Federal Reserve System

More stories

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Why Ron DeSantis Is Taking Aim at the Federal Reserve

    by

    Florida’s governor has been blasting Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, while spreading misinformation about central bank digital currency.WASHINGTON — Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is preparing to take a widely anticipated leap into a 2024 presidential campaign, appears to have discovered something that populists throughout history have found to be true: Bashing the Federal Reserve is good politics.Mr. DeSantis has begun to criticize Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, in speeches and news conferences. He has alleged without evidence that the Biden administration is about to introduce a central bank digital currency — which neither the White House nor the politically independent Fed has decided to do — in a bid to surveil Americans and control their spending on gas. He has quoted the Fed’s Twitter posts disparagingly.His critiques echo a familiar playbook from the Trump administration. Former President Donald J. Trump often blasted the central bank during the 2016 campaign and while he was in office, as policymakers lifted interest rates and slowed economic growth. Mr. Trump at one point called Mr. Powell — his own pick for Fed chair — an “enemy,” comparing him to President Xi Jinping of China.Because the central bank is responsible for controlling inflation, it is often blamed both for periods of rapid price increases and for the economic damage it inflicts when it raises rates to bring that inflation under control. That can make it an easy political target.And populist skepticism of government control of money dates back centuries in America. The nation’s first and second attempts at creating a central bank failed partly because of such concerns. The Fed, set up in 1913, was designed as a decentralized institution with quasi-private branches dotted around the country in part to avoid concentrating too much power in one place. It has been the subject of conspiracy theories and political attacks ever since.“In many ways, it is not surprising at all,” said Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University who has studied politics and the Fed. Mr. DeSantis is placing himself to Mr. Trump’s right, she said, “and it sounds like many populist right-side critiques of the Fed, of monetary control, that we’ve heard throughout history.”Mr. Powell has stated that the Fed “would not proceed” on a digital currency “without support from Congress.”T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesWhile Mr. DeSantis’s Fed-bashing is not new, some of his remarks have strayed into misinformation, said Peter Conti-Brown, a lawyer and Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania.“The Fed can and should take this seriously,” Mr. Conti-Brown said.While the Fed is independent of and largely insulated from the White House, it does ultimately answer to Congress. And a lack of popular support could curb the Fed’s room to maneuver: If the government decided that pursuing a digital currency was a good idea, for instance, the backlash could make it more difficult to do so.Mr. DeSantis’s tone could also offer hints about the future. Starting from the early 1990s, presidential administrations have largely respected the Fed’s independence, avoiding commenting on monetary policy. Mr. Trump upended that tradition. President Biden has returned to a hands-off approach, but the recent criticism offers an early hint that the détente may not last if a Republican wins in 2024.Mr. DeSantis has faulted Mr. Powell’s policies for failing to control inflation, recently calling the Fed chair a “complete disaster.”In Mr. Powell, the potential presidential candidate has a rare opportunity to criticize Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden simultaneously: The Fed leader was first nominated to the central bank by President Barack Obama, then made chair by Mr. Trump and renominated as chair by Mr. Biden.Mr. DeSantis has focused much of his attention on a central bank digital currency, or C.B.D.C., which would operate like electronic cash but with backing from the federal government. The Fed has been researching both the potential uses and technical feasibility of a digital currency, but has not yet decided to issue one. Mr. Powell has made clear that the Fed “would not proceed with this without support from Congress.”The digital money that Americans use today — whether they are swiping a credit card or completing a Venmo transaction — is issued by banks. Physical cash, by contrast, comes directly from the Fed. A central bank digital currency would effectively be the digital version of a dollar bill.Many people who think the Fed should seriously consider issuing a central bank digital currency suggest that it could help improve