Corporations

Latest story

138 Shares87 Views

Markets and Corporate America Are Unfazed by Washington Chaos, for Now

by

The federal budget debate has big implications for the economy. Businesses are betting that tax cuts will be extended and the math will work out.Even by Washington standards, the second Trump presidency has begun in frenetic fashion: mass firings at federal agencies, tariff threats against allies and foes alike, and haggling over how to get a Republican budget through a narrowly divided Congress.Business leaders and corporate investors are confident that things will turn out fine, at least for them. “Markets aren’t showing all that much concern,” Jason Pride, chief of investment strategy and research at the Glenmede Trust Company, noted.But that could change, with high-stakes implications for the markets and the U.S. economic outlook.Investors fully expect the tax cuts from President Trump’s first term, which mostly benefited businesses and the wealthy, to be fully extended before the end of the year. Trade groups including the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors are confident the extension will be taken care of — especially since not doing so “would impose, effectively, a tax increase,” Mr. Pride added.Still, the arithmetic remains tenuous. The cost of extending the tax cuts may total $4 trillion over 10 years. That means Congress is being left to barter over what else can save or raise money, and whose federal benefits might be cut.The bond market — where traders price the risk of both inflation and an economic downturn — has, for its part, shimmied off moments of worry brought on by Mr. Trump’s boomeranging style of negotiation over tariffs. The bet is that the threats of an import tax are more a geopolitical tool than a key revenue raiser, as the administration has portrayed the tariffs in budget discussions.Some of the underlying calm stems from Wall Street’s confidence in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. A billionaire hedge fund manager before assuming his new position, he has convinced many analysts that the ultimate suite of policies coming from the White House will be beneficial once it coalesces, and he “has also added to some optimism around lower deficits” in future budgets, according to Matt Luzzetti, the chief economist at Deutsche Bank.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Attacks on DEI Get Approval From Some in the Left Wing

    by

    Many Democrats and activists are rallying to defend diversity programs, but others say they distract from deeper efforts to address inequality.A few days after President Trump issued an order urging the private sector to end “Illegal D.E.I. Discrimination and Preferences,” the Rev. Al Sharpton led about 100 people into a Costco in East Harlem for a so-called buy-cott. The idea was to shop and support the company for maintaining its diversity, equity and inclusion policies amid pressure from the new administration.But the gesture by the civil rights activist did not win universal acclaim on the political left. In interviews, self-identified socialists and other leftists worried that Mr. Sharpton’s action helped bolster the company at a moment when it faced pressure from unionized workers, who had threatened to strike beginning Feb. 1.“Al Sharpton making Costco into a titan of progress that needs mass support days before a potential strike,” Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the progressive magazine The Nation, grumbled on the platform X.The episode at Costco, which did not respond to a request for comment, illustrates an underappreciated tension on the left at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted diversity initiatives: Some on the left have expressed skepticism of such programs, portraying them as a diversion from attacking economic inequality — and even an obstacle to doing so.“I am definitely happy this stuff is buried for now,” Mr. Sunkara said in an interview. “I hope it doesn’t come back.”Corporate-backed initiatives promoting diversity can take various forms. Starbucks, for instance, pledges to “work hard to ensure our hiring practices are competitive, fair and inclusive” and says it is “committed to consistently achieving 100 percent gender and race pay equity.” It also offers anti-bias training.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Mergers of Carmakers Like Honda and Nissan Often Falter

    by

    The Japanese companies are considering joining forces to survive in a rapidly changing auto industry, but auto history is filled with troubled and failed marriages.The Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan are discussing a possible merger, in a bid to share costs and help themselves compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive industry.But a merger, even of two companies from the same country, is no guarantee of success, and the history of automotive deals is littered with failures and disappointments.Combining two large, global manufacturing operations is an incredibly difficult feat that involves reconciling different technologies, models and approaches to doing business. A merger’s success rests on getting ambitious managers and engineers who have spent decades competing with one another to cooperate. Teams and projects have to be scrapped or changed, and executives must cede power to others. In some cases, the merging companies are hamstrung by elected leaders who force them to keep operating money-losing factories.Thomas Stallkamp, an automotive consultant based in Michigan, was involved in the struggles of one of the biggest auto mergers, the 1998 merger of Chrysler and the German company Daimler. Mr. Stallkamp spent years in senior roles at Chrysler and DaimlerChrysler.“Car companies are big, complicated organizations, with large engineering staffs, manufacturing plants all over the world, hundreds of thousands of employees, in a capital-intensive business,” Mr. Stallkamp said. “You try to put two of them together and you run into a lot of egos and infighting, so it’s very, very difficult to make it work.”Honda and Nissan announced plans this year to work together on electric vehicles, and on Monday they formally began talks about extending that cooperation to a merger that could also include Mitsubishi Motors, a smaller manufacturer that works closely with Nissan. A pairing would unite Japan’s second- and third-biggest automakers, after Toyota, and create a company that would be the third largest in the world by number of cars produced, after Toyota and Volkswagen.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

    by

    In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Kamala Harris’s Economic Plan Has Been Shaped by Business Leaders

