Banking and Financial Institutions

More stories

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    A Federal Reserve President Spoke at an Invite-Only, Off-Record Bank Client Event

    by

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

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Could a Market Blowout Like the UK’s Happen in the US?

    by

    Federal Reserve and White House officials spent last week quizzing investors and economists about the risks of a British-style meltdown at home.WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve researchers and officials quizzed experts from Wall Street and around the world last week about a pressing question: Could a market meltdown like the one that happened in Britain late last month occur here?The answer they got back, according to four people at separate institutions who were in such conversations and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private meetings, was that it probably could — though a crash does not appear to be imminent. As the Biden administration did its own research into the potential for a meltdown, other market participants relayed the same message: The risk of a financial crisis has grown as central banks have sharply raised interest rates.The Bank of England had to swoop in to buy bonds and soothe markets after the British government released a fiscal spending plan that would have stimulated an economy already struggling with punishing inflation, one that included little detail on how it would be paid for. Markets lurched, and pension funds using a common investment strategy found themselves scrambling to adjust, prompting the central bank’s intervention.While the shock was British-specific, the violent reaction has caused economists around the world to wonder if the situation was a canary in a coal mine as signs of financial stress surface around the globe.Officials at the Fed, Treasury and White House are among those trying to figure out whether the United States could experience its own market-shuddering meltdown, one that could prove costly for households while complicating America’s battle against rapid inflation.Administration officials remain confident that the U.S. financial system is unlikely to see such a shock and is strong enough to withstand one if it comes. But both they and the Fed are keeping close tabs on what is happening at a moment when conditions feel abnormally fragile.Markets have been choppy for months in the United States and globally as central banks — including the Fed — rapidly raise interest rates to bring inflation under control. That has caused abnormally large price moves in currencies and other assets because their values hinge partly on the level of interest rates and on international rate differences. Stocks have been swinging. It can be hard to quickly find a buyer for U.S. government bonds, although the market is not breaking down. And in corners of finance that involve more complicated investment structures, there’s concern that volatility could trigger a dangerous chain reaction.“In the market, there is a lot of worry, and everyone is saying it feels like something is about to break,” said Roberto Perli, an economist at Piper Sandler who used to work at the Fed and who was not part of the conversations last week. He added that it made sense that officials were checking up on the situation.President Biden at an event promoting the Inflation Reduction Act in California last week.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesPresident Biden has repeatedly convened his top economic aides in recent weeks to discuss market flare-ups, like the one that roiled Britain.Fed officials and staff members have met with investors and economists both during normal outreach and on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings last week in Washington.Fed researchers asked about three big possibilities during the meetings. They wanted to know whether there could be a trade or an investment class in the United States similar to British pension funds that could pose a significant and underappreciated threat.They also focused on whether problems overseas could spill back over to the United States financial system. For instance, Japan is one of the biggest buyers of U.S. debt. But Japan’s currency is rapidly falling in value as the country holds its interest rates low, unlike other central banks. If that turmoil caused Japan to reverse course and stop buying or even sell U.S. Treasurys — something that it has signaled little appetite for, but that some on Wall Street see as a risk — it could have ramifications for U.S. debt markets.The final threat they asked about focused on whether today’s lack of easy trading in the Treasury market could turn into a more serious problem that requires the Fed to swoop in to restore normal functioning..