More stories

  • in

    See inside Tennessee’s most expensive home at $65 million, just outside Nashville

    Cities of Success

    “Cities of Success” special featuring Nashville will air on CNBC on December 6 at 10pm ET

    This story is part of CNBC’s new quarterly Cities of Success series, which explores cities that have transformed into business hubs with an entrepreneurial spirit that has attracted capital, companies and employees.
    Twin Rivers Farm could break records as Tennessee’s priciest home if it fetches its $65 million asking price. 

    The property is located just 30 miles southwest of Nashville in the suburb of Leipers Fork, known for attracting high-net-worth individuals and celebrities such as Justin Timberlake and Nicole Kidman.
    “It’s one of the most significant real estate holdings in the Southeast,” listing agent Dan McEwen with the McEwen Group told CNBC for the upcoming “Cities of Success” primetime special, airing Dec. 6 at 10 p.m. ET.
    According to McEwen, the estate’s sheer size, unfolding over 383 acres, and its unique amenities such as a man-made private fishing lake, help it command the eight-figure asking price.

    Apart from the 10,626 square foot main residence, the estate features a barn, guesthouse and a man-made lake, stocked with trout for fishing and swimming.
    McEwen Group

    The previous record for the most expensive home sold in the state, set in 2010, stood at $28 million.
    “Over the last 20 years, the real estate market here has changed drastically. It’s been mostly because of out-of-state buyers, out-of-state families that have settled here in Middle Tennessee and invested in Middle Tennessee,” McEwen told CNBC.

    The number of millionaires in the Nashville area increased more than 70% since 2019 to north of 116,000, according to research firm Wealth-X, an Altrata company. There are now more than 1,000 people in the Nashville area with a net worth over $30 million.

    Read more about Nashville and CNBC’s Cities of Success

    The migration wave has seen residents relocating from New York, Illinois and California. McEwen credits the region’s low costs, lack of income tax, moderate climate, low crime and culture with drawing new families.

    The main residence of Twin Rivers Farm is 10,626 square feet.
    McEwen Group

    Larry Keele, a retired co-founder of Oaktree Capital, moved to the Twin Rivers Farm property from California in 2015, acquiring two contiguous plots of land for approximately $7.2 million.
    He demolished existing structures and invested millions in constructing a resort-like estate just outside Nashville. 
    “Larry spent a lot of time in [Los Angeles]. His career was in LA. I think home always called to Larry,” McEwen said. “He’s from Tennessee. And I think the quality of life here called to Larry and ultimately brought him home.”

    The walls of this room are adorned with blue leather.
    McEwen Group

    The main residence stretches an impressive 10,626 square feet and features five bedrooms, seven bathrooms and hardwood floors imported from France. In addition, the walls are clad in rich blue leather and Italian cashmere worth $100,000, according to the broker.
    “When the sellers built this home, they did not spare any expense. The quality here is what sets it apart,” McEwen said. 

    The kitchen has marble countertops and the cabinets also serve as windows that offer views of the trees and landscape.
    McEwen Group

    The estate has multiple hidden passages leading to a game room, a safe room and a wine cellar. Additional features include a pool house with a retractable glass roof, a putting green, a jumbo-size chessboard and a tennis court.

    The pool house has a retractable glass roof for year-round usability.
    McEwen Group

    There are also miles of scenic trails and even a man-made lake the Keeles constructed and filled with trout for fishing and swimming. 
    “Everywhere you look, you see grass and trees and hills. And so the vision was to do something that fit here,” said McEwen.  

    Twin Rivers Farm spans 383 acres and features a barn alongside a man-made lake.
    McEwen Group

    The property’s barn houses the Keeles’ chickens and sheep. It also includes an area for human guests, complete with a dining room beneath a rooftop cupola that effortlessly slides away at the touch of a button, unveiling the sky above.