access to banking services. Some have argued that it is important to develop the technology: America’s global competitors, including China, are researching and issuing digital money, so there is a risk of falling behind.Yet critics have worried about the privacy concerns of a centralized digital dollar. And the dollar is the most important reserve currency in the world, so any technological issues with a digital offering could be catastrophic. That is why the Fed has pledged to proceed carefully — and why the idea of issuing a digital currency in America is only in its formative research stages.Though there is no plan to issue a digital currency, Mr. DeSantis on March 20 proposed state legislation to “protect Floridians from the Biden administration’s weaponization of the financial sector through a central bank digital currency.”He then warned during an April 1 speech, with no factual basis, that Democrats wanted to use a digital currency to “impose an E.S.G. agenda,” referring to environmental and social goals like curbing consumption of fossil fuels or tightening gun control.Mr. DeSantis “is heading off any attempt to control people’s behavior through centralized digital currency,” his press secretary, Bryan Griffin, said in response to a request for comment.Mr. DeSantis’s claims echo those on right-wing social media, and they are in line with the interests of important Republican donors: Many banks and cryptocurrency firms are adamantly opposed to the idea of a central bank digital currency, worried that it would take away business.Florida, in particular, has been friendly to the digital currency industry, with lawmakers passing favorable legislation.And people with stakes in cryptocurrency are among Mr. DeSantis’s top political donors. Kenneth Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund executive and crypto skeptic turned advocate, gave $5 million to a political action committee that supported Mr. DeSantis’s 2022 re-election. Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire investor who had significant shares in the now-bankrupt crypto trading platform FTX, contributed $850,000 to the group, according to campaign finance filings.Nor is it just Mr. DeSantis who is expressing opposition to the idea of a central bank digital currency: Prominent Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia have joined in.Mr. Cruz and Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the Republican whip, have introduced legislation to block the Fed from creating such a currency. Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, another potential Republican presidential contender in 2024, recently vetoed a state bill that she claimed would have opened the door for a C.B.D.C.Some political figures are also incorrectly conflating a possible central bank digital currency with the central bank’s FedNow initiative, a separate effort to modernize America’s payment system to make transactions quicker and more efficient. A Fed spokesperson underlined that FedNow and the research into a possible digital currency were entirely different.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement who recently announced his intention to run for president as a Democrat in 2024, wrongly conflated FedNow and the digital currency, claiming that it would “grease the slippery slope to financial slavery and political tyranny.”Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic presidential candidate and representative from Hawaii who is now independent, echoed warnings that a digital currency would undermine freedom, incorrectly stating that the government “has just begun implementing” such a currency.Incorrect statements about FedNow and digital currency have proliferated on social media, spread by influential political figures as well as conspiracy theorists.The Fed has tried to push back on the swirling misinformation.“The FedNow Service is neither a form of currency nor a step toward eliminating any form of payment, including cash,” the central bank posted on Twitter on Friday. Its six-tweet F.A.Q. made no mention of politics, but nevertheless read like a rare public rebuke from an institution that diligently avoids wading into political commentary.“The Federal Reserve has made no decision on issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) & would not do so without clear support from Congress and executive branch, ideally in the form of a specific authorizing law,” the Fed said — in a tweet that Mr. DeSantis quoted.“It is not merely ‘ideal’ that major changes in policy receive specific authorization from Congress,” Mr. DeSantis said in a reply.By Tuesday afternoon, the Fed had updated its F.A.Q. online to be even more explicit: The central bank “would only proceed with the issuance of a CBDC with an authorizing law.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Bank Turmoil Squeezes Borrowers, Raising Fears of a Slowdown

