Finance

Moody’s slashed one of New York Community Bank’s key ratings for the second time in a month.
As a result, the regional lender might have to pay more to retain deposits, according to analysts who track the company.
NYCB finds itself in a stock freefall that began a month ago when it reported a surprise fourth-quarter loss and steeper provisions for loan losses.
It fell a further 23% on Monday.

A sign is pictured above a branch of New York Community Bank in Yonkers, New York, on Jan. 31, 2024.
Mike Segar | Reuters

Regional lender New York Community Bank may have to pay more to retain deposits after one of the company’s key ratings was slashed for the second time in a month.
Late Friday, Moody’s Investors Service cut the deposit rating of NYCB’s main banking subsidiary by four notches, to Ba3 from Baa2, putting it three levels below investment grade. That followed a two-notch cut from Moody’s in early February.

The downgrade could trigger contractual obligations from business clients of NYCB who require the bank to maintain an investment grade deposit rating, according to analysts who track the company. Consumer deposits at FDIC-insured banks are covered up to $250,000.
NYCB has found itself in a stock freefall that began a month ago when it reported a surprise fourth-quarter loss and steeper provisions for loan losses. Concerns intensified last week after the bank’s new management found “material weaknesses” in the way it reviewed its commercial loans. Shares of the bank have fallen 73% this year, including a 23% decline Monday, and now trade hands for less than $3 apiece.
Of key interest for analysts and investors is the status of NYCB’s deposits. Last month, the bank said it had $83 billion in deposits as of Feb. 5, and that 72% of those were insured or collateralized. But the figures are from the day before Moody’s began slashing the bank’s ratings, sparking speculation about possible flight of deposits since then.
The Moody’s ratings cuts could affect funds in at least two areas: a “Banking as a Service” business with $7.8 billion in deposits as of a May regulatory filing, and a mortgage escrow unit with between $6 billion and $8 billion in deposits.
“There is potential risk to servicing deposits in the event of a downgrade,” Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz said in a Feb. 4 research note.

NYCB executives told Horowitz that the deposit rating, which Moody’s had pegged at A3 at the time, would have to fall four notches before being at risk. It has fallen six notches since that note was published.
During a Feb. 7 conference call, NYCB Chief Financial Officer John Pinto confirmed that the bank’s mortgage escrow business needed to maintain an investment grade status and said that deposit levels in the unit fluctuated between $6 billion and $8 billion.
“If there’s a contract with these depositors that you have to be investment grade, theoretically that would be a triggering event,” KBW analyst Chris McGratty said of the Moody’s downgrade.
NYCB didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s calls or an email seeking comment.
It couldn’t be determined what the contracts force NYCB to do in the event of it breaching investment grade status, or whether downgrades from multiple ratings firms would be needed to trigger contractual provisions. For instance, while Fitch Ratings cut NYCB’s credit ratings to junk last week, it kept the bank’s long-term uninsured deposits at BBB-, one level above junk.
To replace deposits, NYCB could raise brokered deposits, issue new debt or borrow from the Federal Reserve’s facilities, but that would all probably come at a higher cost, McGratty said.
“They will do whatever it takes to keep deposits in house, but as this scenario is playing out, it may become more cost prohibitive to fund the balance sheet,” McGratty said.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

Heading into what will likely be the Conservative government’s last fiscal event before the country’s upcoming general election, Hunt is under pressure to offer a sweetener to voters.
His party trails the main opposition Labour Party by more than 20 points across all national polls.
Deutsche Bank estimates that the government’s fiscal headroom will have grown from around £13 billion ($16.46 billion) to around £18.5 billion, and sees tax cuts as “very likely” the first port of call.

British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt said earlier this month the U.K. would not enter a recession this year.
Hannah Mckay | Reuters

LONDON — Economists expect U.K. Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt to use a small fiscal windfall to deliver a modest package of tax cuts at his Spring Budget on Wednesday.
Heading into what will likely be the Conservative government’s last fiscal event before the country’s upcoming General Election, Hunt is under pressure to offer a sweetener to voters as his party trails the main opposition Labour Party by more than 20 points across all national polls.

