Credit and Debt

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Critics Say I.M.F. Loan Fees Are Hurting Nations in Desperate Need

    by

    Democratic lawmakers say the global fund’s surcharges for emergency relief siphon away money that countries need to fight the pandemic.At a time when the coronavirus pandemic is fueling a rapid rise in inequality and debt, a growing number of policymakers and economists are pressuring the International Monetary Fund to eliminate extra fees it charges on loans to struggling nations because they siphon away scarce funds that could instead be used to battle Covid.The fund, which for decades has backstopped countries in financial distress, imposes these fees for loans that are unusually large or longstanding. They were designed to help protect against hefty losses from high-risk lending.But critics argue that the surcharges come at the worst possible moment, when countries are already in desperate need of funds to provide poverty aid and public health services. Some of the countries paying the fees, including Egypt, Ukraine and Armenia, have vaccinated only about a third of their populations. The result, the critics argue, is that the I.M.F. ends up undermining the financial welfare and stability of the very places it is trying to aid.In the latest critique, a letter this week to Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen from 18 Democrats in Congress, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Pramila Jayapal of Washington, asked the United States to support ending the surcharge policy.The surcharge “discourages public health investment by developing countries,” the letter said. “This perverse outcome will undermine global economic recovery.” The letter echoed several other appeals from more than two dozen emerging nations, including Argentina, South Africa and Brazil, as well as economists.Volunteers at a soup kitchen in Buenos Aires last spring. The coronavirus pandemic has further strained Argentina’s poor.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times“Attempts to force excessive repayments are counterproductive because they lower the economy’s productive potential,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Kevin Gallagher, a professor of global development at Boston University, wrote in a recent analysis. “Both creditors and the country itself are worse off.”They added: “The I.M.F. should not be in the business of making a profit off of countries in dire straits.”The fund primarily serves as a lender of last resort, although recently it has expanded its mission to include reducing extreme inequality and combating climate change.In addition to building up a reserve, the surcharges were designed to encourage borrowers to repay on time. The poorest countries are exempt.The fees have become a major source of revenue for the I.M.F., which is funded primarily by its 190 member nations, with the United States paying the largest share. The fund estimates that by the end of this year, borrowers will have shelled out $4 billion in extra fees — on top of their regular interest payments — since the pandemic began in 2020.The debate over the surcharge is emblematic of larger contradictions at the heart of the I.M.F.’s structure and mission. The fund was created to provide a lifeline to troubled economies so that they recover “without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity.”But the terms and conditions that accompany its loans have at times ratcheted up the economic pain. “They penalize countries at a time when they are in an adverse situation, forcing them to make greater cuts in order to repay debts,” according to an analysis from the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.“Demanding these surcharges during an ongoing recession caused by a pandemic goes even more against” the I.M.F.’s founding principles, the center argues.Voting power in the fund’s governance is based on the size of each country’s monetary contribution, with only the United States having veto power. That means that countries most in need have the least say in how the I.M.F. carries out its role.In a statement, the Treasury Department reiterated support for the surcharges: “As the I.M.F.’s major shareholder we have an obligation to protect the financial integrity of the I.M.F.” And it pointed out that the interest rates charged by the fund were often far below market rates.A review of the surcharges last month by the fund’s executive directors ended without any agreement to halt the charges. An I.M.F. statement explained that while “some directors were open to exploring temporary surcharge relief” to free up resources to deal with the pandemic, most others preferred a comprehensive review later on in the context of the fund’s “overall financial outlook.”Strapped countries that are subject to the surcharges like Argentina balked earlier at the extra payments, but their campaign has picked up momentum with the spread of Covid-19.“I think the pandemic makes a big difference,” said Martín Guzmán, Argentina’s minister of economy.He argues that the pandemic has turned what may have once been considered unusual circumstances into the commonplace, given the enormous debt that many countries have taken on to meet its rising costs. Government debt in emerging countries has hit its highest level in a half a century.The number of nations subject to surcharges increased to 21 last year from 15 in 2020, according to the I.M.F. Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, Tunisia and Ecuador are among those paying.Argentina, which has long had a contentious and bitter relationship with the fund relating to a series of bailouts and defaults that date back decades, has been a leading opponent of the surcharges.The country is trying to work out a new repayment schedule for $45 billion that the previous government borrowed as part of a 2018 loan package. By the end of 2024, the government estimates, it will have run up a tab of more than $5 billion in surcharges alone. This year, 70 percent of Argentina’s nearly $1.6 billion bill from the I.M.F. is for surcharges.A protest against a possible new deal with the I.M.F. in Buenos Aires last month.Alejandro Pagni/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The charges will be undermining the mission of the I.M.F., which is to ensure global stability and balance of payments,” Mr. Guzmán said.According to World Bank estimates, 124 million people were pushed into poverty in 2020, with eight out of 10 of them in middle-income countries.Meanwhile, the costs of basic necessities like food, heating and electricity are surging, adding to political strains. This week, the I.M.F. warned in its blog that continuing Covid outbreaks, combined with rising inflation, debt and interest rates, mean emerging economies should “prepare for potential bouts of economic turbulence.” More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change an ‘Emerging Threat’ to U.S. Financial Stability, Regulators Say

