Credit and Debt

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    March Fed Minutes: ‘Many’ Officials in Favor of a Big Rate Increase

    by

    Minutes from the Federal Reserve’s March meeting showed that central bankers were preparing to shrink their portfolio of bond holdings imminently while raising interest rates “expeditiously,” as the central bank tries to cool off the economy and rapid inflation.Fed officials are making money more expensive to borrow and spend in a bid to slow shopping and business investment, hoping that weaker demand will help to tame prices, which are now climbing at the fastest pace in four decades.Central bankers raised interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point in March, their first increase since 2018 — and the minutes showed that “many” officials would have preferred an even bigger rate move and were held back only by uncertainty tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Markets now expect the Fed to make half-point increases in May and possibly June, even as they begin to withdraw additional support from the economy by shrinking their balance sheet.The balance sheet stands at nearly $9 trillion — swollen by pandemic response policies — and Fed officials plan to shrink it by allowing some of their government-backed bond holdings to expire starting as soon as May, the minutes showed. That will help to further push up interest rates, potentially leading to slower growth, more muted hiring and weaker wage increases. Eventually, the theory goes, the chain reaction should help to slow inflation. “They’re very resolute in fighting inflation and moving it lower,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “They are concerned.”While central bankers were hesitant to react to rapid inflation last year, hoping it would prove “transitory” and fade quickly, those expectations have been dashed. Price increases remain rapid, and officials are watching warily for signs that they might turn more permanent.“All participants underscored the need to remain attentive to the risks of further upward pressure on inflation and longer-run inflation expectations,” the minutes showed.Now, officials are trying to cool off the economy as it is growing quickly and the job market is rapidly improving. Employers added 431,000 jobs in March, wages are climbing swiftly, and the unemployment rate is just about matching the 50-year low that prevailed before the pandemic.Central bankers are hoping that the strong job market will help them slow the economy without tipping it into an outright recession. That will be a challenge, given the Fed’s blunt policy tools, a reality that officials have acknowledged.At the same time, Fed officials are worried that if they do not respond vigorously to high inflation, consumers and businesses may come to expect persistently higher prices. That could perpetuate quick price increases and make wrestling them under control even more painful.“It is of paramount importance to get inflation down,” Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the nominee to be the central bank’s vice chair, said on Tuesday. “Accordingly, the committee will continue tightening monetary policy methodically through a series of interest rate increases and by starting to reduce the balance sheet at a rapid pace as soon as our May meeting.”Ms. Brainard’s statement that balance sheet shrinking could happen “rapidly” caught markets by surprise, sending stocks lower and rates on bonds higher. Investors also focused their attention on the minutes released on Wednesday.The notes from the March meeting provided more details about what the balance sheet process might look like. Fed officials are coalescing around a plan to slow their reinvestment of securities, the minutes showed, most likely capping the monthly shrinking at $60 billion for Treasury securities and $35 billion for mortgage-backed debt.That would be about twice the maximum pace the Fed set when it shrank its balance sheet between 2017 and 2019, confirming the signal policymakers have been giving in recent weeks that the plan could proceed much more quickly this time around.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Mortgage Rates Hit 4 Percent for First Time in 3 Years

    by

    Mortgage rates topped 4 percent this week for the first time in nearly three years — and are expected to keep climbing.The rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 4.16 percent for the week through Thursday, the first time it exceeded 4 percent since May 2019, according to Freddie Mac. That was up from 3.85 percent a week earlier and 3.09 percent a year ago.Rates have been ticking up thanks to a 40-year high in inflation, which the Federal Reserve is attempting to rein in by raising interest rates. On Wednesday, the Fed raised its benchmark rate by a quarter of a percentage point, the first increase since 2018, and it signaled that six more similarly sized increases were on the way.Mortgage rates don’t move in lock step with the Fed benchmark — they instead track the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds. That figure is influenced by a variety of factors, including the inflation rate, the Fed’s actions and how investors react to them.“The Federal Reserve raising short-term rates and signaling further increases means mortgage rates should continue to rise over the course of the year,” Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist, said in a statement.“While home purchase demand has moderated, it remains competitive due to low existing inventory, suggesting high house price pressures will continue during the spring home-buying season,” he added.The average rate on 30-year fixed mortgages dropped as low as 2.65 percent in January 2021. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Dollars or Rubles? Russian Debt Payments Are Due, and Uncertain.