    The barn’s dining area features a glass-windowed door with a view overlooking the man-made lake.
    McEwen Group

    The main residence, barn, cabin, stable and pool house combined amount to 28,583 built square footage, according to the broker. Priced at $65 million, it translates to $2,278 per square foot.
    In the Greater Nashville Area, a luxury home price is typically defined at the 95th percentile, and the most recent data indicates it to be $471 per square foot, as reported by Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at Realtor.com.
    The square footage the Keeles are asking for is almost five times that threshold.
    According to McEwen, trophy properties like Twin Rivers Farm are in increasing demand in the area as wealthy buyers look for the large acreage and rural lifestyle of a farm, combined with high-end amenities such as pools and guest houses.
    Celebrities also like the area because they can entertain their friends and enjoy nature outside the prying eyes of the public.
    So why are the Keeles selling the trophy estate they spent tens of millions to customize? McEwen says the decision is driven by a desire to downsize and relocate closer to Nashville.
    The 2022 real estate tax for the property amounted to $22,474.46.
    TUNE IN: The “Cities of Success” special featuring Nashville will air on CNBC on Dec. 6 at 10 p.m. ET. More

  • in

    ‘The great wealth transfer’ is here: Billionaires set to give trillions to their kids

    In recent months, new billionaires made more of their fortunes from inheritance than from entrepreneurship, according to the UBS Billionaire Ambitions Report.
    More than 1,000 billionaires are expected to pass $5.2 trillion to their children over the next 20 or 30 years.
    “The great wealth transfer, which we’ve all been talking about for the last 10 years, is underway,” said John Mathews, head of UBS’ Private Wealth Management division.

    Vm | E+ | Getty Images

    In recent months, the world’s new billionaires made more of their fortunes from inheritance than from entrepreneurship, according to the UBS Billionaire Ambitions Report.
    It marked the first time in the nine-year history of the report that newly minted billionaires accumulated more wealth from inheritance than starting a business.

    Fifty-three heirs inherited a total of $150.8 billion in the 12 months ending in April, exceeding the total of $140.7 billion accumulated by 84 new self-made billionaires, according to the Swiss bank’s report. The shift is likely to continue: The report said more than 1,000 billionaires are expected to pass $5.2 trillion to their children over the next 20 or 30 years.
    “The great wealth transfer, which we’ve all been talking about for the last 10 years, is underway,” said John Mathews, head of UBS’ Private Wealth Management division. “The average age of the world’s billionaires is almost 69 right now. So this whole transition or wealth handover will start to accelerate.”
    Many billionaires will leave the bulk of their wealth to charity. And some, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, continue spending their fortunes on real estate, yachts and flights to space.
    Yet today’s billionaires will still have plenty to leave to their families. According to the report, the number of billionaires rose by 7% globally over the 12 months ending in April. The population of billionaires in the world increased to 2,544 from 2,376. Their total wealth great by 9% — from $11 trillion to $12 trillion.
    The great wealth transfer from billionaires and multi-millionaires will likely change the landscape in investing and wealth management, as well as spending and philanthropy. More than two thirds of the billionaires with inherited wealth in the UBS survey said that they plan to continue and grow what their parents or grandparents achieved – whether it’s in a business, a brand or assets.

    Yet their values and priorities may be different. The next generation of billionaire investors tend to be highly focused on climate change, technology and impact investing than older generations, according to studies.
    Mathews said most of today’s older billionaires made their money through starting and operating a business and invest conservatively. He said the next generation is “looking to the future,” with more aggressive investing targets and a focus on AI, clean energy and the electric-vehicle transition.
    “The wealth management industry needs to focus on those industries that can help accelerate the ability to invest in these areas,” Mathews said. “A lot of that falls in the area of private equity, direct private deals, and private placements as opposed to the traditional mix of fixed income and public markets.” More

  • in

    Pending home sales drop to a record low, even worse than during the financial crisis

    Pending home sales in October dropped to the lowest level since the National Association of Realtors began tracking them in 2001.
    Mortgage rates in October rose sharply, with the average on the 30-year fixed loan briefly soaring over 8%.
    Rates have since pulled back but are still above 7%, and supply is still tight.

    Pending home sales, a measure of signed contracts on existing homes, dropped 1.5% in October from September.
    They hit the lowest level since the National Association of Realtors began tracking this metric in 2001, meaning it’s even worse than readings during the financial crisis more than a decade ago. Sales were down 8.5% from October of last year.

    Because the index measures signed contracts, it is the most recent indicator of housing demand. It reflects the buyers who were out shopping in October, which was when the popular 30-year fixed mortgage rate briefly shot higher than 8%.
    Rates have since pulled back to around 7.3%, according to Mortgage News Daily. The realtors continue to say it’s not just high rates but still very low supply of homes for sale that is deflating activity.
    “Recent weeks’ successive declines in mortgage rates will help qualify more home buyers, but limited housing inventory is significantly preventing housing demand from fully being satisfied,” Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the NAR, said in a release. “Multiple offers, of course, yield only one winner, with the rest left to continue their search.”
    Pending sales fell in all regions month to month except in the Northeast. They fell most steeply in the West, which is where homes are most expensive. Sales were down everywhere compared with a year ago.
    Tight supply and still-strong demand have kept pressure on home prices, which not only continue to hit new highs but appear to be accelerating in their gains.