    by

    The Financial Stability Oversight Council issued a formal warning on the economic damage that global warming could inflict.WASHINGTON — Federal regulators warned for the first time in an annual report to Congress on Friday that climate change was an “emerging threat” to the U.S. financial system, laying out how the costs associated with more hurricanes, wildfires and floods caused by global warming could lead to a cascade of damage throughout the economy.The Financial Stability Oversight Council, a group of top financial regulators led by the Treasury secretary, offered a grim assessment of how the fallout from rising temperatures could spread, hurting property values and saddling insurers, banks and pensions that are associated with the sector with heavy losses. The report follows a similar analysis of climate risk that the council released in October.“Increased frequency and severity of acute physical risk events and longer-term chronic phenomena associated with climate change are expected to lead to increased economic and financial costs,” the new document said.However, the report stopped short of the kinds of policy prescriptions that environmental groups and progressive Democrats have been calling for, such as tougher rules requiring banks to assess their ability to withstand climate-related losses, new capital requirements or curbs on extending financing to fossil fuel companies. Instead, it echoed a set of recommendations from the October report that called for improved data for evaluating climate-related financial risks and more uniform disclosure requirements to help investors make better informed decisions.Climate change was not mentioned last year in the Trump administration’s final F.S.O.C. report.The warning on climate change was one of several looming threats to the financial system, which faces ongoing uncertainty nearly two years into a global pandemic that is being gripped by a new variant.What to Know About Inflation in the U.S.Inflation, Explained: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? We answered some common questions.The Fed’s Pivot: Jerome Powell’s abrupt change of course moved the central bank into inflation-fighting mode.Fastest Inflation in Decades: The Consumer Price Index rose 6.8 percent in November from a year earlier, its sharpest increase since 1982.Why Washington Is Worried: Policymakers are acknowledging that price increases have been proving more persistent than expected.The Psychology of Inflation: Americans are flush with cash and jobs, but they also think the economy is awful.In its annual report, the panel also issued a warning about the risk of higher than expected inflation, suggesting that it would lead to higher interest rates and losses at some financial institutions, blunting the momentum of the recovery.The report comes as the Federal Reserve said this week that it would accelerate the end of its monthly bond buying program, which it has used to buttress economic growth during the pandemic, and raise interest rates three times next year to combat inflation.The F.S.O.C. regulators attributed inflation in advanced economies to “an increase in commodity prices, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.” They warned that a rapid or unexpected rise in interest rates to blunt rising prices could induce “sharp contractionary forces” and acknowledged that it was unclear how long inflation would persist.“The advent of higher inflation also raises the question of whether longer-term inflation expectations of households and businesses will rise or become unanchored,” the report said.The trajectory of the global economy is also a concern, as lockdowns and downturns in other countries could spill over into the U.S. financial system. Regulators pointed specifically to the prospect of a “hard landing” in China as a potential worry and noted that the Chinese real estate sector is “heavily leveraged.” A slowdown in the real estate market there could hurt global commodity markets because China is such a major consumer of steel, copper and iron ore.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Batters Pakistan and Puts Pressure on Imran Khan

