Federal Reserve System

More stories

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Russia-Ukraine Crisis Troubles the Stock Market

    by

    Whether you call it a correction or a panic attack, a stock market that was already becoming shaky has been roiled by Russia’s hostilities toward Ukraine.The U.S. stock market has been stumbling since the beginning of the year. Now, Russia’s escalating conflict with Ukraine is adding considerably to the market’s problems.After President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered troops to enter two separatist-controlled enclaves in Ukraine, the S&P 500, which often serves as a proxy for the U.S. stock market, also crossed a notable threshold.On Tuesday, the S&P 500 fell to 4,304.76, down 1.01 percent for the day. That wasn’t much of a loss, but it nonetheless represented a notable milestone. It brought the stock market down 10.3 percent from its most recent peak on Jan. 3.On Wednesday, the index dropped another 1.84 percent, bringing its losses from the record to 11.9 percent.In Wall Street jargon, that meant the S&P 500 is in a “correction,” because its losses since Jan. 3 exceeded 10 percent.That 10 percent definition is entirely arbitrary and the subject of many quibbles, but this much is clear: A correction is not a good thing.“It’s an early warning indicator that tells you the market isn’t heading in the direction you want it to be going in,” said Edward Yardeni, an independent Wall Street economist who has compiled detailed records on modern stock market history. “A 10 percent decline isn’t that bad in itself, necessarily, but if the market keeps heading down, the next thing you know, you’re down 20 percent and then by common agreement you’re in a bear market, and, maybe, worrying about a recession.”

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

    Recent S&P 500 Corrections
    Note: Bear markets are highlighted in red. The low point of the correction from the peak on Jan. 3, 2022, has yet to be determined. Source: Yardeni ResearchBy The New York TimesWhat makes the market decline disconcerting is that an escalating geopolitical conflict in Eastern Europe is now being added to the stock market’s ample woes.Stocks have been falling for weeks, for a variety of reasons. Concerns about the prospect of rising interest rates and generally tighter monetary policy from the Federal Reserve are at the top of my personal list.The Fed is, perhaps belatedly, planning at its meeting on March 15-16 to start increasing its benchmark funds rate from its current near-zero level, and then to begin reducing its $8.9 trillion balance sheet. All that is intended to mitigate the inflation that is running at an annual rate of 7.5 percent, a 40-year high.In addition, the death, illness and inconvenience caused by the coronavirus pandemic have had myriad pernicious effects. The labor force in the United States is smaller than it would be otherwise, and the economy’s service sector hasn’t fully rebounded. The pandemic has also caused supply chain bottlenecks that have held back sales and production and increased the prices of important products as varied as automobiles and kitchen appliances.Many publicly traded companies are circumventing these problems and passing the associated costs on to consumers, but their ability to keep doing so, while generating the profits that fuel the stock market, is questionable.The Russia-Ukraine crisis threatens to make matters worse for the economy and the markets. Russia produces important commodities, like palladium, which is needed in the catalytic converters of gasoline-powered automobiles, and whose prices have contributed to the high inflation in the United States.The anticipation of interruptions in commodity supplies has increased prices in futures markets, particularly for oil and natural gas, all of which could go much higher if the Ukraine crisis intensifies and if Western sanctions begin to bite.For those who remember the 1970s and early 1980s, an era of soaring inflation and multiple recessions caused in part by a geopolitical shift and two oil shocks, the possibility of a 2020s parallel is deeply disturbing.So is the fact that Russia is a nuclear power engaging in aggressive action against an independent country that is supported by NATO. The possibility that the conflict could be the start of a new Cold War, or something even worse, can’t be totally dismissed.That said, for investors, it’s worth remembering that since the stock market hit bottom in March 2020, the S&P 500 rose 114.4 percent through Jan. 3. Compared with that stupendous increase, the market’s decline since then has been inconsequential.S&P 500Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic

    Source: RefinitivBy The New York TimesWhat’s more, although just about everyone who closely follows the stock market agrees that it has had a correction, there is no agreement on when it took place. Laszlo Birinyi, who began analyzing the market with Salomon Brothers back in 1976, says a correction happens whenever the market crosses the 10 percent border, whether it’s at the end of the trading day or in the middle of it.That’s why Mr. Birinyi, who heads his own independent stock market research firm, Birinyi Associates, in Westport, Conn., says a market correction occurred on Jan. 24, not on Tuesday. The market at one point on Jan. 24 dropped as far as 12 percent below its close on Jan. 3 before rebounding smartly. “The psychology of the market, the mood, shifted then,” Mr. Birinyi said. “People were panicky until then — and then they weren’t.”The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Firm Up Plans for Swift Pullback of Economic Help

    by

    Federal Reserve officials are coalescing around a plan to raise interest rates steadily starting in March and then move swiftly to shrink the central bank’s big bond holdings as policymakers look to cool the economy at a moment of rapid inflation.While policymakers are likely to keep an eye on the conflict in Ukraine as they proceed with those plans, for now geopolitical developments seem unlikely to be enough to derail the central bank’s campaign to beat back price increases.Policymakers have spent the past week broadcasting that the interest rate increase they plan to make at their March meeting — one that investors already fully expect — will be the first in a string of rate moves. Central bankers also appeared to be converging on a plan to promptly start shrinking the Fed’s holdings of government-backed debt, which were vastly expanded during the pandemic downturn as the Fed snapped up bonds in a bid to keep markets functioning and cushion the economy.The central bank bought $120 billion in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities for much of 2020 and 2021, but officials have been tapering those purchases and are on track to stop them entirely in March. By quickly pivoting to allow securities on its nearly $9 trillion balance sheet to expire without reinvestment — reducing its holdings over time — the Fed would take away an important source of demand for government-backed debt and push rates on those securities higher. That would work together with a higher Fed policy interest rate to make many types of borrowing more expensive.Higher borrowing costs should weigh on lending and spending, tempering demand and helping to slow price gains, which have been uncomfortably rapid. Data out this week is expected to show further acceleration in the central bank’s preferred inflation gauge, which was already running at its fastest pace in 40 years.Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who has been nominated by President Biden to serve as vice chair, said last week that she believed a “series” of rate increases were warranted.“I do anticipate that it will be appropriate, at our next meeting, which is in just a few weeks, to initiate a series of rate increases,” she said on Friday at a forum held by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in New York. Ms. Brainard said the Fed would then turn to shrinking its balance sheet, a process that could be appropriate to start “in coming meetings.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Michelle Bowman, another Fed governor, echoed that balance sheet reduction could start imminently, saying in a speech on Monday that the Fed needs to begin to reduce its bond holdings “in the coming months.”The precise timing of shrinking the balance sheet is a topic of debate. John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, suggested on Friday that the process could start “later this year,” which could suggest in coming months or slightly later. But officials have been uniformly clear that a pullback is coming, and likely more quickly than investors had expected until just recently.Although policymakers plan to shrink their holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities by allowing them to expire, rather than by selling the debt, the Fed’s latest meeting minutes suggested that officials could eventually move to outright sales of mortgage-tied securities. The minutes also suggested that officials thought “a significant reduction” in the balance sheet would be warranted.The pace of the moves would be rapid compared with the last time the Fed increased interest rates, from 2015 to the end of 2018. Then, officials shrank the balance sheet only gradually and pushed up interest rates glacially, once per quarter at fastest.Borrowing costs have already begun to rise as investors adjust to the Fed’s more rapid-fire plans. Markets expect six or seven quarter-point interest rate increases this year. The rate on a 30-year mortgage has climbed to 3.9 percent from about 2.9 percent last fall, when the Fed began its policy pivot.The Fed’s policy changes “will bring inflation down over time, while sustaining a recovery that includes everyone,” Ms. Brainard said, adding that as the Fed signals that it will raise rates, “the market is clearly aligned with that.”But tensions between Russia and Ukraine could create both additional inflationary pressures and risks to growth. So far, there has been little signal that the fallout will be enough to prompt the Fed to change course.“The Federal Reserve pays very close attention to geopolitical events, and this one of course in particular as it’s the most prominent at this point,” Ms. Bowman said on Monday, ahead of the escalation in tensions.“We do recognize that there are significant opportunities for potential impacts on the energy markets, as we’re moving forward, if things were to deteriorate,” she added.Oil and gas prices have already risen during the conflict and could continue to climb, leading to a higher peak in headline inflation, which includes prices at the pump. The Fed typically avoids reacting to fluctuations in energy prices when setting its policy, given their volatility, but the potential disruption could make inflation trends all the more painful for consumers.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Appear Unlikely to Change Course Amid Ukraine Conflict