    by

    Citing sanctions, the Russian government warned it might pay foreign debt obligations in rubles. Credit rating agencies say a default is imminent. Russia is teetering on the edge of a possible sovereign debt default, and the first sign could come as soon as Wednesday.The Russian government owes about $40 billion in debt denominated in U.S. dollars and euros, and half of those bonds are owned by foreign investors. And Russian corporations have racked up approximately $100 billion in foreign currency debt, JPMorgan estimates.On Wednesday, $117 million in interest payments on dollar-denominated government debt are due.But Russia is increasingly isolated from global financial markets, and investors are losing hope that they will see their money. As the government strives to protect what’s left of its access to foreign currency, it has suggested it would pay its dollar- or euro-denominated debt obligations in rubles instead. That has prompted credit rating agencies to warn of an imminent default.The Russian currency has lost nearly 40 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar in the past month. Even if the payments were made, economic sanctions would make it difficult for Western lenders to access the rubles if they are in Russian bank accounts.“It is not that Russia doesn’t have money,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told reporters last week. The problem is, Russia can’t use a lot of its international currency reserves, she said, because they have been frozen by sanctions. “I’m not going to speculate what may or may not happen, but just to say that no more we talk about Russian default as an improbable event.”Last week, the chief economist of the World Bank said Russia and Belarus were squarely in “default territory,” and Fitch Ratings said a default was imminent because sanctions had diminished Russia’s willingness to repay its foreign debts.Russia last defaulted on its debt in 1998, when a currency crisis led it to default on ruble-denominated debt and temporarily ban foreign debt payments. The crisis shocked the financial world, leading to the collapse of the U.S. hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, which required Federal Reserve intervention and a multibillion-dollar bailout. If Russia failed to make payments on its foreign currency debt, it would be its first such default since the 1917 Russian Revolution.Foreign investor interest in Russian assets fell in 2014 when sanctions were imposed after the country annexed Crimea, and never fully recovered before more sanctions were imposed by Washington in 2019. But holdings aren’t negligible. Russian government bonds were considered investment grade as recently as a few weeks ago, and were included in indexes used to benchmark other funds. JPMorgan estimates that international investors own 22 percent of Russian companies’ foreign currency debt.BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has already incurred losses on Russian assets and equities.Jeenah Moon/BloombergFunds managed by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have incurred $17 billion in losses on Russian assets, including equities, in recent weeks, according to the firm. The loss in value has a number of causes, including investors selling their holdings.But so far, regulators have said the risk to global banking systems from a Russian default wouldn’t be systemic because of the limited direct exposure to Russian assets. The larger ramifications from the war in Ukraine and Russia’s economic isolation are from higher energy and food prices.Still, financial companies have been scrambling to assess their exposure, according to Daniel Tannebaum, a partner at Oliver Wyman who advises banks on sanctions.“I’m seeing a lot of clients that had exposure to the Russian market wondering what type of default scenarios might be coming up,” said Mr. Tannebaum, who is also a former Treasury Department official. In the case of a default, “those bonds become worthless, for lack of a better term,” he said.On Monday, Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.” The government has the money to meet its debt obligations, he said, but sanctions were hampering its ability to pay. Mr. Siluanov had also said over the weekend that the country had lost access to about $300 billion of its $640 billion currency reserves.The government insists investors will be paid. The finance ministry said on Monday it would send instructions to banks to issue the payment due on dollar- or euro-denominated bonds in dollars or euros, but if the banks don’t execute the order then it will be recalled and payment will be made in rubles instead. The statement also said that the payments could be made in rubles and then converted to another currency only when the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves are unfrozen.Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.”Alberto Pizzoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“In any case, obligations to our investors will be met. And the ability to receive the funds in foreign currency will depend on the imposed restrictions,” Mr. Siluanov said.But the statement doesn’t provide a clear vision of what might happen on Wednesday. American sanctions allow for the receipt of payments of debt obligations until late May, and so the reasoning behind the Russian finance ministry’s claim that banks might refuse the payments is unclear. The payments due on Wednesday also have a 30-day grace period, so a default wouldn’t technically happen until mid-April. But Russia has already blocked interest payments on ruble-denominated bonds to nonresidents, a sign of its hesitancy to transfer funds abroad.While the Russian finance ministry said it could meet its obligations by paying in rubles, others disagreed.“In order to avoid a default, the only way that Russia can really navigate this is to send the full payment in dollars,” said Trang Nguyen, an emerging markets strategist at JPMorgan.Some Russian bonds issued in recent years do have provisions that allow for repayment in other currencies, including the ruble, if Russia can’t make payments in dollars for reasons “beyond its control.” The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Black Farmers Fear Foreclosure as Debt Relief Remains Frozen