But he must also navigate the constraints of fragile public finances and a stagnant economy that recently entered a modest technical recession.
On the upside, inflation has fallen faster than anticipated and market expectations for interest rates are well below where they were going into Hunt’s Autumn Statement in November.
The Treasury pre-announced plans over the weekend to deliver up to £1.8 billion ($2.3 billion) worth of benefits by boosting public sector productivity, including releasing police time for more frontline work.
The Independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that returning to levels of pre-pandemic productivity could save the Treasury up to £20 billion per year.
Hunt will also announce £360 million in funding to boost research and development (R&D) and manufacturing projects across the life sciences, automotive and aerospace sectors, the Treasury said Monday.

However, the big questions over tax cuts remain heading into Wednesday’s statement.
Increased fiscal headroom
“On balance, we think Chancellor Hunt’s fiscal headroom will have likely increased – but only marginally, and nowhere close to what he had in the Autumn Statement (owing largely to the fall in expected debt costs),” Deutsche Bank Senior Economist Sanjay Raja said in a research note Thursday.
The German lender estimates that the government’s fiscal headroom will have grown from around £13 billion to around £18.5 billion, and that tax cuts are “very likely” the first port of call. Raja suggested the finance minister will err on the side of caution in loosening fiscal policy, favoring supply side support over boosting demand.
“Supply side measures are more likely in our view, particularly with the Bank of England more amenable to loosening monetary policy,” Raja said.
“Therefore, tax cuts to national insurance contributions (NICs) and changes to child benefits are more likely to come in the Spring Budget (in contrast to earlier expectations of income tax cuts).”

A substantial cut to National Insurance was the highlight of Hunt’s Autumn Statement, though economists were quick to point out that its benefit to payers would be more than erased by the effect of existing freezes on personal income tax thresholds — known as the “fiscal drag.”
The U.K. National Insurance is a tax on workers’ income and employers’ profits to pay for state social security benefits, including the state pension.
Raja also suggested an extension of the government’s existing freeze on fuel duty remains a possibility, and that some spending cuts will likely be used to partially offset a loosening of fiscal policy.
In total, Deutsche Bank expects Hunt to deliver net loosening of £15 billion over the coming fiscal year, dropping to around £12.5 billion in the medium-term.
“The outlook for the public finances remains precarious. Slight changes to the macroeconomic outlook could result in big shifts to the public finances. The Chancellor continues to walk a fine line between managing his fiscal rules now and rising austerity later,” Raja said.
“To be sure, big questions on the public finances remain – including whether spending cuts, or limited rises in some areas, remain realistic to tackle the rising strain in public services, and the Government’s own ambitions around net-zero, defence, and overseas development spending.”
BNP Paribas economists expect a more modest package of tax cuts worth around £10 billion across the 2024/25 fiscal year, and projected that the government will start the year with a fiscal windfall of around £11 billion.

The French bank agreed that the reductions will be aimed at stimulating labor supply, with “little impact on inflation and thus the Bank of England.”
“Our base case is that the government will spend GBP10bn of the near-term fiscal windfall and use the additional medium-term fiscal space to cut personal taxes,” economists Matthew Swannell and Dani Stoilova said in a research note entitled “last-chance saloon.”
They also expect the Treasury to postpone the March 2024 rise in fuel duty for another 12 months, at a cost of £3.7 billion a year, and to introduce a permanent 1 pence reduction in the basic rate of income tax at a cost of between £6 billion and £7.35 billion per year.
“The overall effect of this policy package would be to leave medium-term fiscal headroom roughly back where it started at GBP12.7bn,” they added.
“With the Conservative party trailing in the opinion polls and the Budget possibly the last opportunity to loosen fiscal policy before a general election, we expect Chancellor Hunt to once again, at least, spend any additional fiscal space available to him.” More

The Toronto Stock Exchange’s parent company has already completed a major deal this year: its acquisition of ETF education company VettaFi.
According to TMX Group CEO John McKenzie, the deal helps expand its exchange-traded fund business globally.