    The Realtors noted that sales of homes priced above $750,000 have been increasing simply because there is more supply on the high end of the market.
    Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

  • in

    Covid vaccine rates in the U.S. are slumping — and it will be a challenge to boost them

    Covid shot uptake is slumping, and vaccine makers and health experts believe vaccination rates in 2024 and beyond will likely look similar to the uptake of the latest round of shots this year.
    The bigger uncertainty appears to be whether rates could increase down the line — and what would cause more people to roll up their sleeves.
    What experts and vaccine makers can agree on is that low vaccination rates put more people at risk of getting severe Covid infections.

    A sign advertises Covid vaccine shots at a Walgreens Pharmacy in Somerville, Massachusetts, on Aug. 14, 2023.
    Brian Snyder | Reuters

    Three years into the Covid-19 pandemic, few Americans are rolling up their sleeves to get a Covid vaccine. 
    Only 15.7% of U.S. adults had received the newest Covid shots from Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax as of Nov. 18, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those jabs, some of which won approval in mid-September, are designed to target the omicron subvariant XBB.1.5.  

    “Here’s the bottom line: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower than we’d like to see, and most people will be without the added protection that can reduce the severity of COVID-19,” the CDC wrote in an update on its website last week. 
    Some vaccine makers and health experts believe U.S. Covid vaccination rates in 2024 and beyond will likely look similar to the meager uptake of the latest round of shots this fall and winter.
    The bigger uncertainty appears to be whether rates could increase down the line — and what would cause more people to roll up their sleeves.
    Some experts hope a new, more convenient slate of shots targeting more than one respiratory virus could boost Covid vaccinations. But others are more skeptical about whether those combination jabs will make a difference. 
    Experts and vaccine makers can agree that low Covid vaccination rates are concerning, even as cases of the virus dwindle from their pandemic highs. 

    More CNBC health coverage

    Vaccines remain a critical tool to protect people from death or hospitalization from Covid, which is still killing Americans every day. Fewer jabs could leave many people — especially older adults and those with underlying medical conditions — vulnerable to severe infections. 
    Lower vaccination rates also make the U.S. less prepared if a new, more concerning variant of the virus emerges and fuels another surge in cases and hospitalizations, added Dr. Ali Mokdad, an epidemiologist and chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington. 

    Why are some people not taking Covid vaccines?

    Covid shot uptake has dwindled since the first vaccines against the virus rolled out in late 2020, when Americans felt more urgency to protect themselves as cases soared. 
    This year, roughly half of adults who were previously vaccinated said a lack of worry about Covid is a reason why they haven’t gotten a new vaccine, including a quarter who called it a “major reason,” according to a poll released earlier this month by health policy research organization KFF. 
    That reasoning reflects multiple factors. First, Covid infections haven’t spiked significantly in the U.S. this year, especially compared to prior years of the pandemic, according to Mokdad. 
    He added that people have more immunity from previous vaccinations or infections, which protects them from getting severely ill from the virus. Data also suggests that omicron variants, which are the dominant Covid strains circulating in the U.S., tend to be less severe than some previous variants, Mokdad added.
    “People are like, ‘I got that, it didn’t really hurt me. So why do I need to go and get a vaccine?'” Mokdad said.

    The new vaccine COMIRNATY® (Covid-19 vaccine, mRNA) by Pfizer, available at CVS Pharmacy in Eagle Rock, California.
    Irfan Khan | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

    Nearly 4 in 10 adults also said they have been too busy to get the new Covid shot, according to the KFF poll. 
    Some Americans may not be used to treating their Covid vaccination as a “routine activity” for their health every year, according to Jennifer Kates, senior vice president of KFF.
    Others may not be prioritizing Covid shots because they are confused about their risk levels and the benefits they will personally see from another booster, added Dr. Brad Pollock, chair of UC Davis Health’s department of public health sciences.
    What’s more, a group of Americans may never get Covid vaccines because they remain skeptical about their safety and efficacy.
    Political polarization has exacerbated that effect: Republicans have grown increasingly hostile toward the shots, and some have even fueled conspiracy theories and disinformation about getting vaccinated.
    Only 23% of Republican respondents to KFF’s poll said they had or would get the latest Covid shot this fall or winter, compared to 40% of independents and 74% of Democrats. 