    by

    Lawsuits from white farmers have blocked $4 billion of pandemic aid that was allocated to Black farmers in the American Rescue Plan.WASHINGTON — For Brandon Smith, a fourth-generation cattle rancher from Texas, the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that President Biden signed into law nearly a year ago was long-awaited relief.Little did he know how much longer he would have to wait.The legislation included $4 billion of debt forgiveness for Black and other “socially disadvantaged” farmers, a group that has endured decades of discrimination from banks and the federal government. Mr. Smith, a Black father of four who owes about $200,000 in outstanding loans on his ranch, quickly signed and returned documents to the Agriculture Department last year, formally accepting the debt relief. He then purchased more equipment for his ranch, believing that he had been given a financial lifeline.Instead, Mr. Smith has fallen deeper into debt. Months after signing the paperwork he received a notice informing him that the federal government intended to “accelerate” foreclosure on his 46-acre property and cattle if he did not start making payments on the loans he believed had been forgiven.“I trusted the government that we had a deal, and down here at the end of the day, the rug gets pulled out from under me,” Mr. Smith, 43, said in an interview.Black farmers across the nation have yet to see any of Mr. Biden’s promised relief. While the president has pledged to pursue policies to promote racial equity and correct decades of discrimination, legal issues have complicated that goal.In May 2021, the Agriculture Department started sending letters to borrowers who were eligible to have their debt cleared, asking them to sign and return forms confirming their balances. The payments, which also are supposed to cover tax liabilities and fees associated with clearing the debt, were expected to come in phases beginning in June.But the entire initiative has been stymied amid lawsuits from white farmers and groups representing them that questioned whether the government could offer debt relief based on race.Courts in Wisconsin and Florida have issued preliminary injunctions against the initiative, siding with plaintiffs who argued that the debt relief amounted to discrimination and could therefore be illegal. A class-action lawsuit against the U.S.D.A. is proceeding in Texas this year.The Biden administration has not appealed the injunctions but a spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department said it was continuing to defend the program in the courts as the cases move forward.The legal limbo has created new and unexpected financial strains for Black farmers, many of whom have been unable to make investments in their businesses given ongoing uncertainty about their debt loads. It also poses a political problem for Mr. Biden, who was propelled to power by Black voters and now must make good on promises to improve their fortunes.The law was intended to help remedy years of discrimination that nonwhite farmers have endured, including land theft and the rejection of loan applications by banks and the federal government. The program designated aid to about 15,000 borrowers who receive loans directly from the federal government or have their bank loans guaranteed by the U.S.D.A. Those eligible included farmers and ranchers who have been subject to racial or ethnic prejudice, including those who are Black, Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian American, Pacific Islander or Hispanic.After the initiative was rolled out last year, it met swift opposition.Banks were unhappy that the loans would be repaid early, depriving them of interest payments. Groups of white farmers in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Oregon and Illinois sued the Agriculture Department, arguing that offering debt relief on the basis of skin color is discriminatory, suggesting that a successful Black farmer could have his debts cleared while a struggling white farm could go out of business. America First Legal, a group led by the former Trump administration official Stephen Miller, filed a lawsuit making a similar argument in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.Last June, before the money started flowing, a federal judge in Florida blocked the program on the basis that it applied “strictly on racial grounds” irrespective of any other factor.The delays have angered the Black farmers that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress were trying to help. They argue that the law