    by

    Economists are watching for the aftereffects of recent bank collapses across many industries. How bad could it get?Sarah Puil needs to buy $500,000 to $1 million of premium wine and other inventory by the end of the year to make into the specialty blends that her company sells and ships to customers around the country. But after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank started a chain reaction that is causing many types of funding to dry up, she is not sure where she is going to get the cash.Boxt, her three-year-old purveyor of upscale boxed wine, is at a vulnerable stage in which access to credit is crucial to its growth and ability to keep producing its red, white and rosé offerings.As banks and other investors retrench because of the turmoil, Ms. Puil and fellow entrepreneurs are finding that borrowing and raising money are more difficult and expensive.“It’s all we’re talking about,” she said. The demise of the bank, a major lender to the tech and wine industries, “accelerated the tightening of venture capital — that’s the big thing,” she said.Boxt’s worries offer a hint of the economic fallout facing borrowers across the country as credit becomes harder to get. It is too soon to say how much the banking tumult could slow the economy, but early evidence points to increased caution among banks and investors.Taking out big mortgages is getting harder, industry experts report. The commercial real estate industry is bracing for trouble as the midsize banks that service it become more cautious and less willing to lend. Used car loans are more expensive. And a recent survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas showed a sizable share of banks in the region reporting stricter credit standards.The question now is whether banks and other lenders will pull back so much that the U.S. economy crashes into a severe recession. Until comprehensive data is released — a Federal Reserve survey of loan officers nationwide is due in early May — economists are parsing stories from small businesses, mortgage originators and construction firms to get a sense of the scale of the disruption. Interviews with more than a dozen experts across a variety of industries suggested that the effects are beginning to take hold and could intensify.“People are for the first time in some time using the ‘c’ words: credit crunch,” said Anirban Basu, chief economist at Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade association. “What I’m hearing — and what I’m beginning to hear from contractors — is that credit is beginning to tighten.”Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on March 10 sent shock waves across the banking world: Signature Bank failed on March 12, First Republic required a $30 billion cash injection from other banks on March 16 and, in Europe, Credit Suisse was sold to its biggest rival in a hastily brokered deal on March 19.The situation seems to have stabilized, but depositors have continued to drain cash from bank accounts and put it into money market funds and other investments. Early Fed data on the banking system, released each Friday, has suggested that commercial and industrial lending and real estate lending both declined meaningfully through late March.When banks lose deposits, they lose a source of cheap funding. That can make them less willing and able to extend loans. The threat of future turmoil can also make banks more cautious.When lending becomes more difficult and expensive, fewer businesses expand, more projects fail and hiring slows — laying the groundwork for a broader economic slowdown.Bags of a rosé wine blend. Boxt’s worries about its access to credit offer a hint of the economic fallout facing borrowers.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThat sequence is why officials at the Fed believe the recent upheaval will cause at least some damage to the economy, though nobody is sure how much.Any slowdown will intensify conditions that were already getting tougher for borrowers. The Fed has been raising interest rates for the past year, making money more expensive to borrow, and labor market data released on Friday offered the latest evidence that demand is beginning to slow enough to cool the economy, weighing on hiring and wage gains.Still, many Fed officials had come into March anticipating that they might lift rates a few more times in 2023 until inflation comes under control. Now, the banking fallout may restrain the economy enough to make further moves less urgent, or even unnecessary.“It is too soon to determine the extent of these effects and therefore too soon to tell how monetary policy should respond,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at a news conference last month.Aftershocks are already surfacing. Commercial real estate borrowers rely heavily on midsize regional banks, which have been particularly hard-hit by the turbulence. Those banks were already become pickier as interest rate increases bit, said Stephen Buschbom, research director at Trepp, a commercial real estate research firm. Anecdotally, Silicon Valley Bank’s blowup is making it worse.“It’s not easy to get a loan commitment is the bottom line,” Mr. Buschbom said.Tougher credit could bedevil a sector that was already suffering: Office real estate has struggled in the pandemic as many city workers have eschewed their desks. Mr. Buschbom says he thinks many borrowers will struggle to renew their loans, forcing some into what’s known as special servicing, where they pay interest but not principal. And as distress trickles through the industry, it could worsen the pain for midsize banks.The problems could mean less business for contractors like Brett McMahon, chief executive of the concrete construction firm Miller & Long in Bethesda, Md.“I don’t think it’s 2008, 2009 — that was such an extraordinarily severe event,” Mr. McMahon said. But he thinks the bank blowups are going to intensify the tightening of credit. He’s being cautious, trying to eke more time out of aging machines. He expects to pause hiring by the end of the year.“Most contractors will tell you that 2023 looks decent,” he said. “But 2024: Who the hell knows?”When it comes to the residential real estate market, jumbo loans — those above about $700,000 or $1 million, depending on the market — were already becoming more expensive. Now, Michael Fratantoni, the chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association, has been hearing from bankers that deposit outflows in the wake of Silicon Valley Bank’s demise mean banks have less room to create and hold such loans.Ali Mafi, a Redfin real estate agent, has noticed big banks tightening their standards a bit for borrowers in San Francisco. It’s nothing like the 2008 financial crisis, but over the past few weeks, they have begun asking that would-be borrowers keep a couple of more months of mortgage payments in their bank accounts.Still, he hopes the fallout will not be extreme: Some mortgage rates have eased as investors anticipate fewer Fed rate moves, which is combining with higher stock prices and a drop in local house prices to counteract some of the banking issues.Auto loan interest rates have risen sharply, based on credit application data from March analyzed by Cox Automotive. Borrowing costs for used cars rose more than three-quarters of a percentage point in a month, said Jonathan Smoke, Cox’s chief economist. New car loans also became more expensive, though not as significantly.“The auto market is going to have some challenges,” Mr. Smoke said. But there’s a silver lining: “We haven’t seen appreciable declines in approval rates.”Ms. Puil, right, joined other senior company executives in preparing the packaging for wine shipments at Boxt’s fulfillment center in Austin, Texas.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThere are also reasons for hope in the wine industry. Winemakers have been on “tenterhooks” since Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, said Douglas MacKenzie, a partner at the consulting firm Kearney, partly because many big banks “don’t know the difference between a $100 case of sauvignon and a $2,000 case” when it comes to valuing collateral that can be “quite liquid, no pun intended.”But he noted that the Bank of Marin, a regional lender, had been running ads in trade magazines saying it was open to new customers. There is also interest in the private equity industry, with which he works.And Ms. Puil at Boxt is determined to get through the crunch.“I’m going to find that money,” she said. Failing because of a lack of credit “can’t be how this story ends.” More