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.None of those areas appear to be at immediate risk of snapping, analysts told officials. The pension system in the United States is different from that in Britain, and the government debt market may be choppy, but it is still functioning.Yet they also voiced reasons for concern: It is impossible to know what might break until something does. Markets are large and intertwined, and comprehensive data is hard to come by. Given how much central bank policy has shifted around the world in recent months, something could easily go wrong.There is a good reason for officials to fret about that possibility: A market meltdown now would be especially problematic.A New York City market. The Fed is rapidly raising interest rates to bring inflation under control, but a financial crash could force it to shift that plan.Elias Williams for The New York TimesA financial disaster could force the Fed to deviate from its plan to control the fastest inflation in four decades, which includes raising rates rapidly and allowing its bond portfolio to shrink. Officials have in the past bought large sums of Treasury bonds in order to restore stability to flailing markets — essentially the opposite of their policy today.Central bankers would most likely try to draw a distinction between bond buying meant to keep the market functioning and monetary policy, but that could be hard to communicate.The White House, too, has reasons to worry. Mr. Biden was scarred by his experience as vice president throughout the Great Recession, during which a financial meltdown brought on the worst downturn since the 1930s, throwing millions out of work and consuming the Obama administration’s policy agenda for years of a painstakingly slow recovery.Mr. Biden has pressed his team to estimate the likelihood that the United States could experience another 2008-style shock on Wall Street. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and her deputies have been closely monitoring developments in the market for U.S. government debt and searching for any signs of British-style stress.While administration officials noted that trading has become more difficult in the market for Treasury bonds, they also pointed out that it was otherwise functioning well. Multiple officials said this week that they expected the Fed would step in to buy bonds — as the Bank of England did — in an emergency.Other administration officials came away from their meetings in Washington last week with increased worries about financial crises sprouting in so-called emerging markets, like parts of Africa, Asia and South America, where food and energy prices have soared and where the Fed’s steady march of interest rate increases has forced governments to raise their own borrowing costs. Such crises could spread worldwide and rebound on wealthier countries like the United States.Yet administration officials say the American economy remains strong enough to endure any such shocks, buoyed by still-rapid job growth and relatively low household debt.“This is a challenging global economic moment where stability is hard to find,” said Michael Pyle, Mr. Biden’s deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, “but the U.S. has momentum and resilience behind its economic recovery, and a trajectory that puts the U.S. in a strong position to weather these global challenges.”And there is no guarantee that something will blow up. A senior Treasury official said this week that financial risks had risen with high inflation and rising interest rates, but that a variety of data the department tracked continued to show strength in American businesses, households and financial institutions.For now, markets for short-term borrowing, which are crucial to the functioning of finance overall, look healthy and fairly normal, said Joseph Abate, a managing director at Barclays. And officials are working on safeguards to stem the fallout if a disaster should come. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, which Ms. Yellen leads, discussed the issues at its most recent meeting this month, hearing staff presentations on U.S. financial vulnerabilities.The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, an advisory group of market participants, has been asked in its latest questionnaire about a possible Treasury program to buy back government debt. Some investors have taken that as a signal that they are worried about a possible problem and may want to be able to improve market functioning, especially in light of their comments and outreach.“We are worried about a loss of adequate liquidity in the market,” Ms. Yellen said last week while answering questions after a speech in Washington.And the Fed already has outstanding tools that can help to stabilize markets. Those include swap lines that can funnel dollars to banks that need it overseas, and that have been used by Switzerland and the European Central Bank in recent weeks.Mr. Abate at Barclays said the Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury and Fed seemed to be “on top of” the situation.“It’s clear in the marketplace that liquidity is a concern,” he said. “The regulators are moving to address that.” More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed, Staring Down Two Big Choices, Charts an Aggressive Path