“The exchange-traded fund is essentially one of the most important innovations in investing in the marketplace history — at least in the last 20 [to] 30 years,” McKenzie told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “What we were really looking to do is … get deeper into providing more support to our clients.”
Even though ETF activity has cooled off from its 2022 records, action in 2023 was still above previous years, according to iShares data.
McKenzie plans to utilize the VettaFi acquisition to facilitate more ETF creation.
“ETF providers can create new products and great solutions so that they can reach a broader investing audience,” McKenzie said. “That’s the one two punch of what we’re doing with that investment.”
TMX’s ETF Screener lists 1,264 ETFs and ETF-related funds on the Toronto Stock Exchange as of Friday.

With VettaFi in the exchange’s tool belt, McKenzie hopes to create new ETFs focusing on Canada’s economic strengths and how they can reach international investors.
“We want to be more global than local,” added McKenzie. “This is a great asset to help us build not just in the U.S., not just in Canada, but around the world.”
Since the acquisition was completed on Jan. 2, TMX shares are up 11%.
Disclaimer More

Regional lender New York Community Bank finds itself in an apparently worsening predicament, just as the anniversary of last year’s banking turmoil nears.
NYCB restated recent quarterly earnings lower by $2.4 billion, formally replaced its CEO and delayed the release of a key annual report.
Shares of the troubled lender plunged 25% Friday to a 52-week low below $4 apiece.
The most worrying development is directly tied to investors’ fears about commercial real estate and shortfalls the bank reported in a key aspect of its business.

A sign is pictured above a branch of the New York Community Bank in Yonkers, New York, U.S., January 31, 2024.
Mike Segar | Reuters

Regional lender New York Community Bank finds itself in an apparently worsening predicament just as the anniversary of last year’s banking turmoil nears.
Shares of the troubled lender plunged 25% on Friday to below $4 apiece after NYCB restated recent quarterly earnings lower by $2.4 billion, formally replaced its CEO and delayed the release of a key annual report.

The most worrying development, though, is directly tied to investors’ fears about commercial real estate and shortfalls the bank reported in a key aspect of its business: NYCB said that poor oversight led to “material weaknesses” in the way it reviewed its portfolio of loans.

The disclosure is a “significant concern that suggests credit costs could be higher for an extended period,” Raymond James analyst Steve Moss said Thursday in a research note. “The disclosures add to our concern about NYCB’s interest-only multi-family portfolio, which may require a long workout period unless interest rates decline.”
In a remarkable reversal of fortunes, a year after deposit runs consumed regional lenders including Silicon Valley Bank, NYCB — one of the perceived winners from that period after acquiring a chunk of the assets of Signature Bank following government seizure — is now facing existential questions of its own.

Tough quarter

The bank’s trajectory shifted suddenly a month ago after a disastrous fourth-quarter report in which it posted a surprise loss, slashed its dividend and shocked analysts with its level of loan loss provisions.
Days later, ratings agency Moody’s cut the bank’s credit ratings two notches to junk on concerns over the bank’s risk management capabilities after the departure of NYCB’s chief risk officer and chief audit executive.

At the time, some analysts were comforted by the steps NYCB took to shore up its capital, and noted that the promotion of former Flagstar CEO Alessandro DiNello to executive chairman boosted confidence in management. The bank’s stock was briefly buoyed by a flurry of insider purchases indicating executives’ confidence in the bank.
DiNello became CEO as of Thursday after his predecessor stepped down.

Deposit update?

Now, some are questioning the stability of NYCB’s deposits amid the tumult. Last month, the bank said it had $83 billion in deposits as of Feb. 5, a slight increase from year-end. Most of those deposits were insured, and it had ample resources to tap if uninsured deposits left the bank, it said.
“NYCB still has not provided an update on deposits, which we can only infer … are down,” D.A. Davidson analyst Peter Winter said Thursday in a note.
“The question is, by how much?” Winter asked. “In our view, corporate treasurers were reassessing if they are going to keep deposits at NYCB when their debt rating was downgraded to junk.”
In a statement released Friday announcing a new chief risk officer and chief audit executive, NYCB CEO DiNello noted that he had identified the weaknesses disclosed Thursday and is “taking the necessary steps to address them.” The bank’s allowance for credit losses isn’t expected to change, he added.
“The company has strong liquidity and a solid deposit base, and I am confident we will execute on our turnaround plan,” DiNello said.