was poorly written and that the White House is not defending it forcefully enough in court out of fear that a legal defeat could undermine other policies that are predicated on race.Those concerns became even more pronounced late last year when the government sent thousands of letters to minority farmers who were behind on their loan payments warning that they faced foreclosure. The letters were sent automatically to any borrowers who were past due on their loans, including about a third of the 15,000 socially disadvantaged farmers who applied for the debt relief, according to the Agriculture Department.Leonard Jackson, a cattle farmer in Muskogee, Okla., received such a letter despite being told by the U.S.D.A. that he did not need to make loan payments because his $235,000 in debt would be paid off by the government. The letter was jarring for Mr. Jackson, whose father, a wheat and soybean farmer, had his farm equipment foreclosed on by the government years earlier. The prospect of losing his 33 cows, house and trailer was unfathomable.“They said that they were paying off everybody’s loans and not to make payments and then they sent this,” Mr. Jackson, 55, said.The legal fight over the funds has stirred widespread confusion, with Black and other farmers stuck in the middle. This year, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives has been fielding calls from minority farmers who said their financial problems have been compounded. It has become even harder for them to get access to credit now, they say, that the fate of the debt relief is unclear.“It has definitely caused a very significant panic and a lot of distress among our members,” said Dãnia Davy, director of land retention and advocacy at the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.Mr. Smith bought more equipment for his ranch when he thought aid was finally on the way. But now he’s deeper in debt.Montinique Monroe for The New York TimesThe Agriculture Department said that it was required by law to send the warnings but that the government had no intention of foreclosing on farms, citing a moratorium on such action that was put in place early last year because of the pandemic. After The New York Times inquired about the foreclosure letters, the U.S.D.A. sent borrowers who had received notices another letter late last month telling them to disregard the foreclosure threat.“We want borrowers to know the bottom line is, actions such as acceleration and foreclosure remain suspended for direct loan borrowers due to the pandemic,” Kate Waters, a department spokeswoman, said. “We remain under the moratorium, and we will continue to communicate with our borrowers so they understand their rights and understand their debt servicing options.”The more than 2,000 minority farmers who receive private loans that are guaranteed by the U.S.D.A. are not protected by the federal moratorium and could still face foreclosure. Once the moratorium ends, farmers will need to resume making their payments if the debt relief program or an alternative is not in place.Some Black farmers argue that the Agriculture Department, led by Secretary Tom Vilsack, was too slow to disburse the debt relief and allowed critics time to mount a legal assault on the law.The Biden administration has been left with few options but to let the legal process play out, which could take months or years. The White House had been hopeful that a new measure in Mr. Biden’s sweeping social policy and climate bill would ultimately provide the farmers the debt relief they have been expecting. But that bill has stalled in the Senate and is unlikely to pass in its current form.“While we continue to defend in court the relief in the American Rescue Plan, getting the broader relief provision that the House passed signed into law remains the surest and quickest way to help farmers in economic distress across the nation, including thousands and thousands of farmers of color,” Gene Sperling, the White House’s pandemic relief czar, said in a statement.For Black farmers, who have seen their ranks fall from more than a million to fewer than 40,000 in the last century amid industry consolidation and onerous loan terms, the disappointment is not surprising. John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, said that rather than hearing about more government reports on racial equity, Black farmers want to see results.“We need implementation, action and resources to farm,” Mr. Boyd said. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Rising Mortgage Rates Add to the Challenge of Buying a House

