Federal Reserve System

More stories

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    A ‘Rocky and Bumpy’ Economy Where Wages Are Up and Inflation Persists

    by

    Key pay and inflation gauges have stayed stubbornly high as Federal Reserve officials consider when to stop raising interest rates.Inflation isn’t as high as it was last year. The job market isn’t as hot. The economy is slowing down. But none of this is happening as quickly or as smoothly as Federal Reserve officials would like.The latest evidence came on Friday, when a set of government reports painted a picture of an economy that is generally headed in the direction that policymakers want, but is taking its time to get there.“We knew that inflation was going to be rocky and bumpy,” said Megan Greene, chief economist for the Kroll Institute. “We found peak inflation, but it’s not going to be a smooth path down.”Consumer prices were up 4.2 percent in March from a year earlier, according to the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, the Commerce Department said Friday. That was the slowest pace of inflation in nearly two years, down from a peak of 7 percent last summer.But after stripping out food and fuel prices, a closely watched “core” index held nearly steady last month. That measure rose by 4.6 percent over the year, compared with 4.7 percent in the previous reading — a figure that was revised up slightly.Wages, meanwhile, continue to rise rapidly — good news for workers trying to keep up with the rising cost of living, but a likely source of concern for the Fed.Data from the Labor Department on Friday showed that wages and salaries for private-sector workers were up 5.1 percent in March from a year earlier. That was the same growth rate as in December, and defied forecasters’ expectations of a modest slowdown. A broader measure of compensation growth, which includes the value of benefits as well as pay, actually accelerated slightly in the first quarter.Labor Department on Friday showed that wages and salaries for private-sector workers were up 5.1 percent in March from a year earlier.Hailey Sadler for The New York TimesThe Fed has been raising interest rates for more than a year in an effort to cool off the economy and bring inflation down to the central bank’s target of 2 percent per year. The data on Friday is likely to add to policymakers’ conviction that their work is not done — officials are widely expected to raise rates a quarter percentage point, to just above 5 percent, when they meet next week. That would be the central bank’s 10th consecutive rate increase.Wage data is a particular focus for Fed officials, who believe that the labor market, in which there are far more available jobs than workers to fill them, is pushing up pay at an unsustainable rate, contributing to inflation. Other measures had suggested a more significant slowdown in wage growth than showed up in the data on Friday, which is less timely but generally considered more reliable“If any Fed officials were wavering on a May rate hike,” Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, wrote in a note to clients on Friday, the wage data “will likely push them to support at least one more hike.”But a crucial question is what comes after that. Central bankers forecast in March that they might stop raising interest rates after their next move. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, could explain after the central bank’s rate announcement next week if that is still the case. The decision will hinge on incoming economic and financial data.Investors largely shrugged off the data on Friday morning, focusing instead on a week of robust profit reports that suggest corporate America has yet to fully feel the pinch of higher interest rates. The S&P 500 index rose 0.5 percent in midday trading. The yields on Treasury bonds, which track the government’s cost to borrow more money and are sensitive to changes in interest-rate expectations, fell slightly.The Fed faces a delicate task as it seeks to raise borrowing costs just enough to discourage hiring and ease pressure on pay, but not so much that companies begin laying off workers en masse.Higher interest rates have already taken a toll on housing, manufacturing and business investment. And data from the Commerce Department on Friday suggested that consumers — the engine of the economic recovery to date — are beginning to buckle. After rising strongly in January, consumer spending barely grew in February and was flat in March. Americans saved their income in March at the highest rate since December 2021, a sign that consumers may be becoming more cautious.“You’re seeing some of that robustness to start the year really start to reverse a little bit,” said Stephen Juneau, an economist at Bank of America.Many forecasters believe the recovery will continue to slow in the months ahead — or may already have done so. The data from March does not capture the full impact of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the financial turmoil that followed.“If you take a picture of the data as it was in the first quarter, you’re left with this impression of still robust economic activity and inflation that’s still too high and too persistent,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY, the consulting firm previously known as Ernst & Young. If there was real-time data on spending, credit standards and business investment, he said, “that would tell a very different picture from what the first-quarter data would indicate.”The challenge or Fed officials is that they cannot wait for more complete data to make their decisions. Some evidence points to a more substantial slowdown, but other signs suggest that consumers continue to spend, and companies continue to raise prices.“If we see inflation that warrants us needing to take additional pricing, we’ll take it,” Brian Niccol, chief executive at the burrito chain Chipotle, said during an earnings call this week. “I think we’ve now demonstrated we do have pricing power.” The company raised its menu prices by 10 percent in the first quarter versus the same period last year.Wage growth is a particularly thorny issue for the Fed. Faster pay gains have helped workers, particularly those at the bottom of the earnings ladder, keep up with rapidly rising prices. And most economists, inside and outside the Fed, say wage growth has not been a dominant cause of the recent bout of high inflation.But Fed officials worry that if companies need to keep raising pay, they will also need to keep raising prices. That could make it hard to rein in inflation, even as the pandemic-era disruptions that caused the initial pop in prices recede.“It always feels good as a worker to see more money in your paycheck,” said Cory Stahle, an economist for the employment site Indeed. “But it also feels bad to walk into the store and pay $5 for a dozen eggs.”Joe Rennison More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    What to Watch as the Fed Releases Its Look Into Silicon Valley Bank