    by

    Federal Reserve officials are barreling toward another three-quarter-point increase in November, and they may decide to do more next year.Federal Reserve officials have coalesced around a plan to raise interest rates by three-quarters of a point next month as policymakers grow alarmed by the staying power of rapid price increases — and increasingly worried that inflation is now feeding on itself.Such concerns could also prompt the Fed to raise rates at least slightly higher next year than previously forecast as officials face two huge choices at their coming meetings: when to slow rapid rate increases and when to stop them altogether.Central bankers had expected to debate slowing down at their November meeting, but a rash of recent data suggesting that the labor market is still strong and that inflation is unrelenting has them poised to delay serious discussion of a smaller move for at least a month. The conversation about whether to scale back is now more likely to happen in December. Investors have entirely priced in a fourth consecutive three-quarter-point move at the Fed’s Nov. 1-2 meeting, and officials have made no effort to change that expectation.Officials may also feel the need to push rates higher than they had expected as recently as September, as inflation remains stubborn even in the face of substantial moves to try to wrestle it under control. While the central bank had penciled in a peak rate of 4.6 percent next year, that could nudge up depending on incoming data. Rates are now set around 3.1 percent, and the Fed’s next forecast will be released in December.Fed officials have grown steadily more aggressive in their battle against inflation this year, as the price burst sweeping the globe has proved more persistent than just about anyone expected. And for now, they have little reason to let up: A report last week showed that Consumer Price Index prices climbed by 6.6 percent over the year through September even after food and fuel prices were stripped out — a new 40-year high for that closely watched core index.“It’s a little bit hard to slow down without an apparent reason,” said Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chair who is now at Princeton University.Mr. Blinder expects the Fed to make another big move at this coming meeting. “If you were Jay Powell and the Fed and slowed to 50, what would you say?” he said. “They can’t say we’ve seen progress on inflation. That would be laughed out of court.”Policymakers came into the year expecting to barely lift interest rates in 2022, forecasting that they would close out the year below 1 percent, up from around zero. But as inflation ratcheted steadily higher and then plateaued near the quickest pace since the early 1980s, they became more determined to stamp it out, even if doing so comes at a near-term cost to the economy.Consumer prices continue to increase rapidly month after month. Those increases are driven by a broad array of goods and services and have been stubborn even in the face of the Fed’s policy moves.John Taggart for The New York TimesOfficials are afraid that if they allow fast inflation to linger, it will become a permanent feature of the American economy. Workers might ask for bigger wage increases each year if they think that costs will steadily increase. Companies, anticipating higher wage bills and feeling confident that consumers will not be shocked by price increases, might increase what they’re charging more drastically and regularly.“The longer the current bout of high inflation continues, the greater the chance that expectations of higher inflation will become entrenched,” Mr. Powell, the Fed chair, warned at his news conference last month.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    With So Much Riding on the Fed’s Moves, It’s Hard to Know How to Invest

    by

    Where the markets go from here depends on whether and how deftly the Federal Reserve pivots from its hawkish stance.Making money was easy for investors when they could still plausibly believe that the Federal Reserve might back down on its aggressive campaign to subdue inflation at any cost. But harsh words from the Fed chairman, Jerome H. Powell, backed by a string of large interest rate increases, finally convinced markets that the central bank meant business, sending stock and bond prices tumbling.A nervous confidence returned as October began, with stocks experiencing a big two-day rally, but then prices sank anew. Investors at first seemed more confident that the Fed would reverse course, but anxiety returned as they worried about how much damage would be inflicted before that happened. Where the markets go from here, and how to position an investment portfolio, depends on whether and how deftly the Fed changes its strategy.“A crescendo of factors is coming together that makes me think we’re going to have another few weeks of pain before the Fed capitulates,” said Marko Papic, chief strategist at the Clocktower Group.Mr. Papic thinks a dovish turn may come soon, as the Fed signals that it would settle for inflation two or three percentage points above its 2 percent target.Others think more pain lies ahead, maybe a lot more. A prerequisite for a pivot might be a “credit event,” said Komal Sri-Kumar, president of Sri-Kumar Global Strategies, meaning a default by a large investment firm or corporate or government borrower, often with severe consequences. Mutual FundsA glance at mutual fund performance in the third quarter. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.K. Government Plans an Update to Its Tax and Spending Agenda