    What could uptake look like next year and beyond?

    The lack of urgency around Covid could weigh on uptake in the coming years, said Dr. Nicole Iovine, chief hospital epidemiologist and an infectious disease physician at the University of Florida.
    But she noted that the people who receive the new Covid vaccine this fall will likely get future iterations. “There’s definitely a core of people who are going to always get their vaccine,” said Iovine.
    Jefferies analyst Michael Yee specifically noted that patients who are at high risk of severe Covid and are open to vaccination “would be reasonable” to take it each year. 
    Most Covid vaccine makers themselves assume that uptake in 2024 and beyond could look similar to what the U.S. sees this fall and winter. 
    “So, we are assuming that things will be the same in the years to come, Covid fatigue, anti-vaccination rates, so the people that did it this year will continue doing it next year,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said during a call with investors in mid-October. “I think it is a quite safe assumption.”
    Similarly, Moderna assumes that everyone who got their Covid booster in 2023 will “at least” get a Covid shot in 2024 and beyond, Moderna Chief Commercial Officer Arpa Garay said during the company’s third-quarter earnings call last month. Garay also said the company expects about 50 million Americans to get a new vaccine between September and December this year.
    Novavax Chief Operating Officer John Trizzino told CNBC that there’s “a logic and reality” to Pfizer and Moderna’s outlooks. But he said 2023 won’t be “100% indicative” of what vaccination rates in the future could be, especially since the rollout this year was an “adjustment period” to the commercial market with delays in distribution.
    Trizzino also said combination shots targeting Covid and other viruses, including one from Novavax, will likely enter the market in a few years, which could increase Covid vaccinations in the U.S. 

    Could combination shots boost uptake?

    Pfizer, Moderna and some experts agree that combination shots could increase Covid vaccination rates by offering more convenience to patients and health-care workers.
    “I think that it actually will help. More Americans get a combined flu and Covid shot, which should increase the number of people that get a Covid vaccine over time because it’s much more easy from a convenience perspective for anybody, as well as the technician to administer,” Moderna CFO Jamey Mock said in an interview earlier this month.
    But other experts are more skeptical about whether those jabs will have a notable effect.
    All three companies are developing vaccines targeting different combinations of Covid, flu and respiratory syncytial virus, which collectively strained the U.S. health-care system last winter and could continue to peak around the same time each year. 
    The companies have released positive midstage trial data on some of their combination shots this year and expect their jabs to win approval from U.S. regulators in 2025 and 2026. 

    Bottles of vaccines in a medical clinic.
    Angelp | Istock | Getty Images

    Combination jabs are nothing new: Childhood vaccines have long been combined to eliminate additional trips to the doctor’s office and reduce the number of injections a patient needs to get during their visit. That approach can lead to fewer missed shots and higher vaccination rates for diseases they target, according to Andrew Pekosz, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 
    Other studies also argue that a combination jab targeting Covid and the flu in particular could boost Covid vaccination rates, which lag behind flu shot uptake this year. 
    More people are used to receiving flu vaccines annually, so they may “find it easier to replicate such health action in the case of a combination shot” targeting Covid and the flu, according to a 2023 study that analyzed 30 different papers on the vaccine approach. 
    However, Iovine of the University of Florida doesn’t believe combination shots will have a significant effect on Covid vaccination rates.
    While the jabs may be attractive for people who already get their shots or those who are looking for more convenient vaccination options, they may do little to change the minds of people who are avoiding a Covid vaccine for reasons such as skepticism or concerns about safety and efficacy.
    Jefferies analyst Yee similarly said he doesn’t believe the “advantage of convenience would be the differentiating factor” determining whether someone gets a Covid vaccine, which is why combination shots may not “materially change uptake.”
    He added that some people are still worried about whether combination vaccines cause more side effects than stand-alone shots do. Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax haven’t flagged notable differences between the side effects of their combination vaccines and existing shots, but more data is needed.

    What else could increase vaccination rates?

    If combination shots don’t do the trick, it’s unclear what else could boost Covid vaccination rates down the line.
    Iovine said people may feel more urgency to get vaccinated if a new, more concerning Covid variant emerges and fuels another wave of cases. But even during past Covid surges, the country “didn’t see tremendous vaccine uptake,” according to Iovine.