Key stock level pierced

The pressure on NYCB’s operations and profitability amid elevated interest rates and a murky outlook for loan defaults has raised questions as to whether NYCB, a serial acquirer of banks until recently, will be forced to sell itself to a more stable partner.
Ben Emons, head of fixed income for NewEdge Wealth, noted that banks trading for less than $5 a share are perceived by markets as being at risk for government seizure.
A NYCB representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
For now, the concern seems to be limited to NYCB, where commercial real estate makes up a greater proportion of loans compared with some rivals. While NYCB stock notched a 52-week low of $3.32 per share on Friday, other bank indexes saw only slight declines.
“We expect more questions on whether NYCB will sell,” Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz said in a note. “But we do not see a lot of potential buyers here even at this price due to the uncertainty … in our view, NYCB is on its own.”
— CNBC’s Tom Rotunno and Michael Bloom contributed to this story.
Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

The regional bank announced that Alessandro DiNello, its executive chairman, is taking on the roles of president and CEO, effective immediately.
NYCB has been under pressure in recent months due in part to concerns about its exposure to commercial real estate.
The bank also announced an amendment to its fourth-quarter results, adding a disclosure about its internal risk management.

A New York Community Bank stands in Brooklyn, New York City, on Feb. 8, 2024.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Shares of New York Community Bancorp fell more than 20% in extended trading Thursday after the regional lender announced a leadership change and disclosed issues with its internal controls.
The regional bank announced that Alessandro DiNello, its executive chairman, is taking on the roles of president and CEO, effective immediately. NYCB has been under pressure in recent months due in part to concerns about its exposure to commercial real estate.

Stock chart icon

Shares of NYCB dropped sharply in after hours trading.

The bank also announced an amendment to its fourth-quarter results, adding a disclosure about its internal risk management.
“As part of management’s assessment of the Company’s internal controls, management identified material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls related to internal loan review, resulting from ineffective oversight, risk assessment and monitoring activities,” the company said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
DiNello previously served as the CEO of Flagstar Bank, which NYCB acquired in 2022. He was named executive chairman at NYCB earlier in February just after Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the bank’s credit rating to junk status.
“While we’ve faced recent challenges, we are confident in the direction of our bank and our ability to deliver for our customers, employees and shareholders in the long-term. The changes we’re making to our Board and leadership team are reflective of a new chapter that is underway,” DiNello said in a press release Thursday.
In another leadership change, Marshall Lux was elevated to presiding director of the NYCB board, replacing Hanif Dahya. Lux served as global chief risk officer for Chase Consumer Bank at JP Morgan from 2007 to 2009, according to the press release.

Shares of NYCB are down 53% year to date, sparked by its disclosure on Jan. 31 that it took a larger-than-expected charge against potential loan losses.
The specter of loan losses reignited fears about the state of the commercial real estate market and regional banks more broadly. Several regional banks failed in 2023 after customers and investors became uneasy about the value of the debt on bank balance sheets, including Silicon Valley Bank.
NYCB was actually the acquirer of one of those failed banks, Signature, in March of last year.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

Job seekers and employers are increasingly “ghosting” each other during the hiring process.
A hot job market and “circular” behavior have led the practice to become more common in recent years, said career experts.
However, ghosting risks reputational harm in the long run, they said.

Fotostorm | E+ | Getty Images

“Ghosting” isn’t just a dating phenomenon: It has grown more common at the workplace, too. And that unreliable behavior risks reputational harm to employers and job seekers, said career experts.
The concept of ghosting — abruptly and unexpectedly ceasing communication with someone (i.e., disappearing) — arose around the mid-2010s as social media and dating apps gained prominence. Merriam-Webster added this new-age definition of “ghost” to the dictionary in 2017.