    by

    After an earlier announcement sent markets into a tailspin, the prime minister and the chancellor are under pressure to restore fiscal credibility.After days of confusion, Britain’s government said on Monday that the date for its next fiscal policy announcement would be moved up nearly a month and that it would provide, at the same time, a much-anticipated independent assessment of the policies’ impact on the nation’s economy and public finances.The chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, said he would publish his “medium-term fiscal plan” on Oct. 31, which would show how the government, under the new prime minister, Liz Truss, would bring down debt levels despite large spending plans and tax cuts that would be funded by borrowing.New economic and fiscal forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, a government watchdog, are to be published the same day.The move is aimed to reassure financial markets and the public of the new government’s fiscal credibility. Its first major economic announcement, a speech by Mr. Kwarteng on Sept. 23, was dominated by unfunded tax cuts at a time of high inflation, and it quickly sent markets into a tailspin: The British pound hit a record low against the dollar, and turmoil in the bond market led to higher mortgage rates and intervention from the Bank of England to protect pension funds.Since then, the government has canceled its plan to abolish the top income tax rate for the highest earners — the most surprising tax-cutting measure announced last month — and tried to restore its fiscal credibility, while maintaining its commitment to an agenda of using tax cuts and deregulation to speed economic growth.Rising Inflation in BritainInflation Slows Slightly: Consumer prices are still rising at about the fastest pace in 40 years, despite a small drop to 9.9 percent in August.Interest Rates: On Sept. 22, the Bank of England raised its key rate by another half a percentage point, to 2.25 percent, as it tries to keep high inflation from becoming embedded in the nation’s economy.Truss’s Experiment Stumbles: Prime Minister Liz Truss says a mix of tax cuts and deregulation is needed to jump-start Britain’s sluggish economy. Investors, economists and some in her own party disagree.Mortgage Market: The uptick in interest rates roiled Britain’s mortgage market, leaving many homeowners calculating their potential future mortgage payments with alarm.Part of this rehabilitation effort included a promise to publish a more detailed fiscal plan focused on reducing debt and provide an independent analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility. But the date was set for Nov. 23 — too long to wait, said fellow Conservative Party members, opposition lawmakers and investors.Liz Truss, the prime minister, with Mr. Kwarteng visiting a construction site last week. Pool photo by Stefan RousseauLast week, it was widely reported that the date would be moved forward, and Mr. Kwarteng denied this. On Monday, he confirmed that the announcement would indeed arrive on Oct. 31.Two weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of Mr. Kwarteng’s policy speech, the pound plummeted to $1.035 and speculation grew that it could reach parity with the dollar. The cancellation of the top tax rate cut, which the government argued had become a distraction from its overall growth plan, helped the currency rebound a bit.But that recovery has stalled. On Monday, the pound was trading around $1.10 amid skepticism that the government’s plan would expand the economy as promised, and that instead large public spending cuts would be necessary.Fitch Ratings said on Monday that it expected the British economy to contract 1 percent next year, after “extreme volatility” in British financial markets and the prospect of “sharply higher” interest rates. Last month, it forecast a 0.2 percent decline for next year.“Rising funding costs, tighter financing conditions, including for mortgage borrowers, and increased uncertainty will outweigh the impact of looser fiscal policy” next year, analysts at the ratings agency wrote. They expect Britain’s economy to enter a recession in this quarter. The agency has already changed its ratings outlook for Britain to negative.That was just one of many rebukes of the government’s plans. For example, the International Monetary Fund encouraged the government to re-evaluate the tax cuts, which it said would increase inequality.But Ms. Truss, seeking to reverse years of sluggish growth and weak productivity, has been clear that she wants to run the economy differently than her predecessors. One early decision was to fire the top civil servant in the Treasury, Tom Scholar, a move that rattled some analysts. On Monday, the government announced his successor, James Bowler, who will transfer from the international trade department but spent two decades at the Treasury previously.Even as the government makes conciliatory moves, there are signs of distress in financial markets. On Monday, the Bank of England said it would expand its intervention in the bond market. The bank will increase the size of the daily auctions in a bond-buying program that was set up to support pensions funds, after tumult in this market threatened Britain’s financial stability.Over the last eight trading days, the bank bought only about 5 billion pounds of long-dated government bonds in total, despite setting a limit of £5 billion a day. With markets wondering what will happen when the bond-buying operation ends on Friday, the central bank announced that it would expand its support. As well as increasing the auction sizes, it will set up a new collateral facility to try to ease liquidity problems faced by the pension funds. That facility will continue beyond this week.The announcement appeared to do little to ease the markets. On Monday, Britain’s bond prices kept falling, while the yield on 30-year bonds rose to 4.72 percent, once again approaching highs seen during the worst of the bond rout after the last fiscal statement.The financial district in London. The new government’s first major economic announcement, on Sept. 23, quickly sent markets into a tailspin.Alex Ingram for The New York Times More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Global Fallout From Rate Moves Won’t Stop the Fed