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Job Growth Eases, but Extends Its Streak

    by

    Employers added 236,000 jobs as the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate increases appeared to take a toll. The unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent.The U.S. economy generated hearty job growth in March, but at a slowing rate that appeared to reflect the toll of steadily rising interest rates.Employers added 236,000 jobs in the month on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department reported on Friday, down from an average of 334,000 jobs added over the prior six months. The unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent, from 3.6 percent in February.The year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings also slowed, to 4.2 percent, the slowest pace since July 2021 — a sign the Federal Reserve has been looking for as it seeks to quell inflation. And the average workweek shortened with the easing of staffing shortages, which had required workers to cover extra hours.Preston Caldwell, chief U.S. economist at Morningstar Research, said the data offered fresh hope that the Fed could cool off the economy without causing a recession. “It does look like the range of options that are adjacent to what we might call a soft landing is expanding,” he said. “Wage growth has mostly normalized now without a massive uptick in unemployment. And a year ago, a lot of people were not predicting that.”Wage growth is slowing and is still behind inflationYear-over-year percentage change in earnings vs. inflation More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Wages May Not Be Inflation’s Cause, but They’re the Focus of the Cure

    by

    While fear of a “wage-price spiral” has eased, the Federal Reserve’s course presumes job losses and risks a recession. Some see less painful remedies.As Covid-19 eased its debilitating grip on the U.S. economy two years ago, businesses scrambled to hire. That lifted the pay of the average worker. But as one economic challenge ended, another potential problem emerged.Many economic analysts feared that a wage-price spiral was forming, with employers trying to recover the higher labor costs by increasing prices, and workers in turn continually ratcheting up their pay to make up for inflation’s erosion of their buying power.As wages and prices have risen at the fastest pace in decades, however, it has not been an evenly matched back and forth. Inflation has outstripped wage growth for 22 consecutive months, as calculated by economists at J.P. Morgan.That has prompted economists to debate how much, if at all, pay has driven the current bout of inflation. As recently as November, the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, said at a news conference, “I don’t think wages are the principal story for why prices are going up.”At the same time, influential voices on Wall Street and in Washington are arguing over whether workers’ earnings growth — which, on average, has already slowed — will need to let up further if inflation is to ease to a rate that policymakers find tolerable.Wage growth has not kept up with inflationYear-over-year percentage change in earnings vs. inflation through February More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Job Openings Fell in February, JOLTS Report Shows