    by

    Conflict in Ukraine appears unlikely to shake Federal Reserve officials from their plans to pull back support for the economy at this point, but the rapid escalation in tension is sure to draw policymaker attention and could make for even higher inflation in the near term.The central bank has two jobs — fostering full employment and stable prices — and it has been preparing to raise interest rates and make other policy adjustments too cool down the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in 40 years.Oil and gas prices have already risen during the conflict and could continue to climb, leading to a higher peak in headline inflation, which includes prices at the pump. The Fed typically avoids reacting to fluctuations in energy prices when setting its policy, given the volatility of fuel costs, but the potential disruption could make ongoing inflation trends all the more painful for consumers.“The Federal Reserve pays very close attention to geopolitical events, and this one of course in particular as it’s the most prominent at this point,” Michelle Bowman, a Fed governor, said on Monday.Ms. Bowman noted that the U.S. has minor banking, financial, and trade interests with Russia, and that “we don’t believe that would have a significant impact” on the economy given the small size of those relationships.“But we do recognize that there are significant opportunities for potential impacts on the energy markets, as we’re moving forward, if things were to deteriorate,” Ms. Bowman added. “Obviously we’ll continue to watch that, and if we believe that might have some influence on the global economy, we’ll take that into account as we’re going into our meetings and discussing the economy more broadly.”High fuel prices could weigh on consumer spending on other goods and services as families devote more of their monthly budgets to energy. If the potential for war makes consumers uncertain about the future or sends stock prices plummeting, it also could weigh on demand as nervous shoppers retrench.Central bankers noted in minutes of their most recent meeting that geopolitical risks “could cause increases in global energy prices or exacerbate global supply shortages,” but also that they were a risk to the outlook for growth.But officials have painted it as more of one risk among many than as a pivotal point of concern.“We actually have seen fighting in this area of the world in the past,” James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said on CNBC last week. “I do think it’s quite an important foreign policy issue, but I’m not seeing it as a leading macroeconomic issue, at least at this point.”Assessing exactly what the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will mean for the American economy is challenging because it is unclear how much tensions will escalate and because it is not obvious how Russia might respond as the U.S. and Europe prepare sanctions.Plus, while rising fuel prices could push up inflation, global unease is likely to push the value of the dollar higher as global investors move into what they see as “safe-haven” assets. That could make imported goods cheaper, working in the opposite direction to rising fuel costs. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Federal Reserve Rolls Out Tough Trading Restrictions After Scandal

    by

    The Federal Reserve on Friday adopted a new set of ethics rules meant to prevent questionable financial market trading activity by top officials, a sweeping response to a scandal that has rocked the central bank since late last year.Fed officials traded in individual stocks, real estate securities and stock funds in 2020, a year in which the central bank rolled out a range of pandemic response programs that placed officials’ day-to-day decisions at the core of what happened in financial markets. Three high-ranking policymakers resigned earlier than they had planned after news of the trading broke last year and early in 2022.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, acknowledged in the wake of the revelations that he and his colleagues were not “happy” with what had happened and said they would revamp the central bank’s ethics rules to prevent a similar situation in the future.The new rules, which were previewed in October, aim to fulfill that promise. They prevent senior officials from purchasing individual stocks or funds tracing business sectors, the Fed said, and they ban investments in individual bonds, cryptocurrencies, commodities or foreign currencies, among other securities.Senior Fed officials must now announce that they are buying or selling a security 45 days in advance, and that notice will not be retractable. Investments must be held for at least one year under the new guidelines.The Fed’s 12 regional bank presidents will be required to publicly disclose securities transactions within 30 days, the way that its seven board members in Washington already do. They must post financial disclosures on their bank websites, something they now do only sporadically.The fresh set of rules will apply to a wide array of personnel with access to sensitive information, from reserve bank first vice presidents and research directors to high-ranking staff members and people designated by the chair.The Fed will also extend its financial trading blackout period — which typically applies in the run-up to Fed meetings — by one day after each meeting. That will align it with the period in which Fed officials are not allowed to give speeches.Most of the restrictions will take effect on May 1, although the new rules on the advance notice and preclearance of transactions will take effect on July 1.Financial disclosures released in late 2021 showed that Robert S. Kaplan, the former Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas president, had made big individual-stock trades, while Eric S. Rosengren, the Boston Fed president, had traded in real estate securities. Mr. Kaplan resigned in September, citing the scandal; Mr. Rosengren resigned simultaneously, citing health issues.Richard H. Clarida, then the Fed’s vice chair, sold and then rapidly repurchased a stock fund on the eve of a major Fed decision, corrected financial disclosures showed. Mr. Clarida also resigned slightly earlier than planned, though he did not cite a reason. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Could Wages and Prices Spiral Upward in America?