    by

    The Federal Reserve is set to release an examination of why its oversight of the bank failed to stem disaster at 11 a.m. on Friday.WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve is set to release a highly anticipated report on Friday examining what went wrong with its oversight of Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed in mid-March, in the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.The post-mortem comes as the aftershocks of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse continue to shake the American financial system: First Republic, which required a cash infusion from other large banks as nervous customers pulled their deposits and fled, remains imperiled.The Fed’s investigation into what went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank has been overseen by Michael S. Barr, the central bank’s head of supervision and one of the architects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which aimed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis. The review was announced on March 13, just after S.V.B.’s failure and the government’s sweeping announcement on March 12 that it would protect the bank’s large depositors, among other measures to shore up the banking system.That same weekend, the federal government also shuttered a second institution, Signature Bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was the primary supervisor for Signature, will release its own report Friday.Still, most of the attention has focused on S.V.B., in part because significant weaknesses at the bank appear to have started and grown progressively worse in plain sight in the years leading up to its demise. The bank had a large share of deposits above the government’s $250,000 insurance limit. That is a potential risk, given that uninsured depositors are more likely to pull their money at the first sign of trouble to prevent losing their savings.The bank’s leaders also made a big bet on interest rates staying low. That became a problem as the Fed, trying to control rapid inflation, carried out its most aggressive rate increase campaign since the 1980s. The bank held longer-term bonds that dropped in value as interest rates rose, because newer debt issued at the higher rates became more attractive for investors.Supervisors at the Fed were aware of many of the bank’s problems and had flagged and tried to follow up on some of them. Yet the issues were not resolved quickly enough to save the bank.The questions that the review could answer center on what went wrong. Was it a problem at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which supervised the bank, or did the fault rest with the Federal Reserve Board, which has ultimate responsibility for bank oversight? It is also unclear whether there was an issue with the Fed’s culture around — and approach to — supervision, or whether the existing rules were lacking.“It’s a little bit of a mystery” what the report will hold, said Steven Kelly, a researcher at the Yale Program on Financial Stability, explaining that he had little expectation that the release would point fingers. “In some sense, they really need a head on a pike — and they’re not going to do that in this report.”Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, said he was interested to see how the report would deal with the tone around bank supervision at the Fed, and the reality that Gregory Becker, S.V.B.’s chief executive, sat on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. That role gave Mr. Becker no official influence over bank oversight, but Mr. Hauser thinks that such positions might offer banks the advantage of more prestige.Mr. Hauser said he also thinks an independent review is needed in addition to the Fed’s internal probe and whatever its inspector general — who is also looking into the matter — eventually releases. Mr. Barr will still have to work with his colleagues in the future, Mr. Hauser pointed out, and the central bank’s inspector general is appointed by the Fed chair.“We need someone with some independence to dig in,” Mr. Hauser said. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    G.D.P. Report: U.S. Economy Grew at 1.1% Rate in First Quarter

    by

    The gross domestic product increased for the third straight quarter as consumer spending remained robust despite higher interest rates.Higher interest rates took a toll on the U.S. economy in early 2023, but free-spending consumers are keeping a recession at bay, at least for now.Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, rose at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. That was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the last three months of 2022 but nonetheless represented a third straight quarter of growth after output contracted in the first half of last year.The figures are preliminary and will be revised at least twice as more complete data becomes available.Growth in the first quarter was dragged down by weakness in housing and business investment, both of which are heavily influenced by interest rates. The Federal Reserve has raised rates by nearly five percentage points since early last year in an effort to tamp down inflation.Consumers, however, have proved resilient in the face of both rising prices and higher borrowing costs. Inflation-adjusted spending rose at a 3.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter, up from 1 percent in the prior period. Consumers have been buoyed by a strong job market and rising wages, which have helped offset high prices.Spending slowed as the quarter progressed, however, and forecasters warn that it could weaken further amid headlines about layoffs, bank failures and warnings of a possible recession.“Consumer spending is still moving up, but I don’t know how long that can last,” said Ben Herzon, an economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “Confidence is weak and has been weakening. You’ve got to wonder, will that soon translate into a pullback in spending?”A gradual slowdown would be welcomed by Fed policymakers, who have been trying to cool off the economy enough to bring down inflation, but not by so much that it leads to widespread layoffs and unemployment.“It’s not a free fall,” said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board, a business group. “It’s a controlled descent, and that’s what the Fed is trying to achieve with higher interest rates.” More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Lurches as It Struggles to Find a Savior