    Pharmacist Aaron Sun administers the new vaccine COMIRNATY® (Covid-19 vaccine, mRNA) by Pfizer, to John Vuich at CVS Pharmacy in Eagle Rock, California.
    Irfan Khan | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

    Meanwhile, KFF’s Kates said public health officials and providers may increase uptake if they clearly communicate that Covid shots will likely be a “routine part of health care” moving forward.
    The FDA and CDC are hoping to transition toward a flu shot-like model for Covid vaccines, meaning people will get a single jab every year that is updated annually to target the latest variant expected to circulate in the fall and winter. 
    But advisors to the FDA have raised concerns about shifting to yearly Covid vaccines, noting that it’s unclear if the virus is seasonal like the flu. Kates added that establishing a more annualized approach to Covid vaccination in the minds of Americans “will take time.”
    Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

  • in

    More than 500 companies had perfect scores on top advocacy group’s LGBTQ+ index

    The Human Rights Campaign Foundation awarded 545 companies with a perfect score on its annual Corporate Equality Index, which evaluates U.S. based companies that opt into the survey on their policies for LGBTQ+ equality.
    Target and Anheuser-Busch — two companies at the center of high-profile protests this year related to LGBTQ+ rights — both submitted to scoring.
    The 2023 survey results come against a background of heightened tensions for the LGBTQ+ community.

    Attendees hold large Pride flag at the 2023 LA Pride Parade on June 11, 2023 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images)
    Rodin Eckenroth | Getty Images

    In a year stained by boycotts, protests and heightened consumer choice, hundreds of companies came through for LGBTQ+ equality, according to a leading advocacy group.
    The Human Rights Campaign Foundation awarded 545 companies with a perfect score on its annual Corporate Equality Index, which evaluates U.S. based companies that opt into the survey on their policies for LGBTQ+ equality. More than 800 of the 1,384 companies scored earned at least 90 of the possible 100 points.

    When the index first began in 2002, only 13 companies earned the highest score.
    “Companies are not backing down from diversity, equity inclusion, instead, they’re stepping up because they know that it’s good for their bottom line and good for their business,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said. “Employees are 4½-times more likely to want to work for companies that are standing with the LGBTQ+ community.
    “We’re looking at a world right now where consumers are two times more likely to shop at a brand that stands with the LGBTQ+ community,” Robinson added.
    Companies ranging from 3M to Coca-Cola to JPMorgan Chase to Salesforce earned the top score on the HRC’s index.
    Companies were scored on four key pillars: non-discrimination policies across business entities, equitable benefits for LGBTQ+ employees and their families, supporting an inclusive culture, and corporate social responsibility.

    This year, HRC expanded the index’s focus to also consider LBGTQ+ family formation rights, enhanced transgender-inclusive healthcare and gender transition guidelines.
    Target and Anheuser-Busch — two companies at the center of high-profile protests this year related to LGBTQ+ rights — both submitted to scoring and received deductions from last year. Target scored a 95 this year, while Anheuser-Busch scored a 75. Both received a perfect 100 in 2022.
    Over the summer, Target reported incidents of violence and threats to its employees over some of its Pride merchandise, leading the retailer to remove some items. CEO Brian Cornell said on a media call there was a material impact to sales and traffic at some stores during June, but trends normalized once the retailer made the changes.
    “[Target] tried to make it seem as though there were two sides in this fight for equality,” Robinson said. “The lesson that we’ve learned this year, time and time again, is that there aren’t two sides to equality.”
    Anheuser-Busch saw a sharp decline in sales of its popular Bud Light beer brand after right-wing backlash to a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
    “The lesson from this year is that when you confront a bully, they back down. So I also like to lift up examples like Nike that receives similar attacks,” Robinson said. “When they refuse to let up and give ground, those attacks diminish fairly quickly and they also saw their consumer stand with them.”

    Employee benefits

    Social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, received a score of negative 25 on the HRC Corporate Equality Index “because of their extremely bad practices,” Robinson said.
    “[Twitter] was fortunately a company that we partnered with to get on the right side of this and to really improve their workplace culture, but unfortunately under Elon Musk’s leadership, those policies had been rolled back. It’s just not the same company,” Robinson said.
    While expanding or adding to employee benefits is not without a financial cost to a company, “most employers report an overall increase of less than 3.5% in total benefits cost when they implement partner benefits and marginal increases related to transgender-inclusive healthcare coverage,” according to this year’s report.
    Robinson said offering equitable policies in the workplace is also “futureproofing” for businesses.
    “If we look at the future, we can see that by 2040, the percentage of LGBTQ plus Americans will double in this country. This again is not just the right thing to do. It’s the best thing to do for your business.”
    The 2023 survey results come against a background of heightened tensions for the LGBTQ+ community. The HRC foundation in June declared a “state of emergency” for LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. for the first time in its history.
    “In 2023 LGBTQ+ people faced an unprecedented and dangerous spike in anti-LGBTQ+ legislative assaults in state houses all over the country” the report states. “More than 605 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in 41 states and over 220 of those bills explicitly targeted the transgender community, particularly trans and nonbinary youth.”
    “We have raised the bar, especially, for what it looks like to have trans inclusion in the workplace in the midst of so many attacks across the country,” Robinson said.
    — CNBC’s Cait Freda contributed to this report. More