    by

    The vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business executives into her economic agenda.When two of Vice President Kamala Harris’s closest advisers arrived in New York last month, they were seeking advice. The Democratic nominee was preparing to give her most far-reaching economic speech, and Tony West, Ms. Harris’s brother-in-law, and Brian Nelson, a longtime confidant, wanted to know how the city’s powerful financiers thought she should approach it.Over two days, the pair held meetings across Wall Street, including at the offices of Lazard, an investment bank, and the elite law firm Paul, Weiss. Among the ideas the attendees pitched was to provide more lucrative tax breaks for companies that allowed their workers to become part owners, according to two people at the meetings. The campaign had already been discussing such an idea with an executive at KKR, the private equity firm.A few days later, Ms. Harris endorsed the idea during her speech in Pittsburgh. “We will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success,” she said.The line, while just a piece of a much broader speech, was emblematic of Ms. Harris’s approach to economic policy since she took the helm of the Democratic Party in July. As part of a bid to cut into former President Donald J. Trump’s polling lead on the economy, her campaign has carefully courted business leaders, organizing a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues.The private feedback has, in sometimes subtle ways, shaped Ms. Harris’s economic agenda over the course of her accelerated campaign. At several points, she has sprinkled language into broader speeches that business executives say reflects their views. And, in at least one instance, Ms. Harris made a specific policy commitment — to pare back a tax increase on capital gains — after extended talks with her corporate allies.This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen campaign officials, policy experts, donors, lobbyists and business leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    How the Fed Cutting Interest Rates Affects Banks, Stocks and More

    by

    For corporate America, this week’s expected interest rate cut carries risks along with rewards.It’s easy to assume that lower interest rates are a panacea. Almost everyone, after all, is affected to some degree by the cost of borrowing. When the Federal Reserve cuts its benchmark rates — as it is expected to do this week for the first time since the pandemic — that makes credit less expensive for consumers and corporations alike.The cheaper debt means companies can spend more to expand, just as consumers might be able to afford bigger homes with lower mortgage rates.But there is a complicated and somewhat unpredictable interplay between interest rates and the business world. Lower rates bolster the economy, but for companies and their investors, lower rates do not always carry unalloyed positive effects.Here’s what to expect for corporate America when the Fed lowers rates:For markets, it’s all about ‘why.’All else equal, lower rates are good for the stock market. When investors gauge the value of a stock, they tend to come up with a higher figure when interest rates fall because of a common valuation principle known as discounting, in which a company’s future cash flows and costs become more attractive under low-rate conditions.Fed officials are expected to cut rates by a quarter or a half a percentage point at this week’s meeting. In practice, according to analysts, the reason rates are being lowered matters more than the precise timing or magnitude.If the economy is faltering, forcing the Fed to lower rates quickly, that can be a headwind to the stock market. A gentle return to a more normal level of rates — at least in the context of the past few decades — is less likely to crimp corporate profits in the way that an economic downturn could.“It’s less about when they cut and how quickly, and more about why they cut,” said Greg Boutle, head of U.S. equity and derivatives strategy at BNP Paribas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How SMIC, China’s Semiconductor Champion, Landed in the Heart of a Tech War

    by

    Efforts by the Beijing-backed Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, to break through innovation barriers have landed it in a geopolitical tech battle.In a sprawling factory in eastern Shanghai, where marshy plains have long since been converted into industrial parks, China’s most advanced chipmaker has been hard at work testing the limits of U.S. authority.Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, is manufacturing chips with features less than one-15,000th of the thickness of a sheet of paper. The chips pack together enough computing power to create advancements like artificial intelligence and 5G networks.It’s a feat that has been achieved by just a few companies globally — and one that has landed SMIC in the middle of a crucial geopolitical rivalry. U.S. officials say such advanced chip technology is central not just to commercial businesses but also to military superiority. They have been fighting to keep it out of Chinese hands, by barring China from buying both the world’s most cutting-edge chips and the machinery to make them.Whether China can advance and outrace the United States technologically now hinges on SMIC, a partly state-backed company that is the sole maker of advanced chips in the country and has become its de facto national semiconductor champion. SMIC pumps out millions of chips a month for other companies that design them, such as Huawei, the Chinese technology firm under U.S. sanctions, as well as American firms like Qualcomm.So far, SMIC hasn’t been able to produce chips as advanced as those of rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in Taiwan, or others in South Korea and the United States. But it is racing forward with a new A.I. chip for Huawei called the Ascend 910C, which is expected to be released this year.Huawei’s chip is not as fast or sophisticated as the coveted processors from Nvidia, the U.S. chip giant, which the White House has banned for sale in China. SMIC can also most likely make only a small fraction of what Chinese firms want to buy, experts said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Kamala Harris Blames ‘Price Gouging’ for Grocery Inflation. Here’s What Economists Say.

    by

    Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.In detailing her presidential campaign’s economic agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris will highlight an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups, which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.The Harris campaign announcement cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not immediately respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Many CEOs Still Support Biden Over Trump

    by

    Corporate executives complain about some of President Biden’s policies, along with his rhetoric. But so far they have not abandoned him en masse.When the White House chief of staff, Jeffrey Zients, met with dozens of top executives in Washington this month, he encountered a familiar list of corporate complaints about President Biden.The executives at the Business Roundtable, a group representing some of the country’s biggest corporations, objected to Mr. Biden’s proposals to raise taxes. They questioned the lack of business representation in the Cabinet. They bristled at what they called overregulation by federal agencies.While the meeting was not antagonistic, it was indicative of three and a half years of executive grousing about Mr. Biden. Business leaders have criticized his remarks on “corporate greed” and his appearance on a union picket line. They chafe at the actions of officials he has appointed — particularly the head of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, who has moved to block a series of corporate mergers.A number of prominent figures in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street — including the venture capitalists David Sacks and Marc Andreessen, and the hedge fund magnate Kenneth Griffin — have grown increasingly vocal in their criticism of Mr. Biden, their praise of former President Donald J. Trump, or both.Still, that shift mostly reflects movement among executives who already supported Republican politicians but had not previously embraced Mr. Trump. There is little evidence of a major shift in allegiance among executives away from Mr. Biden and toward Mr. Trump.Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who is in frequent contact with corporate leaders, said most chief executives he had spoken to preferred Mr. Biden to Mr. Trump, “some of them enthusiastically and some of them biting their lip and holding their nose.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More