    by

    The bank is sitting on big losses and paying more to borrow money than it is making on its loans to homeowners and businesses.First Republic Bank is sliding dangerously into a financial maelstrom, one from which an exit appears increasingly difficult.Hardly a household name until a few weeks ago, First Republic is now a top concern for investors and bankers on Wall Street and officials in Washington. The likeliest outcome for the bank, people close to the situation said, would need to involve the federal government, alone or in some combination with a private investor.While the bank, with 88 branches focused mostly on the coasts, is still open for business, no one connected to it, including its executives and some board members, would say how much longer it could exist in its current form.First Republic, based in San Francisco, has been widely seen as the most in-danger bank since Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed last month. Like Silicon Valley Bank, it catered to the well-off — a group of customers able to pull their money en masse — and amassed a hoard of loans and assets whose value has suffered in an era of rising interest rates.Yet while SVB and Signature survived just days under pressure, First Republic has neither fallen nor thrived. It has withstood a deposit flight and a cratering stock price. Every attempt by the bank’s executives and advisers to project confidence appears to have had the opposite effect.The bank’s founder and executive chairman, Jim Herbert, until recently one of the more admired figures in the industry, has disappeared from public view. On March 13, Jim Cramer, the CNBC host, said on the air that Mr. Herbert had told him that the bank was doing “business as usual,” and that there were “not any sizable number of people wanting their money.”That was belied by the bank’s earnings report this week, which stated that “First Republic began experiencing unprecedented deposit outflows” on March 10.Neither Mr. Herbert nor the bank’s representatives would comment Wednesday, as First Republic’s stock continued a harrowing slide, dropping about 30 percent to close the day at just $5.69 — down from about $150 a year earlier. On Tuesday, the stock plummeted 49 percent. The company is now worth a little more than $1 billion, or about one-twentieth its valuation before the banking turmoil began in March.In what has become a disquieting pattern, the New York Stock Exchange halted trading in the shares 16 times on Wednesday because volatility thresholds were triggered.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    First Republic Bank’s share price
    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesStock prices are always an imperfect measure of a lender’s health, and there are strict rules about what types of entities can acquire a bank. Still, First Republic’s stock slide means that its branches and $103 billion in deposits could be bought for, theoretically, an amount less than the market capitalization of Portillo’s, the Chicago-area hot dog purveyor. Of course, any company that buys First Republic would be taking on multibillion-dollar losses on its loan portfolio and assets.The bank is more likely to fall into the hands of the government. That outcome would likely wipe out shareholders and put the bank’s fate in the hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.The F.D.I.C. by its own rules guarantees that deposit accounts only up to $250,000 will be made whole, though in practice — and in the case of SVB and Signature — it can make accounts of all sizes whole if several top government officials invoke a special legal provision. Of First Republic’s remaining deposits, roughly half, or nearly $50 billion, were over the insured threshold as of March 31, including the $30 billion deposited by big banks in March.In conversations with industry and government officials, First Republic’s advisers have proposed various restructuring solutions that would involve the government, in one form or another, according to people familiar with the matter. The government could seek to minimize a buyer’s financial risk, the people said, asking not to be identified.Thus far, the Biden administration and Federal Reserve appear to have demurred. Policy experts have said officials would find it more difficult to intervene to save First Republic because of restrictions Congress enacted after the 2008 financial crisis.As a result, six weeks of efforts by First Republic and its advisers to sell all or part of its business have not resulted in a viable plan to save the bank — at least thus far.The state of affairs became plain after the close of trading on Monday, when First Republic announced first-quarter results that showed that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits since early March. Those withdrawals were slightly ameliorated by the coordinated emergency move of 11 large U.S. banks to temporarily deposit $30 billion into First Republic.To plug the hole, First Republic borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Fed and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans. While the move helped keep the bank going, it essentially undermined its business model, replacing relatively cheap deposits with more expensive loans.The bank is paying more in interest to the government on that new debt than it is earning on its long-term investments, which include mortgage loans to its well-heeled customers on the coasts, funding for real estate projects and the like.One of the biggest parts of the bank’s business was offering large home loans with attractive interest rates to affluent people. And unlike other banks that make a lot of mortgages, First Republic kept many of those loans rather than packaging them into mortgage-backed securities and selling them to investors. At the end of December, the bank had nearly $103 billion in home loans on its books, up from $80 billion a year earlier.But most of those loans were made when the mortgage interest rates were much lower than they are today. That means those loans are worth a lot less, and anybody looking to buy First Republic would be taking on those losses.It is not clear what First Republic can realistically do to make itself or its assets more attractive to a buyer.Among the only tangible changes that the bank has committed to is cutting as much as 25 percent of its staff and slashing executive compensation by an unspecified amount. On its earnings call, First Republic’s executives declined to take questions and spoke for just 12 minutes. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Bank Enters New Free Fall as Concerns Mount