The practice has become common among both job applicants and employers during the hiring process.
More from Personal Finance:How to get by without a paycheck after a job lossAmid mass layoffs, it’s best to take a new approach to job searchesWorkers are sour on the job market — but it may not be warranted
About 78% of job seekers said they’d ghosted a prospective employer, according to a December report from the job site Indeed, based on a poll conducted in spring 2023. That’s up from the prior year, when 68% said they’d gone AWOL during the hiring process sometime over their career.
Roughly 62% of job seekers said they plan to ghost during future job searches, up from 56% in 2022 and 37% in 2019, Indeed found.
But it’s not just applicants who disappear: 40% of job seekers said an employer had ghosted them after a second- or third-round interview, up from 30% in 2022.

The data suggests ghosting is “still trending upward” and isn’t a “passing fad,” according to the Indeed report.

Why job ghosting is becoming more common

It’s not as if ghosting is a new phenomenon. There have always been job seekers and employers who’ve displayed lackluster communication during hiring, said Jill Eubank, senior vice president of business professionals at Randstad, a recruitment firm.
Its prevalence in recent years is likely attributable to a hot job market heading into the Covid-19 pandemic and then exiting it, she said.
Demand for labor surged in early 2021 as the U.S. economy reopened from its pandemic-related doldrums. The unemployment rate has hovered near historic lows for about two years, and layoffs for nearly three years. Job openings — a proxy for businesses’ need for workers — hit historic highs in the pandemic era; so did quits, a barometer of workers’ ability or willingness to get jobs elsewhere.

While the job market has gradually cooled, it’s still strong, Eubank said.
Job candidates likely felt they had abundant choice and a high likelihood of success, and ghosting swelled as a result, she said.
“They feel that they have options: ‘I don’t have to communicate because I can just go over here [for a job], or I have this other opportunity,'” Eubank said.

Why ghosting has become a feedback loop

Maskot | Maskot | Getty Images

About 1 in 6 millennial and Generation Z workers have ghosted a prospective employer during the interview process, primarily because they no longer wanted the job, got another job offer or had a bad interview experience, according to a 2023 poll by the Thriving Center of Psychology, a mental health platform.
Two-thirds — 66% — of workers have “ghosted” employers by accepting a job offer and then retracting it, or disappearing, before their start date, according to a 2019 poll by Randstad.

As a coach, I’d never recommend that a job seeker ghost an employer.

Clint Carrens
career strategist at Indeed

Additionally, 35% of workers said they’d been ghosted by employers during the interview process, according to the Thriving Center of Psychology.
The problem has morphed into a feedback loop, said Clint Carrens, a career strategist at Indeed’s Job Search Academy.
“You’ve got job seekers feeling employers are getting worse at ghosting,” Carrens said. “Many are taking the approach that if employers consider it normal etiquette, then they will also engage in that behavior. It’s almost a circular problem.”

However, ghosting carries risks for both parties via potential reputational damage, experts said.
“As a coach, I’d never recommend that a job seeker ghost an employer,” Carrens said.
Those who do may be “red flagged” by the employer and lose access to a future job opportunity, for example, he said.
Employers may feel ghosting gets them a short-term win by cutting time during the hiring process, but it also hurts their brands in the long run, especially if job seekers speak out about their negative experience online, Carrens added. More