  • in

    What one Swiss bank’s troubles can tell us about market vulnerabilities — and social media

    DBRS Morningstar Senior Vice President Vitaline Yeterian and Managing Director Elisabeth Rudman said on Wednesday that such a large concentration to a troubled real estate borrower raises concerns about risk management and highlights the broader risks for the banking sector.
    Julius Baer has a strong capital position with a CET1 capital ratio of 16.1% as of the end of October, the bank said Monday, significantly above its own floor of 11%.
    “However, we see the recent significant fall in Julius Baer’s share price as a reminder of the rising impact of technology and social media on stakeholder behavior,” DBRS Morningstar said.

    A pedestrian sheltering under an umbrella passes a Julius Baer Group Ltd. branch in Zurich, Switzerland, on Tuesday, July 13, 2021.
    Stefan Wermuth | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    The share price of Julius Baer plummeted after the Swiss private bank disclosed 606 million Swiss francs ($692.7 million) of loan exposure to a single conglomerate client.
    Julius Baer CEO Philipp Rickenbacher at an event on Wednesday declined to comment on rumors that the bank’s large exposure was to Signa, according to Reuters. CNBC has also reached out for comment.

    The disclosure and swirling concerns about concentration of risk in the lender’s private debt business, came against a backdrop of emerging news that troubled Austrian real estate group Signa was teetering. It filed for insolvency on Wednesday.
    The 606 million Swiss franc exposure to one client — via three loans to different entities within a European conglomerate — is collateralized by commercial real estate and luxury retail, the company revealed. It represents around 18% of Julius Baer’s CET1 capital as of the end of June 2023, according to analysts at DBRS Morningstar.
    The bank last week booked provisions of 70 million Swiss francs to cover the risk of a single borrower in its private loan book.
    DBRS Morningstar Senior Vice President Vitaline Yeterian and Managing Director Elisabeth Rudman on Wednesday said that such a large concentration of funds to a troubled real estate borrower raises concerns about risk management and highlights the broader risks for the banking sector, as highly leveraged companies grapple with higher debt financing costs in a perilous economic environment.
    The European Central Bank recently examined the commercial real estate sector and the provisioning methods and capital buffers of European banks.

    DBRS Morningstar says the capital levels of Julius Baer are adequate to absorb further losses, with a hypothetical 606 million Swiss franc loss accounting for around 280 basis points of the Swiss bank’s 15.5% CET1 ratio, based on risk-weighted assets of 21.43 billion Swiss francs as of the end of June.
    “However, we see the recent significant fall in Julius Baer’s share price as a reminder of the rising impact of technology and social media on stakeholder behavior,” they said in Wednesday’s note.

    “Meanwhile, the limited level of disclosure makes it hard to assess the full picture for the bank at this stage. Any kind of deposit outflow experienced by Julius Baer would be negative for the bank’s credit profile.”
    Rickenbacher issued a statement on Monday confirming that the bank would maintain its dividend policy, along with other updates, while reassuring investors that any excess capital left at the end of the year will be distributed via a share buyback.
    Julius Baer has a strong capital position with a CET1 capital ratio of 16.1% as of the end of October, the bank said Monday, significantly above its own floor of 11%.
    Even under a hypothetical total loss scenario, the Group’s pro-forma CET1 capital ratio at Oct. 31 would have exceeded 14%, the bank said, meaning it would have remained “significantly profitable.”
    “Julius Baer is very well capitalised and has been consistently profitable under all circumstances. We regret that a single exposure has led to the recent uncertainty for our stakeholders,” Rickenbacher said.
    “Together with investing and multi-generational wealth planning, financing is an inherent part of the wealth management proposition to our clients.”