    by

    The bank’s shares fell by about 50 percent on Tuesday, a day after it said customers had pulled $100 billion in deposits in the first quarter.First Republic Bank’s stock closed down 50 percent Tuesday, a day after a troubling earnings report and a conference call with analysts in which the company’s executives refused questions. The speed of the decline set off a series of volatility-induced trading halts by the New York Stock Exchange.On Monday, after the close of regular stock trading, First Republic released results that showed just how perilous the bank’s future had become since mid-March following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. First Republic said its clients pulled $102 billion in deposits in the first quarter — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year.The bank received a temporary $30 billion lifeline last month from the nation’s biggest banks to help shore up its business. Those banks, however, can withdraw their deposits as soon as July. In the first quarter, First Republic also borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Federal Reserve and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans.First Republic is considered the most vulnerable regional bank after the banking crisis in March. What happens to it could also affect investors’ confidence in other regional banks and the financial system more broadly.The bank’s executives did little to establish confidence during its conference call, offering just 12 minutes of prepared remarks. The bank also said on Monday that it would cut as much as a quarter of its work force, and slash executive compensation by an unspecified sum.“This is a trust issue, as it is for any bank, and when trust is lost, money will flee,” Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, wrote in an email.An analyst at Wolfe Research, Bill Carcache, laid out what he called “the long list of questions we weren’t allowed to ask” in a research note on Tuesday. Among them: How can the bank survive without raising new money, and how can it continue to provide attentive customer service — a staple of its reputation among wealthy clients — while cutting the very staff who provide it?The bank’s options to save itself absent a government seizure or intervention are limited and challenging. No buyer has emerged for the bank in its entirety. Any bank or investor group interested in taking over the bank would have to take on First Republic’s loan portfolio, which could saddle the buyer with billions of dollars in losses based on the recent interest rate moves. The bank is also difficult to sell off in pieces because its customers use many different services like checking accounts, mortgages and wealth management.There are no easy solutions for First Republic’s situation, said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School. “If there were attractive options, they would have pursued them already,” Ms. Judge explained.The Fed can no longer take on some of a bank’s financial risk to ease a takeover in the way it did in 2008, because reforms after the financial crisis changed its powers. And while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation might be able to help in some way, that would most likely involve failing the bank and invoking a “systemic risk exception,” which would require sign-off by officials across several agencies, Ms. Judge said.Yet if the bank does fail, the government will have to decide whether to protect its uninsured depositors, which could also be a tough call, she said.“There’s really no easy answer,” Ms. Judge said.Representatives for the Fed and the F.D.I.C. declined to comment.Shares of other banks also fell on Tuesday, though not nearly as much as First Republic. The KBW Bank Index, a proxy for the industry, closed down about 3.5 percent.Separately, the Fed said on Tuesday that its review of the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank will be released at 11 a.m. on Friday.Rob Copeland More

  • 75 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    America’s Inflation Antihero Gets a Makeover