    by

    The average rate on a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage is now the highest since May 2019. And home prices are expected to rise, though probably more slowly.Home prices remain high, and rising borrowing costs are adding to the challenge of buying a home heading into the traditional spring selling season.The pace of housing price increases may slow from double- to single-digit percentages this year, said Danielle Hale, the chief economist for Realtor.com. But prices are still expected to go up, and conditions will probably continue to favor sellers.“Prices will continue to grow, just at a slower pace,” she said, and one of the main reasons is that mortgage rates are expected to rise. “Higher mortgage rates decrease affordability for anyone taking out a mortgage,” which the majority of home buyers do, she said.The average rate on a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage this week rose to 3.92 percent, the highest rate since May 2019, according to the mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac. A year ago, the average rate was 2.81 percent. Freddie Mac’s weekly survey looks at loans used to buy homes, rather than at borrowers refinancing loans they already have.Mortgage rates are rising quickly. The Mortgage Bankers Association forecasts average rates will be slightly above 4 percent by the end of the year — still low in historic terms, but higher than the 3 percent or lower that borrowers have been seeing. (The association includes rates for refinances as well as purchases in its forecast.)Why are rates rising? In response to higher inflation and a strong employment market, the Federal Reserve is expected in March to begin a series of increases in its benchmark interest rate, indirectly helping to push up mortgage rates. (In general, mortgage rates are tied to the 10-year Treasury bond, which is affected by various factors, including the outlook for inflation.) Consumer price increases recently have reached levels not seen in 40 years, mainly because of lingering supply constraints from the pandemic.The average borrower with a 20 percent down payment would pay about $100 more a month on a new mortgage than one taken out at the end of last year because of rising rates and higher home prices, said Andy Walden, vice president of enterprise research strategy at Black Knight, a mortgage data provider.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Rates are rising as strong demand for homes, along with a tight supply of properties for sale, has pushed up home prices. The typical sale price of a previously owned home in 2021 was just under $347,000, according to the National Association of Realtors — an increase of nearly 17 percent from 2020.Shoppers should still expect a competitive spring housing market, Ms. Hale said. Some potential buyers who have been on the fence may move quickly to lock in mortgage rates before they rise further. “It gives shoppers some urgency to close sooner rather than later,” she said.But some shoppers — particularly first-time buyers — may decide to wait until even higher rates help cool off prices later in the year. The largest share of home buyers are millennials ages 21 to 40, many of whom are first-time buyers, according to the National Association of Realtors.“The spring season will be very interesting,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist with the Realtors association.Ultimately, the housing market needs an increase in inventory, Mr. Yun said. “We need a supply of empty homes.” Builders have faced challenges in keeping newly built homes affordable including high lumber prices and difficulty finding construction workers.Buyers may need to consider more affordable homes in less urban areas, Mr. Yun said. That may depend on whether homeowners expect to be able to continue working remotely.One variable in the number of homes for sale is the winding down of mortgage forbearances granted during the pandemic. Many homeowners have been able to resume payments after their payment pause expired. But some may be unable to, forcing them to sell their homes, said Michael Fratantoni, the chief economist with the Mortgage Bankers Association. The number of borrowers in forbearance has been declining, to an estimated 705,000 homeowners at the end of 2021.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation and Deficits Don’t Dim the Appeal of U.S. Bonds