Trade unions rarely look to corporate raiders for inspiration. Yet the Strategic Organising Centre (SOC), a coalition of North American workers groups, is mounting the sort of campaign normally associated with hedge funds. The group’s target is Starbucks, a coffee-shop chain with a market capitalisation of $107bn. Whereas traditional activist investors take a chunk of a company and pressure its management to change strategy, hoping to gain from a bump in the share price, the SOC owns a mere $16,000-worth of Starbucks shares, and ultimately wants to improve the lot of the firm’s workers.Its pitch is that the interests of shareholders and workers are, in fact, aligned. Starbucks is wasting money and alienating customers with its approach to “human-capital management”, the group argues. Productivity would be higher, and spending on consultants lower, should Starbucks follow its workplace advice. Therefore it wants three of its candidates appointed to Starbucks’s 11-person board. The hot-drinks behemoth is less convinced. The board is already stocked with “world-class business leaders”, says a representative, who adds that in the last fiscal year a fifth of profits went towards wage increases, training and new equipment.Five years after the Business Roundtable, a 200-strong group of chief executives at some of America’s biggest companies, embraced stakeholder capitalism, the mood is now rather different. Most bosses would prefer to leave politics to the politicians and avoid the boycotts and bad publicity that come with wading into culture wars. They are content to focus on shareholder returns, rather than trying to improve society at large. But although chief executives have mostly abandoned their flirtation with stakeholder capitalism, they are still living with its consequences.This year’s proxy season, which gets under way in the spring, will probably surpass even 2023’s for proposals of non-binding resolutions. That year marked a record for environmental, social and governance (ESG) motions. At the large and small American companies that comprise the Russell 3000 index, 513 of the 836 proposals put to shareholders focused on such questions, according to the Conference Board, a think-tank. The increase reflected a legal shift. In 2021 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a regulator, said that it would no longer allow companies to exclude measures as irrelevant if they focused on a “significant social policy”.Conservatives are also mobilising. Last year’s proxy season included 92 anti-ESG proposals, up from 54 the year before. On February 28th at the annual meeting of Apple, a tech giant, shareholders were asked to consider five such proposals, including one asking the firm to report on the risks of failing to consider “viewpoints” in its equal-opportunities policies. The supporting statement says there is evidence that conservatives may be discriminated against in Silicon Valley. Another two, submitted by conservative pressure groups, asked the company to report on how it arbitrates between government and consumer interests, in particular in its dealings with China. For their part, liberals offered only one resolution: asking Apple to change how it reports on racial pay gaps. The company recommended that shareholders reject every one, which they did.Politics by other meansWill other campaigns find more success? In 2023 the average environmental proposal received the support of just a fifth of shareholders, down from a third the year before. Shareholders are being more disciplined, says Lindsey Stewart of Morningstar, a research outfit, only backing climate-change resolutions that are focused on the emissions over which companies have direct control or that they will have to disclose to satisfy regulators, rather than those in their supply chains. Financiers have realised that it is not their job to set energy or industrial policy, he explains. Meanwhile, anti-ESG proposals fare even worse: on average they receive the support of only 5% of shareholders.Although such campaigns are rarely successful, they do matter. ExxonMobil, an oil supermajor, is taking the unusual step of suing its own shareholders who have put forward green proposals. Arjuna Capital, a hedge fund, and Follow This, a campaign group, used a stake of less than $4,000 to advance a non-binding proposal to accelerate greenhouse-gas reductions with targets and timelines. The proposal has been withdrawn, but Exxon is still pursuing the case. It says the underlying issue with the SEC’s approach is still unresolved: clarity is needed about proxy-voting rules that “are increasingly being infringed by activists masquerading as shareholders”. Many companies quietly agree.And as the Starbucks case suggests, crusades are becoming increasingly ambitious. More shareholder-activist campaigns began in 2023 than ever before, according to Lazard, an investment bank. Smaller groups, including the SOC, have been helped by rules known as “universal proxy”, which were introduced in 2022 by the SEC and mean that both a company’s and its dissident shareholders’ nominees to the board of directors must be on the same ballot. Instead of shareholders choosing one slate or the other, they can now mix and match with outsiders and insiders. The SOC has spent about $3m on its fight. The result will indicate whether unions can enlist Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, which advise institutional investors, to their cause.Other small shareholders are pursuing similar strategies. In Europe Bluebell Capital, a tiny hedge fund, has begun a battle with BP, another oil supermajor. The fund argues that BP should quit the offshore-wind business, which it says is destroying value for shareholders. It would prefer BP to increase oil and gas production, as well as to return money to shareholders, who could then invest in better green options, says Giuseppe Bivona, a partner at Bluebell, defending the fund’s environmental credentials. “Contrary to probable superficial appearances, we believe BP is pursuing an ‘anti-woke’ strategy,” the fund’s letter to shareholders argues.Dissident investors do not need to win board seats to achieve some sort of victory. After presenting its latest set of results to shareholders, BP increased the pace of buybacks to placate investors who are cool on its green-energy strategy. Meanwhile, the SOC hopes that Starbucks’ defence against its campaign might include concessions. Traditional activist investors urge companies to break up, divest assets or return cash to shareholders. Even without campaigns being launched, boardrooms have come to do these things so as to avoid attracting the attention of corporate raiders in the first place. A new generation of corporate raiders, taking advantage of cuddly capitalism, will hope their campaigns have a similar impact. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