    by

    As the Fed fights inflation with a wary eye on the 1970s, some are arguing that Arthur Burns, the Fed chair at the time, gets too bad a rap.The years have not been kind to Arthur Burns, who led the Federal Reserve from 1970 to 1978 and is often remembered as perhaps the worst chair ever to head America’s central bank. His poor policy decisions, critics say, allowed inflation in the 1970s to jump out of control.Chris Hughes thinks he deserves another look. Mr. Hughes, 39, is a newly accepted doctoral student focused on central bank history at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. This is a third career for Mr. Hughes, who was Mark Zuckerberg’s college roommate and a founder of Facebook, a first act that left him with a personal fortune estimated to total hundreds of millions of dollars.Mr. Hughes then bought and for four years served as publisher of The New Republic, the liberal magazine. Starting this fall, he will spend his days studying the law and politics of central bank development and writing a book on the history of financial markets and politics.As a person who knows something about reinvention, Mr. Hughes thinks Mr. Burns should get one, too.He wrote a 6,000-word article for the journal Democracy on how America has misunderstood the former Fed chair, made the argument on NPR’s Planet Money and is now taking his spiel to academic gatherings.His point? He thinks Mr. Burns is portrayed in ways that are unfair to him — and which may offer the wrong lessons as America approaches the inflation burdening the rest of us at the grocery store, used car lot and day-care center today.Mr. Burns is frequently remembered in central banking and economic circles as a weak leader who failed to lift interest rates enough to control inflation because he feared harming the economy too much; Mr. Hughes and other Burns revisionists — a small but growing group of historians and economists who don’t necessarily love him, but do think he got an unfair rap — see him as someone who tried to balance concerns about hurting workers with a dedication to slowing down price increases. History often paints him as a political shill; the contrarians argue that he saw controlling inflation as a project that the Fed and elected officials in the White House and Congress could and should share.And because Mr. Burns gets blamed, without much nuance, for his failure to contain inflation, Mr. Hughes thinks that people miss the possible virtues of his more complicated view of price increases — as a problem that required multiple players, alongside the Fed, to successfully tackle.“I think he’s easily weaponized,” Mr. Hughes said in an interview. “The caricature is worth revisiting.”Mr. Burns plays the role of antihero in most stories about the Great Inflation of the 1970s — tales that are repeated often in academic circles and the news media as a warning about what not to do.Mr. Burns, a conservative economist, presided over rate increases during the 1970s, but he never pushed them far enough to bring inflation under control. And he may have pursued that start-and-stop approach partly because he was bending to political pressure.Richard Nixon with Arthur Burns in 1968. In the run-up to the 1972 election, President Nixon, who appointed Mr. Burns as Fed chair, urged him to cut rates.Associated PressPresident Richard Nixon, who appointed Mr. Burns as Fed chair, wanted him to cut rates in the run-up to the 1972 election. In taped conversations, Nixon urged Mr. Burns to push the Fed’s policy committee to lower borrowing costs.“Just kick ’em in the rump a little,” Nixon was recorded saying. Fed officials did cut rates in the latter part of 1971.Inflation deepened as the Fed’s rate moves remained more dawdling than decisive, and Mr. Burns’s name eventually became synonymous with bad central banking: irresolute and politicized. He remains the key historical foil to Paul Volcker, Fed chair from 1979 to 1987, who pushed interest rates up to nearly 20 percent in 1981, crashed the economy into a deep recession and ultimately saw price increases cool. Mr. Volcker, hated by many in his time, is now recalled as an almost heroic figure.The parable of Mr. Burns and Mr. Volcker retains a powerful hold today, as the Fed contends with the first major burst of inflation since the 1970s and ’80s. Fed officials regularly emphasize that they view a noncommittal approach to raising interest rates to slow the economy and choke off inflation — Mr. Burns’s style — as a mistake.Meanwhile, Mr. Volcker described his own approach as one of “keeping at it.” Jerome H. Powell, the current Fed chair, has echoed that phrase aspirationally.It is not clear whether the Fed would pursue a strategy just like Mr. Volcker’s. Mr. Powell has publicly noted that today’s circumstances differ from those of the 1970s. Nor do officials plan to push rates to the double-digit heights they reached in 1981 and 1982. But Mr. Volcker’s policies came at such a cost to workers, pushing unemployment up to a staggering 10.8 percent, that mere admiration of his approach has been enough to stir concern among some liberal economists and historians.Mr. Hughes agrees that rate increases have been necessary, but he is also pushing for a more detailed reading of Mr. Burns’ legacy. He has spent the past four years researching central bank history, including as a graduate student of economics at the New School in New York City, where he lives with his husband — a former Democratic congressional candidate — and their two children. He remains a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School.Chris Hughes, a doctoral student on Fed history at Wharton, wrote a 6,000-word journal article defending Mr. Burns’s actions as Fed chair.Gili