    by

    Markets have been in upheaval. The Federal Reserve is taking steps to cool off the economy, as questions loom about the course of the recovery. And headlines are proclaiming that government bond yields are near two-year highs.But the striking thing about bonds isn’t that yields — which influence interest rates throughout the economy — have risen. It’s that they remain so low.In the past year, with consumer prices rising at a pace unseen since the early 1980s, a conventional presumption was that the demand for bonds would slump unless their yields were high enough to substantially offset inflation’s bite on investors’ portfolios.Bond purchases remained near record levels anyway, which pushed yields lower. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note — the key security in the $22 trillion market for U.S. government bonds — is about 1.8 percent. That’s roughly where it was on the eve of the pandemic, or when Donald J. Trump was elected president, or even a decade ago, when inflation was running at a mere 1.7 percent annual rate — compared with the 7 percent year-over-year increase in the Consumer Price Index recorded in December.If you had run that data past market experts last spring, “I think you would have been hard-pressed to find anybody on the Street who’d believe you,” said Scott Pavlak, a fixed-income portfolio manager at MetLife Investment Management.Because the 10-year Treasury yield is a benchmark for many other interest rates, the rates on mortgages and corporate debt have been near historical lows as well. And despite a binge of deficit spending by the U.S. government — which standard theories say should make a nation’s borrowing more expensive — continuing demand for government debt securities has meant that investors are, in inflation-adjusted terms, paying to hold Treasury bonds rather than getting a positive return.The major reasons for this odd phenomenon include long-term expectations about inflation, a large (and unequally distributed) surge in wealth worldwide and the growing ranks of retiring baby boomers who want to protect their nest eggs against the volatility of stocks.And that has potentially huge consequences for public finances.“If governments ever wanted to engage in an aggressive program of spending, now is the time,” said Padhraic Garvey, a head of research at ING, a global bank. “This is a perfect time to issue bonds as long as possible and proceed with long-term investment plans — and as long as the rate of return on those plans is in excess of the funding costs, they pay for themselves.”Weighing the Fed’s RoleBecause the government debt issued by the United States is valued, with few exceptions, as the safest financial asset in the global market — and because this debt is used as the collateral for trillions of dollars of systemically important transactions — the monthly and weekly fluctuations of key U.S. Treasuries, like the 10-year note, are watched closely.There are rancorous debates about the added role that the emergency bond-buying program conducted by the Fed since March 2020 — which included hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. debt securities — has played in keeping rates down. Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Some of the central bank’s critics concede that the Fed’s aggressive measures (which officials are dialing back) may have proved necessary at the start of the pandemic to stabilize markets. But they insist its program, another form of economic stimulus, continued far too long, egging on inflation by increasing demand and keeping rates low — an equation that hurt savers who could benefit from higher returns to hedge against the price increases.Still, most mainstream analysts also tend to identify a broader gumbo of coalescing factors beyond monetary policy.Several major market participants attribute these stubbornly low yields in spite of a high-growth, high-inflation economy to a widening sense among investors that a time of slower growth and milder price increases may eventually reassert itself.“While inflation has surged, they do not expect it to be persistent,” said Brett Ryan, the senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank. “In other words, over the long run, the post-pandemic world is likely to look very similar to the prepandemic state of the economy.”Long-run inflation expectations are still relatively anchored at an annual rate of about 2.4 percent over the next 10 years. This indicates that markets think the Fed will prevent inflation from spiraling upward, despite the huge increase in debt and the supply of dollars.Lots of Cash in Search of HavensOne potent element driving down rates is that from 2000 to 2020 — a stretch that included a burst dot-com bubble, a breakdown of the world’s banking system and a pandemic that upended business activity — global wealth in terms of net worth more than tripled to $510 trillion. The resulting savings glut has deeply affected the market, particularly for government bonds.The vast majority of wealth has accumulated to borderless corporations and a multinational elite desperate to park that capital somewhere that is safe and allows its money to earn some level of interest, rather than lose value even more quickly as cash. They view lending the money to a national government in its own currency as a prudent investment because, at worst, the debt can be repaid by creating more of that currency.The downside for these investors is that only so many stable, powerful countries have this privilege: This mix of exorbitant levels of wealth and a scarcity of safe havens for it has whetted, at least for now, a deepening appetite for reliable government debt securities — especially U.S. Treasuries.“To have truly risk-free returns and storage of your dollars, where else are you going to put them?” asked Daniel Alpert, a managing partner of the investment bank Westwood Capital.As the principle of supply and demand would suggest, the combination of high demand and low supply has helped keep Treasury bond prices high, which in turn produces lower yields.Demographic changes are affecting bond trends, too. As they approach or reach retirement, hundreds of millions of people across developed economies are looking for safer places than the stock market for their assets.Even in an inflationary environment, “there’s just this huge demand for yield in fixed income from people,” said Ben Carlson, the director of institutional asset management at Ritholtz Wealth Management. “You have all these boomer retirees who have money in the stock market and they’re doing great, but they know soon they’re not going to have a paycheck anymore and they need some portion of their portfolio to provide yield and stability.”Running Room for Federal SpendingThe U.S. Treasury market has grown to roughly $23 trillion, from $3 trillion two decades ago — directly in step with the national debt, which has grown to over 120 percent of gross domestic product, from 55 percent.But borrowing costs for the American government have trended lower, not higher. Congress issued roughly $5 trillion in Treasury debt securities to finance pandemic fiscal relief, “and we had, effectively, zero cost of capital for most of it,” said Yesha Yadav, a law professor at Vanderbilt University whose scholarship covers the Treasury market’s structure and regulations.Since the 1980s, the federal debt has skyrocketed.Total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product

    Note: Data through the third quarter of 2021Source: Federal Reserve Board of St. LouisBy The New York TimesBut the cost of paying investors back is at its lowest in years.Interest payments on U.S. debt as a percentage of gross domestic product.

    Note: Data through 2020. Federal interest payments are still projected to be low in 2022.Source: Federal Reserve Economic DataBy The New York TimesThe cost of the interest payments that the U.S. government owes on its debt peaked in 1991 at 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, when the national debt was only 44 percent of G.D.P. By that measure, interest costs now are about half what they were back then.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 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