The year is 2034. America’s “magnificent seven” firms comprise almost the entirety of the country’s stockmarket. For Jensen Huang, the boss of Nvidia, another knockout quarterly profit means another dizzy proclamation of a “tipping point” in artificial intelligence. Nobody is listening. The long march of passive investing has put the last stockpickers and stock-watchers out of a job. Index mutual and exchange-traded funds (ETFs)—which buy a bunch of stocks rather than guessing which ones will perform best—dominate markets completely. Capitalism’s big questions are hashed-out in private between a few tech bosses and asset managers.In reality, the dystopia will probably be avoided: markets would cease to function after the last opinionated investor turned out the lights. However, that does not stop academics, fund managers and regulators from worrying about unthinking money, especially in times of market mania. After the dotcom bubble burst in 2000 Jean-Claude Trichet, a French central banker, included passive investment in his list of reasons why asset prices might detach from their economic fundamentals. Index funds, he argued, were capable of “creating rather than measuring performance”. America’s red-hot markets have brought similar arguments back to the fore. Some analysts are pointing fingers at passive investing for inflating the value of stocks. Others are predicting its decline.image: The EconomistSuch critics may have a point, even if some are prone to exaggeration. It seems likely there is a connection between the concentration of value in America’s stockmarket and its increasingly passive ownership. The five biggest companies in the S&P 500 now make up a quarter of the index. On this measure, markets have not been as concentrated since the “nifty fifty” bubble of the early 1970s. Last year the size of passive funds overtook active ones for the first time (see chart). The largest single ETF tracking the S&P 500 index has amassed assets of over $500bn. Even these enormous figures belie the true number of passive dollars, not least owing to “closet indexing”, where ostensibly active managers align their investments with an index.Index funds trace their origins to the idea, which emerged during the 1960s, that markets are efficient. Since information is instantaneously “priced in”, it is hard for stockpickers to compensate for higher fees by consistently beating the market. Many academics have attempted to untangle the effects of more passive buyers on prices. One recent paper by Hao Jiang, Dimitri Vayanos and Lu Zheng, a trio of finance professors, estimates that due to passive investing the returns on America’s largest stocks were 30 percentage points higher than the market between 1996 and 2020.The clearest casualty of passive funds has been active managers. According to research from GMO, a fund-management firm, an active manager investing equally across 20 stocks in the S&P 500 index, and making the right call most of the time, would have had only a 7% chance of beating the index last year. Little wonder that investors are directing their cash elsewhere. During the past decade the number of active funds focused on large American companies has declined by 40%. According to Bank of America, since 1990 the average number of analysts covering firms in the S&P 500 index has dropped by 15%. Their decline means fewer value-focused soldiers guarding market fundamentals.Some now think that this trend might have run its course. Students embarking on a career in value investing will consult “Security Analysis”, a stockpickers bible written by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, two finance academics, and first published in 1934. In a recently updated preface by Seth Klarman, a hedge-fund manager, they will find hopeful claims that the rising share of passive money could increase the rewards yielded by pouring over firms’ balance-sheets.Fees charged by active managers have declined significantly; perhaps election-year volatility will even help some outperform markets. A few might gather the courage to bet on market falls. If they are right, their winnings will be all the bigger for their docile competition. But for the time being, at least, passive investors have the upper hand. And unless the concentration of America’s stockmarket decreases, it seems unlikely that the fortunes of active managers will truly reverse. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More