    by

    The U.S. job market continues to ease off its red-hot pace, a government report shows, but there are still more openings than unemployed workers.Demand for workers in the United States eased in February, a sign that the red-hot labor market continues to cool off somewhat.There were 9.9 million job openings in February, down from 10.6 million on the last day of January, the Labor Department reported Tuesday in the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, known as JOLTS.The drop in open positions is a signal that the labor market is slowing, but the report included data that points to a still-healthy environment for workers: Four million workers quit their jobs during the month, a slight increase from January, and the number of layoffs decreased slightly to 1.5 million.There were 1.7 jobs open for every unemployed worker in February, a decline from 1.9 in January. The Federal Reserve has been paying close attention to that ratio as it looks to slow hiring, part of its effort to contain inflation.Until recent months, the number of available jobs had risen substantially as the economy recovered from the pandemic recession, with companies rushing to hire workers after public health restrictions were rolled back.“The general trend in JOLTS in recent months has been a gradual movement back toward more normal labor market dynamics,” said Julia Pollak, the chief economist at ZipRecruiter. “This looks more like a rebalancing. Job openings were way up in the stratosphere.”The gradual slowing may be encouraging for policymakers. Fed officials worry that a tight job market is contributing to inflation, as employers may feel pressure to raise wages to compete for workers and then pass along price increases to consumers. The number of available openings has remained high in spite of climbing borrowing costs.The central bank has raised interest rates to about 5 percent, from near zero, over the past year, aiming to make it costlier for companies to expand and consumers to spend. But it also wants to avoid setting off widespread layoffs or causing lasting damage to the labor market.“We’re still in a market that is quite strong,” said Nick Bunker, economic research director for North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab. But, he added, “the cool-off is more apparent now.”One measure of inflation that the Fed watches closely — the Personal Consumption Expenditures index — showed that price gains slowed substantially in February, to 5 percent on an annual basis, down from 5.3 percent in January.Despite high-profile job cuts in the tech sector, layoffs overall have been historically low, a sign that employers may be reluctant to part with workers hired during pandemic-era spikes. The number of workers quitting their jobs voluntarily — a sign that they are confident they can find work elsewhere — rose slightly in February, to four million.“The layoffs we’re seeing all over the media in tech and finance are being more than offset by an absence of layoffs and discharges in the Main Street economy,” Ms. Pollak said. “Labor-market dynamics look pretty favorable to workers still,” she added.JOLTS is considered a lagging indicator, telling more about conditions in the recent past than offering information about what may come. On Friday, the Labor Department will release employment data for March. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect the report to show that employers added about 240,000 jobs, a slight slowdown from February but still a pace of hiring that reflects a robust labor market. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s Preferred Inflation Gauge Cooled Notably in February