Benita for The New York TimesHis own rapid jump from an adolescence in North Carolina’s middle class to a young adulthood at the upper end of the Bay Area elite, one that pushed his net worth to just shy of $500 million before his 30th birthday, piqued his interested in the design of the nation’s economic system — in particular, how it intersects with government policy and how it allows immense inequality.Perhaps no part of that design is more complicated, or less well understood, than the Fed. “Some are looking at Burns as an example of what not to do,” said Mr. Hughes, who quickly became intrigued by the 1970s. “But I think that’s not necessarily right.”Tradeoffs between inflation and employment could be particularly stark in the coming months. Officials have rapidly lifted their main policy rate over the past year to nearly 5 percent. At their upcoming meeting in May or shortly thereafter, central bankers are poised to wrestle with when they ought to stop raising interest rates.And as 2023 progresses and growth slows, unemployment is expected to rise. Policymakers will most likely need to decide how they want to strike the balance between fostering a strong job market and controlling inflation in a slowing economy. Should policymakers keep rates high even if unemployment rises substantially?Mr. Burns avoided punishingly high rates for reasons beyond his politics, Mr. Hughes and those who agree with him argue. While he deeply hated inflation, he blamed supply-related forces, including union bargaining power, for the jump in prices. The Fed’s tools affect mostly demand, so he thought other parts of the government could do a better job of tackling those forces. Relying on rates alone to fully control inflation would come at an untenable economic cost.He was working from “a place of ideological conviction,” Mr. Hughes said.Still, many economists think Mr. Burns deserves his bad reputation, whatever his motivations.Because his Fed took so long to control inflation, households and businesses came to expect fast price increases in the future, said Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chair who worked at a regional Fed during the Burns era. That changed consumer and corporate behavior — people asked for bigger raises and companies instituted regular price jumps.As that happened, inflation became a more permanent feature of daily life, making it harder to stamp out. If Mr. Burns hadn’t let inflation spin so far out of control, this argument goes, Mr. Volcker might never have needed to cause such a painful recession to tame it.Paul Volcker, the Fed chair from 1979 to 1987, raised interest rates to nearly 20 percent in 1981, crashing the economy into a deep recession.Chick Harrity/Associated Press“It felt like he was trying to find a way to bring down inflation without paying the price — and it just wasn’t possible,” said Mr. Kohn, who remembered Mr. Burns as an “autocratic” leader who did not accept differing views from the Fed’s research staff.“The Fed was dealt a bad hand and played it poorly,” he added.When Mr. Burns’s reputation went down in flames, so did the idea that controlling inflation should be a joint effort of the Fed, Congress and the White House. Since Mr. Volcker’s stand, inflation has been seen, first and foremost, as the central bank’s problem.Many economists see the Fed’s independence from politics and clear focus on controlling prices as a feature, not a bug: Someone now stands ready to promptly clamp down on price increases. Economists even argue that today’s Fed won’t have to act like Mr. Volcker specifically because it will not act like Mr. Burns.Yet skeptics of Mr. Volcker’s economic shock treatment have pointed out that he partly got lucky. Oil embargoes that had pushed inflation much higher eased during his tenure.Given the towering costs Mr. Volcker’s policies inflicted on workers, some are asking: Even if it failed to stem inflation, is it fair to conclude that everything about Mr. Burns’s approach was wrong?“Our simple story about what happened makes it harder to see the complexities of what is happening now,” said Lev Menand, who researches money and central banking at Columbia Law School.Mr. Hughes argued in his essay published last fall that modern policymakers could learn from Mr. Burns’s cross-government collaboration. Raising taxes, revising zoning rules, and other frequent Democratic priorities could help temper price increases, he thinks.Other suggestions for government intervention to tame price increases have gone even further: Isabella Weber, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has suggested that price and wage controls should be reconsidered. Their design and implementation in the 1970s did not work, but that does not mean they never could.But such interventions — even if successful, which is far from assured — would take time. The way today’s central bankers understand Mr. Burns as disaster and Mr. Volcker as savior could matter more immediately.And while Peter Conti-Brown, a Fed historian at Wharton and Mr. Hughes’s thesis adviser, said he thought Mr. Burns deserved most of the blame he received for failing to control inflation, he also thought it was possible that Mr. Volcker had been improperly lionized.To foster both maximum employment and stable inflation — the Fed’s twin jobs — is a balancing act, and to do it requires acting like neither Mr. Volcker, with his firm concentration on inflation, nor Mr. Burns, with his yielding one, he said.“I think in the history of central banking, there are few if any heroes,” Mr. Conti-Brown said. “There are also few if any villains.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Unemployment Is Low. Inflation Is Falling. But What Comes Next?