    by

    Rising prices and a weakened currency are straining households, intensifying pressure on Prime Minister Imran Khan to find solutions.Muhammad Nazir canceled his daughter’s wedding. He parks his motorcycle at home and walks to his shop. Many of his shelves are empty because he can’t afford to stock the same supply of candy, soft drinks and cookies that he once did.A growing number of his customers can’t buy his snacks anyway. The global inflation wave has dealt a severe blow to Pakistan, a country of 220 million people already struggling with erratic growth and heavy government debt.As the cost of food and fuel eats up a larger share of meager incomes, people are putting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan to do something.“I am not making any profit these days,” Mr. Nazir, 66, said from his shop in Sohawa, a town about 50 miles southeast of Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad. “Still, I come here every day, open the shop and wait for customers.”Surging prices have imperiled President Biden’s agenda in the United States and hit shoppers from Germany to Mexico to South Africa. But they are having a particularly nasty effect in Pakistan, a developing country already prone to political instability and heavily dependent on imports like fuel. The effect has been worsened by a sharp weakening of Pakistan’s currency, the rupee, giving it less purchasing power internationally.Pakistan’s economy has been in and out of crisis since Prime Minister Imran Khan came to power in 2018.Didor Sadulloev/ReutersWhile inflation is expected to ease as supply-chain bottlenecks unsnarl, Pakistan feels it can’t wait. On Monday, the government announced that it had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund for the first $1 billion of what is expected to be a $6 billion rescue package.“The economy is the biggest threat that the government is in fact facing right now,” said Khurram Husain, a business journalist in Karachi. “This is basically eroding the very basis of their public support.”Protests organized by opposition parties have broken out across Pakistan in recent weeks, causing Mr. Khan’s political allies to examine their loyalties. The Pakistan Muslim League-Q, or P.M.L.-Q, party, which is in a coalition with Mr. Khan, said this month that it was becoming difficult to remain part of the government.“Our members of Parliament are feeling a lot of pressure in their constituencies,” said Moonis Elahi, Mr. Khan’s minister for water resources and a member of P.M.L.-Q. “Some even suggested leaving the alliance if the situation doesn’t improve.”Government officials have downplayed the recent surge in inflation, saying it is a global phenomenon. Mr. Khan has also blamed the foreign debt burden he inherited from the previous government.“The government spent the first year in stabilizing the economy, but when it was close to stabilizing it, the country faced the biggest crisis in 100 years: the coronavirus epidemic,” he said, adding, “No doubt the inflation is an issue.”Officials also cite price comparisons of fuel costs with neighboring countries, like India, claiming that Pakistan is still better off. Pakistanis have seen standard gas prices jump 34 percent in the last six months, to about 146 rupees a liter.Filling up the tank in Peshawar in early November. Pakistan imports a large portion of its oil, diesel and gasoline.Bilawal Arbab/EPA, via ShutterstockPakistan has been rushing to tamp down inflation and get the money it needs to keep buying abroad. Last week, Pakistan’s central bank sharply raised interest rates, a move that could help cool price increases but one that could crimp economic growth.Mr. Khan’s government reached out to Saudi Arabia for a lifeline. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, pledged $4.2 billion in cash assistance. Members of his government are also chasing loans from China that they say are needed to complete crucial power-sector projects that are part of the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.Pakistan’s economy has been in and out of crisis since Mr. Khan, a former cricket star, came to power in 2018. But other periods of inflation were felt mainly by the rich, economists say. This bad turn is affecting everyone.Inflation surged 9.2 percent in October from the year before, according to government data. Food-price inflation is crushing Pakistan’s poorest residents, who already normally spend more than half of their incomes on food. The cost of basic food items shot up this month by 17 percent year over year, government data show. Pakistan’s biggest food import is palm oil, which has jumped in price.In the United States, food prices have risen 4.6 percent.In terms of energy, Pakistan imports about 80 percent of its oil and diesel and about 35 percent of its gasoline, according to Muzzammil Aslam, a spokesman for the finance ministry. The cost of electricity in Pakistan is already twice as much as in countries like India, China and Bangladesh.“The economy is not well,” Mian Nasser Hyatt Maggo, the president of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry, a Karachi-based industry group, said simply.A charity worker served inexpensive dishes to laborers and others along a roadside in Karachi in June. The government subsidizes the cost of foods like grains, legumes and cooking oil.Asif Hassan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUnemployment has risen sharply, too, particularly among college graduates in cities. The number of people falling into poverty is up.Understand Rising Gas Prices in the U.S.Card 1 of 5A steady rise. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    What Jerome Powell Didn’t Do: Lay the Groundwork for Higher Rates