    by

    The Federal Reserve, like many central banks, sets policy with an eye on the domestic economy. Its battle to control prices is causing pain abroad.The Federal Reserve has embarked on an aggressive campaign to raise interest rates as it tries to tame the most rapid inflation in decades, an effort the central bank sees as necessary to restore price stability in the United States.But what the Fed does at home reverberates across the globe, and its actions are raising the risks of a global recession while causing economic and financial pain in many developing countries.Other central banks in advanced economies, from Australia to the eurozone, are also lifting rates rapidly to fight their inflation. And as the Fed’s higher interest rates attract money to the United States — pumping up the value of the dollar — emerging-market economies are being forced to raise their own borrowing costs to try to stabilize their currencies to the extent possible.Altogether, it is a worldwide push toward more expensive money unlike anything seen before in the 21st century, one that is likely to have serious ramifications.Higher rates slow inflation by cooling consumer demand and allowing supply to catch up, paving the way for more moderate price increases. But in the process, they slow down hiring, weaken wage growth, prompt job losses and ripple through financial markets in sometimes disruptive ways.How much pain today’s moves will ultimately cause remains unclear: So many countries are raising rates so quickly — and so in sync — that it is difficult to determine how intense any slowdown will be once it takes full effect. Monetary policy takes months or years to kick in completely.But many economists and several international bodies have warned that there’s a pronounced danger or overdoing it, including a United Nations agency that warned the damage could be particularly acute in poorer nations. Developing economies had already been dealing with a cost-of-living crisis because of soaring food and fuel prices, and now their American imports are growing steadily more expensive as the dollar marches higher.The Fed’s moves have spurred market volatility and worries about financial stability, as higher rates elevate the value of the U.S. dollar, making it harder for emerging-market borrowers to pay back their dollar-denominated debt.It is a recipe for globe-spanning turmoil and even recession. Despite that, the Fed is poised to continue raising interest rates. That’s because the Fed, like central banks around the world, is in charge of domestic economy goals: It’s supposed to keep inflation slow and steady while fostering maximum employment. While occasionally called “central banker to the world” because of the dollar’s foremost position, the Fed goes about its day-to-day business with its eye squarely on America.“Of course, as a human, you care about the pain other countries are experiencing — but as a policymaker, I have a single tool,” Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in an interview on Tuesday. “It’s a blunt tool, even for the U.S. goals of full employment and price stability.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed Wants to Quash Inflation. But Can It Do It More Gently?

    by

    Federal Reserve officials have raised rates five times this year as they try to beat back the worst inflation in 40 years, and the past three moves have been especially rapid. That has prompted Wall Street and policymakers to contemplate when the Fed might start to slow down.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has signaled that moving less rapidly will be appropriate at some point in the future, though he has declined to put a date on when that might begin. On Thursday, Lisa D. Cook, one of the Fed’s newest governors, echoed that stance, saying that “at some point” the central bank will decide to “slow the pace of increases while we assess the effects of our cumulative tightening on the economy and inflation.”Based on the central bank’s statements and economic projections, markets are betting heavily that the pace will not step down until December. But a debate is beginning to firm up ahead of the central bank’s meeting in early November: Some officials are open to a potential slowdown as soon as the meeting next month, while others believe that the central bank needs to push ahead with very rapid policy adjustments as it races to control inflation.Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said she could potentially support a half-point move at the central bank’s meeting next month. While still a larger increase than in normal times, a half-point move would be less aggressive than the three-quarter-point change the Fed made at each of its last three meetings.Ms. Daly is less aggressive than the majority of her colleagues, favoring one percentage point of further rate increases before the end of the year — less than the at least 1.25 percentage points that most people on the committee view as warranted.“I think we don’t need to signal that we’re resolute anymore; I think people really understand that we’re resolute,” Ms. Daly said during an interview with The New York Times this week. “I am very open to stepping down the pace. But the data will help me determine whether I’m supportive of 75 followed by 25, or whether I’m supportive of 50 followed by 50.”Christopher Waller, a Fed governor, said on Thursday that inflation had not shaped up the way he would want “to support a slower pace of rate hikes” than the Fed had previously projected, and argued that a few more data points were unlikely to change his mind.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Economists Nervously Eye the Bank of England’s Market Rescue