    He added that the board is now reviewing its private debt business and the framework within which it is conducted.
    Nonetheless, Julius Baer’s shares continued to fall and were down 18% on the year as of Thursday morning.
    “We continue to closely monitor sectors that have come under stress as a result of more uncertain economic times, higher for longer interest rates, tightening in lending conditions, weaker demand, higher operating costs, and in particular the commercial real estate sector,” DBRS Morningstar’s Yeterian said.
    Several economists in recent weeks have suggested that there are lingering vulnerabilities in the market that may be exposed in 2024, as the sharp rises in interest rates enacted by major central banks in the last two years feed through.
    Exposure to commercial real estate emerged as a concern for several major lenders this year, while the risks associated with panic-driven bank runs on smaller lenders became starkly apparent in March, with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
    The ensuing ripple effects shook global investor and depositor confidence and eventually contributed to the downfall of Swiss giant Credit Suisse.
    A common theme during the mass withdrawals of investment and customer deposits was a panic exacerbated by rumors about the lender’s financial health on social media, a trend bemoaned by its bosses at the time. More

  • in

    Ford reinstates 2023 guidance, says UAW deal to cost $8.8 billion over life of the contract

    Ford Motor on Thursday reinstated 2023 guidance after pulling its forecast last month due to the impacts of labor strikes and negotiations with the United Auto Workers union.
    The guidance calls for $10 billion to $10.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes, or EBIT, and adjusted free cash flow of between $5 billion and $5.5 billion.
    Ford said the new UAW labor agreement is expected to cost $8.8 billion over the life of the contract, which expires in April 2028.

    NEW YORK – Ford Motor on Thursday reinstated 2023 guidance after pulling its forecast last month due to the impacts of labor strikes and negotiations with the United Auto Workers union.
    The guidance calls for $10 billion to $10.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes, or EBIT, and adjusted free cash flow of between $5 billion and $5.5 billion. That compares to its previously announced guidance of adjusted-EBIT of between $11 billion and $12 billion and adjusted free cash flow of $6.5 billion to $7 billion.

    Ford said the new UAW labor agreement is expected to cost $8.8 billion over the life of the contract, which expires in April 2028. Crosstown rival General Motors on Wednesday a $9.3 billion impact over the length of the agreement.
    Prior to the UAW strikes, which ended after roughly six weeks, Ford was “poised” to hit its guidance, Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said Oct. 26 during the company’s third-quarter earnings report.
    At that time, Lawler said the UAW strike had already cost the company $1.3 billion in earnings due to lost production of about 80,000 vehicles, including roughly $100 million during the third quarter. On Thursday the company updated that impact amount to $1.7 billion, including $1.6 billion in the fourth quarter.
    Ford further confirmed on Thursday that the UAW deal is expected to add about $900 in costs per assembled vehicle by 2028. Lawler previously said Ford would work to “find productivity and efficiencies and cost reductions throughout the company” to offset the additional costs and deliver on previously announced profitability targets.
    The company said it plans to cancel or postpone $12 billion in investments related to electric vehicles.

    “We’ve got a highly talented team that allocates capital with great discipline, so that we’re executing with consistency, generating strong growth and profitability, and are less cyclical,” Lawler said in a statement Thursday, citing the company’s Ford+ turnaround plan.
    Lawler is expected to discuss the company’s reinstated guidance at a Barclays investor conference Thursday morning.
    Ford’s update comes a day after GM said it planned to increase its quarterly dividend next year by 33% to 12 cents per share; initiate an accelerated $10 billion share repurchase program; and reinstate its 2023 guidance to include an estimated $1.1 billion in earnings before interest and tax, or EBIT-adjusted, impact from the UAW strikes.
    GM’s forecast called for net income attributable to stockholders of $9.1 billion to $9.7 billion; adjusted EBIT of $11.7 billion to $12.7 billion; and adjusted earnings per share of roughly $7.20 to $7.70.
    Both UAW agreements include at least 25% hourly pay raises, the reinstatement of cost-of-living adjustments and enhanced profit-sharing payments, among other benefits.
    Chrysler parent Stellantis, which was the second of the so-called “Big Three” U.S. automakers to reach a deal with the UAW, has not disclosed expected costs of its labor pact with the union. More

  • in

    Income gaps are growing inexorably, aren’t they?