    by

    He said high inflation was mostly a result of pandemic effects like supply network disruptions, a problem he thinks the Fed can’t fix.The real news out of the Federal Reserve on Wednesday was not in what it did, but in what Chair Jerome Powell didn’t do.The thing that the Fed’s policy committee did — announce that the central bank would gradually wind down its economy-stimulating program of buying bonds — was highly telegraphed and comfortably in line with investors’ expectations.The thing that Mr. Powell didn’t do was give any hint that persistently high inflation in recent months was leading him to rethink his patient approach to raising the Fed’s interest rate target. Rather, he repeated his longstanding belief that high inflation was mostly caused by disruptions in global supply networks and other ripple effects of the pandemic — problems that the Fed can’t do much about.It is a delicate moment. President Biden must decide whether to reappoint Mr. Powell to a second term leading the Fed. High inflation is causing economic discontent for Americans, according to surveys, and helping to drag down the president’s approval ratings. Global bond markets have been gyrating amid uncertainty about whether the era of ultralow interest rates may be coming to an end.On interest rates, Mr. Powell rejected the thinking of leaders at several other leading central banks and of a handful of his own colleagues. They think that excess demand in the economy is a big part of the inflation problem and that rate increases would help address it — and that current high inflation could become ingrained in economic decision-making, with long-lasting consequences.If he had expressed more alarm about those inflationary pressures, it would have been a signal that the Fed might act to raise rates more abruptly than it once planned. The Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Bank of England have recently done just that. Several Eastern European central banks are going a step further, aggressively raising rates to try to combat inflation (including a 0.75-percentage-point rate increase by the Polish central bank on Wednesday).Mr. Powell himself has essentially conceded in recent appearances that surging prices due to supply disruptions are on track to last longer than he expected. He said in late September that it was frustrating that supply chain bottlenecks weren’t improving and might be getting worse, and said this would hold inflation higher for longer than the Fed had thought.But he was steadfast on Wednesday in not suggesting that those developments were a reason to accelerate the Fed’s interest rate hike plans. He suggested those would need to wait until the tapering of bond purchases was complete and until Fed officials concluded the economy had achieved maximum employment.“We understand the difficulties that high inflation poses for individuals and families,” Mr. Powell said Wednesday. But he continued: “Our tools cannot ease supply constraints. Like most forecasters, we continue to believe that our dynamic economy will adjust to the supply and demand imbalances, and that, as it does, inflation will decline to levels much closer to our 2 percent longer-run goal.”With language like that, he was declining to embrace the use of “open-mouth policy,” or of essentially trying to assuage inflation fears by using more specific language to suggest the Fed had a hair-trigger readiness to take immediate action to head off higher prices.He appeared to be applying the lessons of the 2010s labor market in setting the central bank’s course. Over that decade, unemployment kept falling lower, with participation in the work force rising higher than many analysts had thought plausible. With hindsight, the Fed may have erred by raising interest rates prematurely, slowing that process of labor market improvement.In a 2021 context, that means allowing more post-pandemic healing of the labor market before assuming, for example, that many of the Americans who currently say they are not in the labor force will return as public health conditions improve.“There’s room for a whole lot of humility here as we try to think about what maximum employment would be,” Mr. Powell said. The last economic cycle, he said, showed that “over time you can get to places that didn’t look possible.”Understand the Supply Chain CrisisCard 1 of 5Covid’s impact on the supply chain continues. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Ethics Office Warned Officials to Curb Unnecessary Trading During Rescue