    by

    A closely watched measure of price increases provided encouraging news as the Fed considers when to stop raising rates.The measure of inflation most closely watched by the Federal Reserve slowed substantially in February, an encouraging sign for policymakers as they consider whether to raise interest rates further to slow the economy and bring price increases under control.The Personal Consumption Expenditures Index cooled to 5 percent on an annual basis in February, down from 5.3 percent in January and slightly lower than economists in a Bloomberg survey had forecast. It was the lowest reading for the measure since September 2021.After the removal of food and fuel prices, which are volatile from month to month, a “core” measure that tries to gauge underlying inflation trends also cooled more than expected on both an annual and a monthly basis.The data provides the latest evidence that inflation has turned a corner and is decelerating, though the process is gradual and bumpy at times. And the report is one of many that Fed officials will take into account as they approach their next interest rate decision, on May 3.Central bankers are watching how inflation, the labor market and consumer spending shape up. They will be monitoring financial markets and credit measures, too, to get a sense of how significantly recent bank failures are likely to weigh on lending, which could slow the economy.Fed officials have raised rates rapidly over the past year to try to rein in inflation, pushing them from near zero a year ago to just below 5 percent this month. But policymakers have suggested that they are nearing the end, forecasting just one more rate increase this year.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, hinted that officials could stop adjusting policy altogether if the problems in the banking sector weighed on the economy significantly enough, and policymakers this week have reiterated that they are watching closely to see how the banking problems impact the broader economy.“I will be particularly focused on assessing the evolution of credit conditions and their effects on the outlook for growth, employment and inflation,” John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said during a speech on Friday.But inflation remains unusually rapid: While it is slowing, it is still more than double the Fed’s 2 percent target. And the turmoil at banks seems to be abating, with government officials in recent days saying that deposit flows have stabilized.“Even with this report, the U.S. macro data is still on a stronger and hotter trajectory than appeared to be the case at the start of this year,” Krishna Guha, head of the global policy and central bank strategy team at Evercore ISI, wrote in a note after the release.In fact, officials speaking this week have suggested that they might need to do more to wrangle price increases, and they have pushed back on market speculation that they could lower rates this year.“Inflation remains too high, and recent indicators reinforce my view that there is more work to do,” Susan Collins, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said at a speech on Thursday. Ms. Collins does not vote on policy this year.The report on Friday also showed that consumer spending eased in February from the previous month. A measure of personal spending that is adjusted for inflation fell by 0.1 percent, matching what economists expected. But the data was revised up for January, suggesting that consumer spending climbed more rapidly than previously understood at the start of the year.And when it comes to prices, some economists warned against taking the February slowdown as a sign that the problem of rapid increases was close to being solved. A measure of inflation that excludes housing and energy — which the Fed monitors closely — has been firm in recent months.“That acceleration in underlying inflation measures is what has set off alarm bells at the Federal Reserve and prompted officials to stick to rate hikes, despite the recent credit market volatility,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG, wrote in an analysis Friday.And Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, said much of the February slowdown came from price categories that are estimated using statistical techniques — and that can sometimes give a poor signal of the true trend.“I really would not bank on this number,” he said in an interview. “My expectation would be that we’ll probably see some of this bounce back next month.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    How a Trump-Era Rollback Mattered for Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

