its step.The unemployment rate declined to 4.1 percent, from 4.2 percent. Reported pay gains for workers were also better than expected, at 4 percent over the previous 12 months, an uptick from the August reading. With inflation continuing to ease substantially, that is welcome news for households trying to gain financial traction.A Slight DropUnemployment rate More