    by

    Months later, some Federal Reserve leaders resumed their market activity, stoking a scandal now engulfing the central bank.On March 23 last year, as the Federal Reserve was taking extraordinary steps to shore up financial markets at the onset of the pandemic, the central bank’s ethics office in Washington sent out a warning.Officials might want to avoid unnecessary trading for a few months as the Fed dived deeper into markets, the Board of Governors’ ethics unit suggested in an email, a message that was passed along to regional bank presidents by their own ethics officers.The guidance came just as the Fed was unveiling a sweeping rescue package aimed at backstopping or rescuing markets, including those for corporate bonds and midsize-business debt. It appears to have been heeded: Most regional presidents and governors of the Fed did not engage in active trading in April, based on their disclosures.But the recommendation, which was confirmed by a person who saw the email, did not go far enough to prevent a trading scandal that is now engulfing the Fed and being leveraged against its chair, Jerome H. Powell, as the White House mulls whether to reappoint him before his leadership term expires early next year.The email could pose further trouble for the Fed, which declined to provide a copy, because it shows that central bank ethics officers — and officials in general — were aware that active trading could look bad when the Fed was taking emergency action to try to save markets and its policymakers had vast access to sensitive information. Despite the early warning, some top officials resumed trading after the most proactive phase of the Fed’s rescue ended, based on financial disclosures and background comments from regional bank spokespeople.Financial disclosures, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, showed that Robert S. Kaplan traded millions of dollars’ worth of individual stocks last year while he was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. No dates are provided for those purchases and sales, but a Dallas Fed spokesman has said they did not take place between late March and the end of April.Another Fed official, Eric S. Rosengren, bought and sold securities tied to real estate while running the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Such securities are sensitive to Fed policy, and involve a market that Mr. Rosengren himself warned about in public speeches last year. His trading resumed in May, his disclosures show.Both Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Rosengren have since resigned from their positions, with Mr. Kaplan saying he did not want controversy around his transactions to distract from the Fed’s work and Mr. Rosengren citing health issues.Robert S. Kaplan traded millions of dollars’ worth of individual stocks while president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas last year.Richard Drew/Associated PressWhile attention to the Fed’s ethics rules — and trading habits — started with its 12 regional branches, journalists and academics have begun to re-examine previously reported trades by Fed officials who sit on its board in Washington.Richard H. Clarida, the Fed’s vice chair, rebalanced a portfolio toward stocks in late February 2020, just before the Fed signaled that it stood ready to help markets and the economy in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. The timing has raised questions, though the transactions were in line with previous trading he had done. The vice chair has since said he has always acted “honorably and with integrity” while in public office.Mr. Powell also has faced backlash, primarily from progressives who do not want him reappointed, for selling holdings in a popular and broad stock index last October. The Fed was not rolling out new rescue programs at that time, and a spokeswoman has said Mr. Powell sold the holdings to pay for family expenses. Mr. Powell’s critics argue that he should not have made active financial transactions at all last year.As the ethics controversy swells, the Fed has been working to stem the fallout.Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Rosengren announced last month that they would step down, and Mr. Powell has said that “no one is happy” with the situation. He started a review of Fed ethics rules shortly after news of the presidents’ trading broke. He has also asked an independent watchdog to investigate the trades to make sure they complied with ethics rules and the law.But scrutiny has persisted, in part because Mr. Powell is up for reappointment.“It speaks to governance, incentives and general attitude,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who previously wrote a post for Project Syndicate supporting Lael Brainard, a leading contender to replace Mr. Powell.Mr. Johnson, who does not personally know Ms. Brainard, a Fed governor, has been among those flagging Mr. Powell’s transaction to journalists. He has focused on the fact that Mr. Powell sold a stock-based fund while he was in regular contact with the Treasury secretary during an active year for the central bank, and said he thought the trading scandal should factor into the Fed chair’s reappointment chances.“Presumably, someone in the White House will pay attention and look at the details,” Mr. Johnson said.Lael Brainard, a Fed governor, is considered a leading contender to replace Mr. Powell as chair. Cliff Owen/Associated PressMr. Powell’s October transaction and the questions about it highlight that there is no time when Fed chairs can safely sell assets to raise cash should they need it, said Peter Conti-Brown, a professor and Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania. That reinforces the need to update the Fed’s rules to eliminate any appearance of conflict by taking discretion away from officials, he said.“It’s hard for me to fault him that he did it when he did it,” Mr. Conti-Brown said, later adding that “it would be more a scandal for this trade to end Chair Powell’s career as a central banker.”The board’s March 23 guidance appears to have had some effect, because central bank officials overall conducted little or no active trading during the period last year when they were most active in markets, in March and April.Mr. Powell’s only dated transactions came in September, October and December. Mr. Clarida’s came in February and August. Ms. Brainard did not report any transactions last year.Randal K. Quarles, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision at the time, is shown to have bought a financial stake in a fund in early April; a family trust that his wife has an interest in bought an interest in a fund, which the couple sold before the fund purchased any securities, a Fed spokesperson said. Michelle Bowman, a Fed governor, noted a small sale in mid-April. That came from a retirement fund held in her spouse’s health savings account, and reflected the account’s closing as her husband changed jobs, a Fed spokesman said.At the regional banks, the heads in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo., noted no disclosures or only college savings plan and retirement contributions last year. John C. Williams, the president of the powerful New York Fed, reported one personal transaction in December.The Fed president in Richmond, Va., reported private equity and bond transactions in July and August, and the Atlanta Fed president helped buy a property in Utah in June. The Cleveland Fed president reported buying index fund shares in February, but then stopped until November.The Philadelphia Fed president made several relatively small transactions throughout April and the year, but a spokeswoman for his bank said the spring trades were not active. They involved an automatic liquidation from a legacy fund that occurs every year, an automatic dividend reinvestment and a bond call.The fact that trading more or less halted last spring is a silver lining, Mr. Conti-Brown said. Regional reserve banks are quasi-private institutions, so it is not unambiguously clear that they must listen to the Board of Governors on such matters.“This tells us that the board’s ability to oversee ethics in the system is there,” he said. “What is missing is a better set of rules.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    'Squid Game,' the Netflix Hit, Taps South Korean Fears