    by

    An under-the-radar change to the way regional banks are supervised may have helped the bank’s rapidly growing risks to go unresolved.WASHINGTON — Silicon Valley Bank was growing steadily in 2018 and 2019 — and supervisors at its primary overseer, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, were preparing it for a stricter oversight group, one in which specialists from around the Fed system would vet its risks and point out weak spots.But a decision from officials in Washington halted that move.The Federal Reserve Board — which sets the Fed’s standards for banking regulation — was in the process of putting into effect a bipartisan 2018 law that aimed to make regulation less onerous for small and midsize banks. As the board did that, Randal K. Quarles, the Trump-appointed vice chair for supervision, and his colleagues also chose to recalibrate how banks were supervised in line with the new requirements.As a result, Silicon Valley Bank’s move to the more rigorous oversight group would be delayed. The bank would previously have advanced to the Large and Foreign Bank Organization group after its assets had averaged more than $50 billion for a year; now, that shift would not come until it consistently averaged more than $100 billion in assets.The change proved fateful. Silicon Valley Bank did not fully move to the stronger oversight group until late 2021. Its assets had nearly doubled over the course of that year, to about $200 billion, by the time it came under more intense supervision.By that point, many of the issues that would cause its demise had already begun festering. Those included a customer base heavily dependent on the success of the technology industry, an unusually large share of deposits above the $250,000 limit that the government insures in the event of a bank collapse and an executive team that paid little attention to risk management.Those weak spots appear to have gone unresolved when Silicon Valley Bank was being overseen the way that small and regional banks are: by a small team of supervisors who were in some cases generalists.When the bank finally entered more sophisticated supervision for big banks in late 2021, putting it under the purview of a bigger team of specialist bank overseers with input from around the Fed system, it was immediately issued six citations. Those flagged various problems, including how it was managing its ability to raise cash quickly in times of trouble. By the next summer, its management was rated deficient, and by early 2023, intense scrutiny of the bank had stretched to the Fed’s highest reaches.Big questions remain about why supervisors didn’t do more to ensure that shortcomings were addressed once they became alarmed enough to begin issuing citations. The Fed is conducting an internal investigation of what happened, with results expected on May 1.Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, told lawmakers this week that by the time Silicon Valley Bank came under intense oversight and problems were fully recognized, “in a sense, it was already very late in the process.”Shuran Huang for The New York TimesBut the picture that is emerging is one in which a slow reaction in 2022 was not the sole problem: Silicon Valley Bank’s difficulties also appear to have come to the fore too late to fix them easily, in part because of the Trump-era rollbacks. By deciding to move banks into large-bank oversight much later, Mr. Quarles and his colleagues had created a system that treated even sizable and rapidly ballooning banks with a light touch when it came to how aggressively they were monitored.That has caught the attention of officials from the Fed and the White House as they sort through the fallout left by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on March 10 and ask what lessons should be learned.“The way the Federal Reserve’s regulation set up the structure for approach to supervision treated firms in the $50 to $100 billion range with lower levels of requirements,” Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, told lawmakers this week. By the time Silicon Valley Bank’s problems were fully recognized, he said, “in a sense, it was already very late in the process.”About five people were supervising Silicon Valley Bank in the years before its move up to big-bank oversight, according to a person familiar with the matter. The bank was subject to quarterly reviews, and its overseers could choose to put it through horizontal reviews — thorough check-ins that test for a particular weakness by comparing a bank with firms of similar size. But those would not have been a standard part of its oversight, based on the way the Fed runs supervision for small and regional banks.As the bank grew and moved up to large-bank oversight, the size of the supervisory team dedicated to it swelled. By the time it failed, about 20 people were working on Silicon Valley Bank’s supervision, Mr. Barr said this week. It had been put through horizontal reviews, which had flagged serious risks.But such warnings often take time to translate into action. Although the bank’s overseers started pointing out big issues in late 2021, banks typically get leeway to fix problems before they are penalized.“One of the defining features of supervision is that it is an iterative process,” said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School.The Fed’s response to the problems at Silicon Valley Bank seemed to be halting even after it recognized risks. Surprisingly, the firm was given a satisfactory liquidity rating in early 2022, after regulators had begun flagging problems, Mr. Barr acknowledged this week. Several people familiar with how supervising operates found that unusual.“We’re trying to understand how that is consistent with the other material,” Mr. Barr said this week. “The question is, why wasn’t that escalated and why wasn’t further action taken?”Yet the high liquidity rating could also tie back to the bank’s delayed move to the large bank supervision group. Bank supervisors sometimes treat a bank more gently during its first year of tougher oversight, one person said, as it adjusts to more onerous regulator attention.There was also turmoil in the San Francisco Fed’s supervisory ranks around the time that Silicon Valley Bank’s risks were growing.Aaron Wojack for The New York TimesThere was also turmoil in the San Francisco Fed’s supervisory ranks around the time that Silicon Valley Bank’s risks were growing. Mary Daly, the president of the reserve bank, had called a meeting in 2019 with a number of the bank supervisory group’s leaders to insist that they work on improving employee satisfaction scores, according to people with knowledge of the event. The meeting was previously reported by Bloomberg.Of all the San Francisco Fed employees, bank supervisors had the lowest satisfaction ratings, with employees reporting that they might face retribution if they spoke out or had different opinions, according to one person.Several supervision officials departed in the following years, retiring or leaving for other reasons. As a result, relatively new managers were at the wheel as Silicon Valley Bank’s risks grew and became clearer.It’s hard to assess whether supervisors in San Francisco — and staff members at the Fed board, who would have been involved in rating Silicon Valley Bank — were unusually slow to respond to the bank’s problems given the secrecy surrounding bank oversight, Ms. Judge said.“We don’t have a baseline,” she said.Even as the Fed tries to understand why problems were not addressed more promptly, the fact that Silicon Valley Bank remained under less rigorous oversight that may not have tested for its specific weaknesses until relatively late in the game is increasingly in focus.“The Federal Reserve system of supervision and regulation is based on a tailored approach,” Mr. Barr said this week. “That framework, which really focuses on asset size, is not sensitive to the kinds of problems we saw here with respect to rapid growth and a concentrated business model.”Plus, the 2018 law and the Fed’s implementation of it probably affected Silicon Valley Bank’s oversight in other ways. The Fed would probably have begun administering full stress tests on the bank earlier without the changes, and the bank might have had to shore up its ability to raise money in a pinch to comply with the “liquidity coverage ratio,” some research has suggested.The White House called on Thursday for regulators to consider reinstating stronger rules for banks with assets of $100 billion to $250 billion. And the Fed is both re-examining the size cutoffs for stricter bank oversight and working on ways to test for “novel” risks that may not tie back cleanly to size, Mr. Barr said this week.But Mr. Quarles, who carried out the tailoring of the 2018 bank rule, has insisted that the bank’s collapse was not the result of changes that the law required or that he chose to make. Even the simplest rung of supervision should have caught the obvious problems that killed Silicon Valley Bank, he said, including a lack of protection against rising interest rates.“It was the simplest risk imaginable,” he said in interview. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    SVB Hearing Takeaways: Bank Failures Spur a Blame Game, But Few Solutions