    by

    The Bank of England stepped in to save a critical market this week. Economists say it was necessary but also worry about the precedent.When the Bank of England announced last week that it would buy bonds in unlimited quantities in an effort to stabilize the market for U.K. government debt, economists agreed it was probably a necessary move to prevent a cataclysmic financial crisis.They also worried it could set a dangerous precedent.Central banks defend the financial stability of the nations in which they operate. In an era of highly leveraged and deeply interconnected markets, that means that they sometimes have to buy bonds or backstop lending to prevent a problem in one area from spiraling into a crisis that threatens the entire financial system.But that backstop role also means that if a government does something to generate a major shock, politicians can be fairly confident that the local central bank will step in to stem the fallout.Some economists say that is essentially what happened in the United Kingdom. Liz Truss, the new prime minister, proposed a huge package of tax cuts and spending during a period of already high inflation, when standard economic theory suggests governments should do the opposite. Markets reacted forcefully: Yields on long-term government debt shot up, and the value of the British pound fell sharply relative to the dollar and other major currencies.The Bank of England announced that it would buy long-term government debt “on whatever scale is necessary” to prevent a full-blown financial crisis. The move was particularly striking because the bank had been poised to begin selling its bond holdings — a plan that is now postponed — and has been raising interest rates in a bid to bring down inflation.Economists broadly agreed that the bank’s decision was the right one. The rapid rise in interest rates sent shock waves through financial markets and upended a typically sleepy corner of the pension fund industry, which, left unaddressed, could have carried severe consequences for millions of workers and retirees, destabilizing the country’s entire financial system.“You saw very substantial market dislocation,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary who is now at Harvard. “It’s a recognized role of central banks to respond to that.”To some economists, that was exactly the problem: By shielding the U.K. government from the full consequences of its actions — both preventing citizens from feeling the painful aftereffects and keeping government borrowing costs from shooting higher — the policy demonstrated that central bankers stand ready to clean up messy fallout. That could make it easier for elected leaders around the world to take similar risks in the future.Those concerns eased somewhat on Monday when Ms. Truss partly backed down, reversing plans to abolish the top income tax rate of 45 percent on high earners.But she appears poised to go forward with the rest of her proposed tax cuts and spending programs, putting the Bank of England in a delicate spot.Rising Inflation in BritainInflation Slows Slightly: Consumer prices are still rising at about the fastest pace in 40 years, despite a small drop to 9.9 percent in August.Interest Rates: On Sept. 22, the Bank of England raised its key rate by another half a percentage point, to 2.25 percent, as it tries to keep high inflation from becoming embedded in the nation’s economy.Mortgage Market: The uptick in interest rates roiled Britain’s mortgage market, leaving many homeowners calculating their potential future mortgage payments with alarm.Investor Worries: The financial markets have been grumbling with unease about Britain’s economic outlook. The government plan to freeze energy bills and cut taxes is not easing concerns.The “partial U-turn” from Ms. Truss “still leaves the Bank of England with a set of near-impossible choices,” analysts at Evercore ISI wrote in a note to clients. “The only way to alleviate this is for the government to take much bigger steps to restore credibility — but there is little sign this is imminent.”There’s a reason that the interplay between monetary policy and politics in the United Kingdom is garnering so much attention. Central banks have for decades closely guarded their independence from politics. They set their policies to either stoke the economy or to slow it down based on what was necessary to achieve their goals — in most cases, low and stable inflation — free from the control of elected officials.The logic behind that insulation is simple. If central bankers had to listen to politicians, they might let price increases get out of control in exchange for faster short-term growth that would help the party in power.Now, that independence is being tested, and not just in the United Kingdom. Central banks around the world are raising interest rates to try to fight inflation, resulting in slower growth and making it harder for governments to borrow and spend. That is likely to lead to tension — if not outright conflict — between central bankers and elected leaders.It is already beginning. A United Nations agency on Monday warned that the Federal Reserve risked a global recession and significant harm in developing countries, for instance. But the United Kingdom’s example is stark because the elected government is carrying out policy that works against what the nation’s central bank is trying to achieve.