    by

    The dystopian Netflix hit taps South Korea’s worries about costly housing and scarce jobs, concerns familiar to its U.S. and international viewers.In “Squid Game,” the hit dystopian television show on Netflix, 456 people facing severe debt and financial despair play a series of deadly children’s games to win a $38 million cash prize in South Korea.Koo Yong-hyun, a 35-year-old office worker in Seoul, has never had to face down masked homicidal guards or competitors out to slit his throat, like the characters in the show do. But Mr. Koo, who binge-watched “Squid Game” in a single night, said he empathized with the characters and their struggle to survive in the country’s deeply unequal society.Mr. Koo, who got by on freelance gigs and government unemployment checks after he lost his steady job, said it is “almost impossible to live comfortably with a regular employee’s salary” in a city with runaway housing prices. Like many young people in South Korea and elsewhere, Mr. Koo sees a growing competition to grab a slice of a shrinking pie, just like the contestants in “Squid Game.”Those similarities have helped turn the nine-episode drama into an unlikely international sensation. “Squid Game” is now the top-ranked show in the United States on Netflix and is on its way to becoming one of the most-watched shows in the streaming service’s history. “There’s a very good chance it will be our biggest show ever,” Ted Sarandos, a co-chief executive at Netflix, said during a recent business conference.Culturally, the show has sparked an online embrace of its distinct visuals, especially the black masks decorated with simple squares and triangles worn by the anonymous guards, and a global curiosity for the Korean children’s games that underpin the deadly competitions. Recipes for dalgona, the sugary Korean treat at the center of one especially tense showdown, have gone viral.A shop in Seoul selling “Squid Game”-themed dalgona.Heo Ran/ReutersLike “The Hunger Games” books and movies, “Squid Game” holds its audience with its violent tone, cynical plot and — spoiler alert! — a willingness to kill off fan-favorite characters. But it has also tapped a sense familiar to people in the United States, Western Europe and other places, that prosperity in nominally rich countries has become increasingly difficult to achieve, as wealth disparities widen and home prices rise past affordable levels.“The stories and the problems of the characters are extremely personalized but also reflect the problems and realities of Korean society,” Hwang Dong-hyuk, the show’s creator, said in an email. He wrote the script in 2008 as a film, when many of these trends had become evident, but overhauled it to reflect new worries, including the impact of the coronavirus. (Minyoung Kim, the head of content for the Asia-Pacific region at Netflix, said the company was in talks with Mr. Hwang about producing a second season.)“Squid Game” is only the latest South Korean cultural export to win a global audience by tapping into the country’s deep feelings of inequality and ebbing opportunities. “Parasite,” the 2019 film that won best picture at the Oscars, paired a desperate family of grifters with the oblivious members of a rich Seoul household. “Burning,” a 2018 art-house hit, built tension by pitting a young deliveryman against a well-to-do rival for a woman’s attention.The masked guards in “Squid Game” mete out violence during the competitions.NetflixSouth Korea boomed in the postwar era, making it one of the richest countries in Asia and leading some economists to call its rise the “miracle on the Han River.” But wealth disparity has worsened as the economy has matured.“South Koreans used to have a collective community spirit,” says Yun Suk-jin, a drama critic and professor of modern literature at Chungnam National University. But the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s undermined the nation’s positive growth story and “made everyone fight for themselves.”The country now ranks No. 11 using the Gini coefficient, one measure of income inequality, among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the research group for the world’s richest nations. (The United States is ranked No. 6.)As South Korean families have tried to keep up, household debt has mounted, prompting some economists to warn that the debt could hold back the economy. Home prices have surged to the point where housing affordability has become a hot-button political topic. Prices in Seoul have soared by over 50 percent during the tenure of the country’s president, Moon Jae-in, and led to a political scandal.“Squid Game” lays bare the irony between the social pressure to succeed in South Korea and the difficulty of doing just that, said Shin Yeeun, who graduated from college in January 2020, just before the pandemic hit. Now 27, she said she had spent over a year looking for steady work.“It’s really difficult for people in their 20s to find a full-time job these days,” she said.South Korea has also suffered a sharp drop in births, generated partly by a sense among young people that raising children is too expensive.“In South Korea, all parents want to send their kids to the best schools,” Ms. Shin said. “To do that you have to live in the best neighborhoods.” That would require saving enough money to buy a house, a goal so unrealistic “that I’ve never even bothered calculating how long it will take me,” Ms. Shin said.Characters in the show receive invitations to participate in the Squid Game.Netflix“Squid Game” revolves around Seong Gi-hun, a gambling addict in his 40s who doesn’t have the means to buy his daughter a proper birthday present or pay for his aging mother’s medical expenses. One day he is offered a chance to participate in the Squid Game, a private event run for the entertainment of wealthy individuals. To claim the $38 million prize, contestants must pass through six rounds of traditional Korean children’s games. Failure means death.The 456 contestants speak directly to many of the country’s anxieties. One is a graduate from Seoul National University, the nation’s top university, who is wanted for mishandling his clients’ funds. Another is a North Korean defector who needs to take care of her brother and help her mother escape from the North. Another character is an immigrant laborer whose boss refuses to pay his wages.The characters have resonated with South Korean youth who don’t see a chance to advance in society. Known locally as the “dirt spoon” generation, many are obsessed with ways to get rich quickly, like with cryptocurrencies and the lottery. South Korea has one of the largest markets for virtual currency in the world.Like the prize money in the show, cryptocurrencies give “people the chance to change their lives in a second,” said Mr. Koo, the office worker. Mr. Koo, whose previous employer went out of business during the pandemic, said the difficulty of earning money is one reason South Koreans are so obsessed with making a quick buck.“I wonder how many people would participate if ‘Squid Game’ was held in real life,” he said.Seong Gi-hun, the show’s protagonist, entering an arena for one of the games.Netflix More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    China’s Biggest ‘Bad Bank’ Will Get a Rescue