    by

    Despite hopeful signs, economists worry that a recession is on the way or that the Federal Reserve will cause one in trying to rein in inflation.There are two starkly different ways of looking at the U.S. economy right now: what the data says has happened in the past few months, and what history warns could happen next.Most of the recent data suggests that the economy is strong. The job market is, incredibly, better today than it was in February 2020, before the coronavirus pandemic ripped a hole in the global economy. More people are working. They are paid more. The gaps between them — by race, gender, education or income — are smaller.Even inflation, long the black cloud in the economy’s sunny sky, is showing signs of dissipating. Government data released on Wednesday showed that consumer prices were up 5 percent in March from a year earlier, the slowest pace in nearly two years. Over the past three months, prices have risen at the equivalent of a 3.8 percent annual rate — faster than policymakers would like, but no longer the five-alarm fire it was at its peak last year.Yet for all the good news, economists remain worried that a recession is on the way or that the Federal Reserve will cause one in trying to rein in inflation.“The data has been reassuring,” said Karen Dynan, a Harvard economist and former Treasury official. “The things that we’re nervous about are all the things that we don’t have a lot of hard data about.”Beginning with the banks: Most of the recent data predates the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the upheaval in the banking system that followed. Already, there are signs that small and midsize lenders have begun to tighten their credit standards in response to the crisis, which, in turn, could push the businesses that are their clients to cut back on hiring and investment. The extent of the economic effects won’t be clear for months, but many forecasters — including economists at the Fed — have said that the turmoil has made a recession more likely.The Fed began raising interest rates more than a year ago, but the effect of those increases is just beginning to show up in many parts of the economy. Only in March did the construction industry begin to shed jobs, even though the housing market has been in a slump since the middle of last year. Manufacturers, too, were adding jobs until recently. And consumers are still in the early stages of grappling with what higher rates mean for their ability to buy cars, pay credit card balances and take on other forms of debt.The economic data that paints such a rosy picture of the economy is “a look back into an old world that doesn’t exist anymore,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics.The Federal Reserve began raising interest rates more than a year ago, but the effect of those increases is just beginning to show up in many parts of the economy.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMr. Shepherdson expects overall job growth to turn negative as soon as this summer, as the combined impact of the Fed’s policies and the bank-lending crunch hit the economy, leading to job cuts. Fed policymakers “have done more than enough” to tame inflation, he said, but appear likely to raise rates again anyway.Other economists, however, argue that the Fed has little choice but to keep raising rates until inflation is definitively in retreat. The recent slowdown in consumer price growth is welcome, they argue, but it is partly a result of the declines in the price of energy and used cars, both of which appear poised to resume climbing. Measures of underlying inflation, which strip away such short-term swings, have fallen only gradually.“Inflation is coming down, but I’m not sure that the momentum will continue if they don’t do more,” said Raghuram Rajan, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a former governor of India’s central bank.The Fed’s goal is to do just enough to bring down inflation without causing such a severe pullback in borrowing and spending that it leads to widespread job cuts and a recession. Striking that balance perfectly, however, is difficult — especially because policymakers must make their decisions based on data that is preliminary and incomplete.“It is going to be extremely hard for them to fine-tune the exact point,” Mr. Rajan said. “They would love to have more time to see what’s happening.”A miss in either direction could have serious consequences.The recovery of the U.S. job market over the past three years has been nothing short of remarkable. The unemployment rate, which neared 15 percent in April 2020, is down to the half-century low it achieved before the pandemic. Employers have added back all 22 million jobs lost during the early weeks of the pandemic, and three million more besides. The intense demand for labor has given workers a rare moment of leverage, in which they could demand better pay from their bosses, or go elsewhere to find it.The strong rebound has especially helped groups that are frequently left behind in less dynamic economic environments. Employment has been rising among people with disabilities, workers with criminal records and those without high school diplomas. The unemployment rate among Black Americans hit a record low in March, and pay gains have in recent years been fastest among the lowest-paid workers.All of that progress, critics say, could be lost if the Fed goes too far in its effort to fight inflation.Consumers are still in the early stages of grappling with what higher rates mean for their ability to buy cars, make credit card payments and take on other forms of debt.Gabby Jones for The New York Times“For this tiny moment, we finally see what a labor market is supposed to do,” said William Spriggs, a Howard University professor and chief economist for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. And the workers benefiting most from the labor market’s current strength, he said, will be the ones who suffer most from a recession.“You should see from this moment what you are truly risking,” Mr. Spriggs said. With inflation already falling, he said, there is no reason for policymakers to take that risk.“The labor market is finally hitting its stride,” he said. “And instead of celebrating and saying, ‘This is fantastic,’ we have the Fed hanging over everybody and casting shade on this unbelievable set of circumstances and saying, ‘Actually this is bad.’”But other economists caution that there are also risks in the Fed’s doing too little. So far, businesses and consumers have treated inflation mostly as a serious but temporary challenge. If they instead begin to expect high rates of inflation to continue, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as companies set prices and workers demand raises in anticipation of higher costs.If that happens, the Fed may need to take much more aggressive action to bring inflation to heel, potentially causing a deeper, more painful recession. That, at least according to many economists, is what happened in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Fed, under Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control at the cost of what was, outside of the Great Depression and the pandemic, the highest unemployment rate on record.The real debate isn’t between the relative evils of inflation or unemployment, argued Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former top adviser to President Barack Obama. It is between some unemployment now and potentially much more unemployment later.“You’re risking losing millions of jobs if you wait too long,” Mr. Furman said.There have been some encouraging — though still tentative — signs in recent weeks that the Fed may be succeeding at the delicate task of slowing the economy just enough but not too much.Data from the Labor Department this month showed that employers were posting fewer open positions and that workers were changing jobs less frequently, both signs that the job market was beginning to cool. At the same time, the pool of available workers has grown as more people have rejoined the labor force and immigration has rebounded.The combination of increased supply and reduced demand should, in theory, allow the labor market to come back into balance without leading to widespread job cuts. So far, that appears to be happening: Wage growth, which the Fed fears is contributing to inflation, has slowed, but layoffs and unemployment remain low.Jan Hatzius, chief economist for Goldman Sachs, said the recent job market data made him more optimistic about avoiding a recession. And while that outcome is far from certain, he said, it is worth keeping the current debate in perspective.“Given the incredible downturn in the economy that we saw in 2020 — with obvious fears of a much, much, much worse outcome — if you actually manage to get back to a reasonable inflation rate and high employment levels in, say, a three- to four-year period, it would be a very good outcome,” Mr. Hatzius said. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How Silicon Valley Bank’s Failure Could Have Spread Far and Wide