“One always worries that actions like these can affect incentives going forward,” said Karen Dynan, a Harvard economist who served as a top official in the Treasury Department under President Obama. “It’s basic economics: People respond to incentives, and fiscal policymakers are people.”Part of the issue is that it is hard for central bankers to single-mindedly focus on controlling inflation in an era when financial markets are fragile and susceptible to disruption — including disruptions caused by elected governments.Before 2008, the Fed had never used mass long-term bond purchases to calm markets in its modern era. It has now used them twice in the span of 12 years. In addition to last week’s moves, the Bank of England also turned to mass bond purchases to calm markets in 2020.Bank of England officials have stressed that the policies they announced last week are a temporary response to an immediate crisis. The bank plans to buy long-dated bonds for less than two weeks and says it will not hold them longer than necessary. The Treasury, not the bank, will be responsible for any financial losses. The bank said it remained committed to fighting inflation, and some economists have speculated that it could raise rates even more aggressively in light of the government’s growth-stoking policies.If the bank is able to hold to that plan, it could mitigate economists’ concerns about the longer-run risks of the program. If interest rates rise again and it gets more expensive for the government to borrow, Ms. Truss will still need to grapple with the costs of her proposed programs, just without facing an imminent financial crisis.But some economists warn that the Bank of England may find the situation harder to extricate itself from than it hopes. It may turn out that the bank needs to keep buying bonds longer than expected, or that it cannot sell them without threatening another crisis. That could have the unintentional side effect of giving the British government a helping hand — and it could demonstrate that it is hard for a big central bank to remove support from its economy when the elected government wants to do the opposite.Liz Truss, Britain’s prime minister, will still need to grapple with the costs of her proposed programs, but she won’t be facing an imminent financial crisis because of the Bank of England’s actions.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressMs. Truss’s policies — particularly before her partial reversal on Monday — would work directly against the bank’s efforts to cool growth, stoking demand through lower taxes and increased spending. The rapid rise in bond yields last week suggested that investors expected inflation to rise even further.Under ordinary circumstances, these conditions would lead the Bank of England to do even more to bring down the inflation it had already been fighting, raising interest rates more quickly or selling more of its bond holdings. Some analysts early last week expected the bank to announce an emergency rate increase. Instead, the brewing financial crisis forced the bank to do, in effect, the opposite, lowering borrowing costs by buying bonds.While lowering rates and stoking the economy was not the point — just a side effect — some economists warn that those actions risk setting a dangerous precedent in which central banks can only tighten policy to control inflation if their national governments cooperate and do not roil markets in a way that threatens financial stability. That situation puts politicians more in the driver’s seat when it comes to making economic policy.Guillaume Plantin, a French economist who has studied the interplay between central banks and governments, likened the dynamic to a game of chicken: To avoid a financial crisis, either Ms. Truss had to abandon her tax-cut plans, or the Bank of England had to set aside, at least temporarily, its efforts to raise borrowing costs. The result: “The Bank of England had to chicken out,” he said.Policymakers have known for decades that when the government steps in to rescue private companies or individuals, it can encourage them to repeat the same risky behavior in the future, a situation known as “moral hazard.” But in the private sector, there are steps governments can take to offset those risks — regulating banks to reduce the risk of collapse, for example, or wiping out shareholders if the government does need to step in to help.It is less clear what monetary policymakers can do to prevent the government itself from taking advantage of the safety net a central bank provides.“There is a moral hazard here: You are protecting some people from the full consequences of their actions,” said Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chair and a former member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, who agreed that it is necessary to intervene to prevent market dysfunction. “If you think about the entities that benefited from this, one was the chancellor of the Exchequer, the government.”Some forecasters have warned that other central banks might have to pull back on their own efforts to fight inflation to avoid destabilizing financial markets. Some investors are speculating that the Fed will have to end its policy of shrinking government bond holdings early or risk stirring market turmoil, for instance.Not all of those scenarios would necessarily raise the same concerns. In the United States, the Biden administration and the Fed are both focused on fighting inflation, so any reversal by the central bank would probably not look like bowing to pressure from the elected government.Still, the common thread is that financial stability issues could become a hurdle in the fight against inflation — especially where governments do not decide to go along with the push to rein in prices. And how worrying the British precedent proves will depend on whether the Bank of England is capable of backing away from bond buying quickly.“Is this just an exigent moment that they needed to respond to, or does it give the fiscal authority room to be irresponsible?” said Paul McCulley, an economist and the former managing director at the investment firm PIMCO. “The question is who blinks.”Joe Rennison More