    by

    After months of silence about its future, the corporate giant Huarong Asset Management announced that it would receive financial assistance from a group of state-backed companies.China has promised to teach its most indebted companies a lesson. Just not yet.Huarong Asset Management, the financial conglomerate that was once a poster child for China’s corporate excess, said Wednesday night that it would get financial assistance from a group of state-backed companies after months of silence about its future. The company also said it had made a $16 billion loss in 2020.Citic Group and China Cinda Asset Management were among the five state-owned firms that will make a strategic investment, Huarong said without providing more details on how much money would be invested or when the deal would be finalized.Huarong also said that it had no plans to restructure its debt but left unanswered the question of whether foreign and Chinese bondholders would have to accept significant losses on their investments.Investors took the news to be a strong indication that the Chinese government was not yet ready to see the failure of a company so closely tied to its financial system. For months, investors waited for any news of Huarong and its financial future after the company delayed its annual results in March and suspended the trading of its shares in April.“It’s hugely positive,” said Michel Löwy, chief executive of SC Lowy, an investment firm that has a small position in Huarong’s U.S. dollar bonds. “It’s certainly a partial bailout because I don’t believe that totally independent investors would be subscribing to a capital raise without assurances or a tap on the shoulder,” Mr. Löwy said of the group of state-backed companies mentioned in Huarong’s statement.For years Beijing looked the other way as companies like Huarong borrowed heavily to expand. The companies grew into huge conglomerates built largely on cheap state bank loans and money borrowed from foreign and domestic investors who believed they could count on the Chinese government to bail them out if push came to shove.Lai Xiaomin, the former chairman of Huarong, weeks before he was executed in January for corruption and abuse of power.CCTV, via Associated Press Video, via Associated PressOver the past few years, however, officials have indicated a willingness to let some of these companies fail as they try to rein in the ballooning debt threatening China’s economy.Even as Beijing cracked down on risky binge borrowing, Huarong tested the limits of China’s commitment to reform. Known as a “bad bank,” Huarong was created in the late 1990s to take the ugliest loans from state-owned banks before they turned to the global markets to raise money as China opened up. It later expanded into a sprawling empire by lending to high-risk companies, using its access to cheap loans from state-owned banks.Over the years, Huarong became more and more intertwined with China’s financial system, leading some experts to say it was “too big to fail” and putting regulators in a difficult position. Under its former chairman, Lai Xiaomin, it engaged in suspicious deals that regulators said led to corruption so widespread that it might be impossible to assess the full extent of the losses.Mr. Lai confessed to using his position to accept $277 million in bribes and was sentenced to death and executed in January for corruption and abuse of power.In its statement on Wednesday night, Huarong blamed the company’s “aggressive operation and disorderly expansion” under Mr. Lai in part for its $16 billion loss.A fresh injection of cash will give Huarong more time to sell off parts of its vast financial empire, analysts noted, though it was unclear whether the investment would be enough to stem the company’s towering losses. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Considers Tapering Bond Purchases as Economy Grows

    by

    Federal Reserve officials are gathering in Washington this week with monetary policy still set to emergency mode, even as the economy rebounds and inflation accelerates.Economists expect the central bank’s postmeeting statement at 2 p.m. Wednesday to leave policy unchanged, but investors will keenly watch a subsequent news conference with the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, for any hints at when — and how — officials might begin to pull back their economic support.That’s because Fed policymakers are debating their plans for future “tapering,” the widely used term for slowing down monthly purchases of government-backed debt. The bond purchases are meant to keep money chugging through the economy by encouraging lending and spending, and slowing them would be the first step in moving policy toward a more normal setting.Big and often conflicting considerations loom over the taper debate. Inflation has picked up more sharply than many Fed officials expected. Those price pressures are expected to fade, but the risk that they will linger is a source of discomfort, ramping up the urgency to create some sort of exit plan. At the same time, the job market is far from healed, and the surging Delta coronavirus variant means that the pandemic remains a real risk. Policy missteps could prove costly.The Fed’s balance sheet has grown, thanks to bond-buying.The Federal Reserve has swollen its balance sheet by buying bonds to bolster the economy during the pandemic, making it a bigger player in markets.

    Source: Federal ReserveBy The New York TimesHere are a few key things to know about the bond-buying, and key details that Wall Street will be watching:The Fed is buying $120 billion in government backed bonds each month — $80 billion in Treasury debt and $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities.Economists mostly expect the central bank to announce plans to slow those purchases this year, perhaps as soon as August, before actually dialing them back late this year or early next. That slowdown is what Wall Street refers to as a “taper.”There’s a hot debate among policymakers about how that taper should play out. Some officials think the Fed should slow mortgage debt buying first because the housing market is booming. Others have said mortgage security buying has little special effect on the housing market. They have hinted or said they would favor tapering both types of purchases at the same speed.The Fed is moving cautiously, and for a reason: Back in 2013, markets convulsed when investors realized that a similar bond-buying program after the financial crisis would slow soon. Mr. Powell and crew do not want to stage a rerun.Bond-buying is just one of the Fed’s policy tools, and is used to lower longer-term interest rates and to get money chugging around the economy. The Fed also sets a policy interest rate, the federal funds rate, to keep borrowing costs low. It has been near zero since March 2020.Central bankers have been clear that tapering off bond purchases is the first step toward moving policy away from an emergency setting. Increases in the funds rate remain off in the distant future. More