    by

    Federal regulators faced more than two hours of intense questioning from lawmakers on Tuesday about what caused the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the red flags that went unheeded and the steps that must be taken to avoid future collapses that could rattle the United States financial system.There was bipartisan concern about the state of the nation’s banks that in many cases blurred the usual party lines, where Democrats want more strict oversight and Republicans call for looser regulations. But there was also a substantial amount of buck-passing and finger pointing as the officials from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury Department sought to make sense of the second largest bank failure in American history.The hearing — featuring Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, Martin Gruenberg, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Nellie Liang, the Treasury’s under secretary for domestic finance — marked the beginning of what will be an extended inquiry by Congress and the regulators themselves into what went wrong.Regulators blamed the banks.From the outset, the regulators made clear what they believed to be the primary reason that Silicon Valley Bank failed: It was poorly managed and allowed risks to build up to the point that the bank collapsed.Mr. Barr said in his testimony that “SVB’s failure is a textbook case of mismanagement.” He added that Fed officials flagged problems to the bank as far back as November 2021, but the bank failed to deal with them.Punishment for executives is on the table.Lawmakers remained intent on ensuring that the executives of the banks are punished if they did anything improper leading up to the failures. They also expressed particular concern about last minute stock sales by Silicon Valley Bank officials.Regulators said that they were limited in their power to claw back compensation but that they can impose financial and other penalties if their continuing investigation finds wrongdoing.Regulators blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on poor management during more than two hours of questioning, Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe Fed could have done more.The Federal Reserve is under particular scrutiny regarding when it knew that things were amiss at SVB.Even though Fed supervisors had flagged weaknesses at SVB as far back as 2021, Mr. Barr said he first learned of SVB’s problems last month — suggesting it took a long time for concerns to be escalated to the Fed board and its vice chair of supervision.Mr. Barr said that the Federal Reserve officials will be discussing any potential missed warning signs in their internal review and that “we expect to be held accountable.”Regulators say they need more authority.All three regulators said that they believed that financial regulations needed to be tightened following the recent stress in the banking sector.Mr. Barr pointed to Federal Reserve regulations, which were enacted during the Trump administration in 2019, that exempted Silicon Valley Bank from being stress tested and suggested that those need to be revisited.Some Democrats on the committee emphasized the notion that deregulation left agencies without the tools they needed to address issues at smaller banks.What’s next?The House Financial Services Committee will hold its own hearing on Wednesday, and question the same officials.Reviews by the F.D.I.C. and the Fed are expected to be completed by May 1 and members of the Senate committee from both parties suggested they’d be interested in hearing from regulators after those inquiries are concluded.There is also an ongoing debate about raising the bank deposit insurance cap from $250,000 and imposing stiffer penalties on executives at banks that fail.Lawmakers have also asked the Government Accountability Office to study the effectiveness of the bank supervisory regime and make recommendations for changes. But it’s not clear whether any suggested changes would have enough bipartisan support to overcome a divided Congress. More