    by

    New research suggests large parts of the country remain vulnerable to widespread bank failure in the event of a run on deposits.WASHINGTON — The federal government’s rescue of two failed banks last month has drawn criticism from some lawmakers and investors, who accuse the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve of bailing out wealthy customers in California and New York and sticking bank customers in Middle America with the bill.But new data help explain why government officials declared the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to be a risk to not just their customers, but also the entire financial system. The numbers suggest that a run on deposits at those two banks could have set off a cascading series of bank failures, crippling small businesses and economic activity across wide parts of the country.The analysis of geographic risks from a banking crisis, prepared at the request of The New York Times, was done by economists at Stanford University, the University of Southern California, Columbia University and Northwestern University.The results show the continuing potential for widespread damage to the entire banking system, which has seen many banks’ financial positions deteriorate as the Fed has raised interest rates to tame inflation. Those rate increases have reduced the value of some government bonds that many banks hold in their portfolios.Although the damage has so far been contained, the research shows that larger runs on banks vulnerable to rate increases could result in a significant drop in credit available to store owners, home borrowers and more. Because so many counties rely on a relatively small number of financial institutions for deposits and loans, and because so many small businesses keep their money close to home, even a modest run on vulnerable banks could effectively stifle access to credit for entire communities.That sort of credit paralysis, the researchers estimate, could afflict nearly half the counties in Missouri, Tennessee and Mississippi — and every county in Vermont, Maine and Hawaii.The analysis helps buttress the case that government officials were making based on anecdotes and preliminary data they had when they orchestrated the bank rescues during that weekend in March. As fears of a wider financial crisis mounted, the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation acted together to ensure depositors could have access to all their money after the banks collapsed — even if their accounts exceeded the $250,000 limit on federally insured deposits. Fed officials also announced they would offer attractive loans to banks that needed help covering depositors’ demands.The moves allowed big companies — like Roku — that kept all their money with Silicon Valley Bank to be fully protected despite the bank’s collapse. That has prompted criticism from lawmakers and analysts who said the government was effectively encouraging risky behavior by bank managers and depositors alike.Even with those moves, the analysts warn, regulators have not permanently addressed the vulnerabilities in the banking system. Those risks leave some of the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country susceptible to banking shocks ranging from a pullback in small-business lending, which may already be underway, to a new depositor run that could effectively cut off easy access to credit for people and companies in counties across the nation.Federal Reserve staff hinted at the risks of a broader banking-related hit to the American economy in minutes from the Fed’s March meeting, which was released on Wednesday. “If banking and financial conditions and their effects on macroeconomic conditions were to deteriorate more than assumed in the baseline,” staff members were reported as saying, “then the risks around the baseline would be skewed to the downside for both economic activity and inflation.”Administration and Fed officials say the actions they took to rescue depositors have stabilized the financial system — including banks that could have been threatened by a depositor run.Lael Brainard, director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, said on Wednesday that banks could learn from the “stresses that the failed banks were under” and were “shoring up their balance sheets.”Drew Angerer/Getty Images“The banking system is very sound — it’s stable,” Lael Brainard, director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, said on Wednesday at an event in Washington hosted by the media outlet Semafor. “The core of the banking system has a great deal of capital.”“What is important is that banks have now seen, bank executives have now seen, some of the stresses that the failed banks were under, and they’re shoring up their balance sheets,” she said.But the researchers behind the new study caution that it is historically difficult for banks to quickly make large changes to their financial holdings. Their data does not account for efforts smaller banks have taken in recent weeks to reduce their exposure to higher interest rates. But the researchers note smaller and regional banks face new risks in the current economic climate, including a downturn in the commercial real estate market, that could set off another run on deposits.“We have to be very careful,” said Amit Seru, an economist at Stanford Graduate School of Business and an author of the study. “These communities are still pretty vulnerable.”Biden administration officials were monitoring a long list of regional banks in the hours after Silicon Valley Bank failed on March 10. They became alarmed when data and anecdotes suggested depositors were lining up to pull money out of many of them.The costs of the rescue they engineered will ultimately be paid by other banks, through a special fee levied by the government.The moves drew criticism, particularly from conservatives. “These losses are borne by the deposit insurance fund,” Senator Bill Hagerty, Republican of Tennessee, said in a recent Banking Committee hearing on the rescues. “That fund is going to be replenished by banks across the nation that had nothing to do with the mismanagement of Silicon Valley Bank or the failure of supervision here.”Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, wrote on Twitter that he would try to block banks from passing on the special fee to consumers. “No way MO customers are paying for a woke bailout,” he said.The researchers found Silicon Valley Bank was more exposed than most banks to the risks of a rapid increase in interest rates, which reduced the value of securities like Treasury bills that it held in its portfolios and set the stage for insolvency when depositors rushed to pull their money from the bank.But using federal regulator data from 2022, the team also found hundreds of U.S. banks had dangerous amounts of deterioration in their balance sheets over the past year as the Fed rapidly raised rates.To map the vulnerabilities of smaller banks across the country, the researchers calculated how much the Fed’s interest rate increases have reduced the value of the asset holdings for individual banks, compared with the value of its deposits. They used that data to effectively estimate the risk of a bank failing in the event of a run on its deposits, which would force bank officials to sell undervalued assets to raise money. Then they calculated the share of banks at risk of failure for every county in the country.Those banks are disproportionately located in low-income communities, areas with high shares of Black and Hispanic populations and places where few residents hold a college degree.They are also the economic backbone of some of the nation’s most conservative states: Two-thirds of the counties in Texas and four-fifths of the counties in West Virginia could have a paralyzing number of their banks go under in the event of even a medium-sized run on deposits, the researchers calculate.In counties across the country, smaller banks are crucial engines of economic activity. In 95 percent of counties, Goldman Sachs researchers recently estimated, at least 70 percent of small business lending comes from smaller and regional banks. Those banks, the Goldman researchers warned, are pulling back on lending “disproportionately” in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse.Analysts will get new indications of the degree to which banks are moving quickly to pull back on lending and building up capital when three large financial institutions report quarterly earnings on Friday: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.Mr. Seru of Stanford said the communities that were particularly vulnerable to both a lending slowdown and a potential regional bank run were also the ones that suffered most in the pandemic recession. He said larger financial institutions were unlikely to quickly fill any lending vacuum in those communities if smaller banks failed.Mr. Seru and his colleagues have urged the government to help address those communities’ vulnerabilities by requiring banks to raise more capital to shore up their balance sheets.“The recovery in these neighborhoods is still not there yet,” he said. “And the last thing we want is disruption there.” More