    According to a familiar saying, academic disputes are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so low. But in a scholarly battle over inequality, the stakes are rather higher. Research by a trio of French economists—Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman—has popularised the notion that American income inequality is soaring. Other economists have built heaps of research upon these findings, while politicians have pledged to undo the trends through higher taxes and spending. To most people the phrase “inequality is rising” seems self-evidently true.Others have cast doubt on the trio’s findings, however—notably Gerald Auten of the Treasury Department and David Splinter of the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group in Congress. We first analysed their work in 2019, as part of a cover story. It modifies the French trio’s methodology and comes to a very different conclusion: American post-tax income inequality has hardly risen at all since the 1960s. In the past few days the Journal of Political Economy (JPE), one of the discipline’s most prestigious outlets, has accepted their paper for publication.This has not settled the debate. In fact, the opposing sides are digging in. “I don’t think that inequality denial (after climate denial) is a very promising road to follow,” Mr Piketty tells your columnist. “We’ve been showered with prizes from the establishment for our academic contributions on this very topic,” adds Mr Saez. Others say the JPE paper has won the day. “It seems clearly correct to me,” says Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. “The Piketty and Saez work is careless and politically motivated,” says James Heckman, a Nobel prizewinner at the University of Chicago.You might think that analysing trends in income inequality would be straightforward. Don’t people’s tax returns tell researchers all they need to know? But although tax returns are useful, they can mislead. Americans who are partners in a company, or hold investments, often have enough trouble estimating their own income. Now imagine trying to estimate the incomes of millions of people over several decades, accounting for overhauls to the tax code. Researchers then need to account for the 30-40% of national income that is not even reported on tax returns—including some employer-provided benefits and government welfare. Researchers’ methodological choices have huge effects on the results.Messrs Auten and Splinter focus much of their attention on the distorting impact of an important tax reform in 1986. Before it was introduced many rich people used tax shelters that allowed them to report less income on their tax return and therefore pay less to the irs. In “Mad Men”, a television series about advertising executives in the 1960s, Don Draper and his pals fund their lavish lifestyles by putting lots of spending on expenses. Reforms made such wheezes harder, and increased incentives to report income, in part by lowering rates. Looking only at his tax return, Draper might appear to have got richer after 1986, even as his true income stayed the same. Once this is corrected for, the rise in top incomes is less dramatic than it might at first appear. In some papers one-third of the long-term rise in inequality occurs around 1986.Messrs Auten and Splinter make other adjustments. Messrs Piketty and Saez have focused on “tax units”, typically households who file taxes in a single return. This introduces bias. In recent decades marriage has declined among poorer Americans. As a consequence, the share of income enjoyed by those at the top appears to have risen, as the incomes of poorer people are spread across more households, even as those of richer households remain pooled. Messrs Auten and Splinter therefore rank individuals.They also account for benefits provided by employers, including health insurance, which reduces the share of the top 1% in 2019 by about a percentage point. They make different assumptions about the allocation of government spending, and about misreported income. All in all, they find that after tax, the top 1% command about 9% of national income, compared with the 15% or so reported by Messrs Piketty, Saez and Zucman. Whereas the trio conclude that the share of the top 1% has sharply increased since the 1960s, Messrs Auten and Splinter find practically no change.Their paper is a valuable contribution. Greg Kaplan of the University of Chicago, who edited it, notes that it was reviewed by four expert referees and went through two rounds of revisions that he oversaw. The paper is scholarly in the extreme (including delights such as “the deduction for loss carryovers is limited to 80% of taxable income computed without regard to the loss carryover”). The authors are clearly obsessive about the history of the tax code.Yet their methodology has its own difficulties. “The remarkable thing is that almost all of their modifications push in the same direction—that’s something you wouldn’t expect a priori,” says Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University. Mr Splinter, speaking at a seminar in 2021, seemed not to have thought deeply about the potentially distorting effects of the decline of America’s informal economy. The gradual shift from cash-in-hand payments to direct deposits could have forced poorer folk such as cleaners and taxi-drivers to report more income on tax returns, making them appear richer when in fact they were not.I feel bad for you / I don’t think about you at allThe trio has concerns as well. Mr Piketty argues that “in order to get their results, Auten-Splinter implicitly assume that non-taxed labour income, pension income and capital income has been much more equally distributed than taxed income since 1980”, which he believes is unrealistic. Mr Saez seems a little fed up with the scholarly battle. “Our experience is that they haven’t changed anything of substance following these long exchanges.” But the JPE paper makes Mr Kopczuk “think that together with earlier papers we are now getting (wide) bounds for where the truth might be”. As a consequence, the idea that inequality is rising is very far from a self-evident truth. ■Read more from Free exchange, our column on economics:How to save China’s economy (Nov 23rd)The false promise of green jobs (Oct 14th)In praise of America’s car addiction (Nov 9th)For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More