    by

    A labor shortage that began as businesses reopened from pandemic lockdowns is helping to push up pay. The Fed is watching carefully.Amazon, Bank of America and Chipotle are among a spate of companies raising wages this year as they compete for workers in a labor market with more open positions than unemployed job seekers.But that positive development for workers could morph into a challenge for the Federal Reserve if climbing wages help to keep inflation high, prompting employees to ask for even more money and generating an upward spiral.So far, many economists think such a situation can be kept at bay. But the Fed is closely monitoring inflation and pay data to assess the risk, because the consequences if wages and prices begin to drive each other steadily higher could be serious, requiring a response from the central bank that could be economically painful.The Fed is already poised to raise interest rates in March in an attempt to begin cooling off the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in 40 years. But if it needed to restrain a self-perpetuating burst in wages and prices, officials might decide to adjust policy more drastically. Higher interest rates could abruptly hit the brakes on lending and spending, potentially sending the United States into recession and foiling central bankers’ hopes of guiding growth gently toward a more sustainable path.“I think we’re much more likely to have something messier than a magical soft landing,” said Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The wage evolutions are going to be the thing to look at.”Wages are already rising sharply. Pay for restaurant servers and hotel workers began to increase notably in 2021 as companies, reopening after lockdown, struggled to rehire people quickly. Now a wide array of industries are giving raises: The government’s latest employment report showed pay accelerating sharply for education and health workers, manufacturers, and professional and business services.Average hourly earnings jumped 5.7 percent in the year through January, a full percentage point more than economists had forecast.Earnings calls are replete with chief executives explaining that they are increasing pay to attract and retain talent. Unions have won pay bargaining fights. And the White House regularly celebrates signs that power in the work force seems to have shifted toward employees and away from employers.For the most part, that’s good news for labor. But economists have increasingly warned that the confluence of economic trends shaping up now — high inflation, a sense among consumers that prices might stay high for a while and a strong labor market that has handed workers bargaining power — could set the stage for a situation in which wage growth and prices feed off each other.“The combination of very high inflation, hot wage growth and high short-term inflation expectations means that concerns about falling into a wage-price spiral deserve to be taken seriously,” Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a note last week.That would be a big shift. America has not experienced a wage-price spiral since the 1970s and early 1980s, when rapid inflation and skyrocketing wages seemed to perpetuate each other. The Fed lifted interest rates to double digits and caused a painful recession to bring prices under control. Both wage growth and inflation have been slow in the decades since — until now.But even if wages and prices are both rising now, it is not clear that they are egging each other on yet, which is a crucial distinction. In fact, labor market experts point out three big reasons to doubt that a wage-price spiral will happen today.Chief among them: Productivity growth looks strong. If each individual worker can churn out more goods and services, companies should be able to pay more without hurting their profit margins and leading them to pass along the higher costs. Nick Bunker, an economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab, said recent productivity data was an encouraging sign but not a definitive one.“It’s really hard to observe in real time,” he said of the data, noting that the numbers jump around a lot. “I think it’s something to keep an eye on.”It is also unclear just how much wage bargaining power employees have, even with employers eager to hire. Wage growth appears to have been falling behind price increases for many income groups in recent months, suggesting that workers aren’t managing to persuade their companies to compensate them fully for rising costs. Unionization is much lower than in the 1970s, which could leave workers with fewer tools to bargain up pay.If that begins to crimp consumers’ ability to buy new couches and cars, it could cause demand to moderate, naturally restraining inflation.And the tie between wages and prices has been tenuous in recent decades. While research has found a link between the two in the 1960s and 1970s, the relationship collapsed after the early 1980s and has remained tame since.“The relationship between wage growth and services inflation just isn’t that tight,” said Laura Rosner-Warburton, an economist at MacroPolicy Perspectives. “Yes, you will see more inflation from wages in 2022. The question is how much?”A coffee shop in New York advertised open positions this month.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesWhile a wage-price spiral is on a “large list of risk factors” that the administration is closely watching, the “dominant forecast” is that the labor market will stay strong and price gains will moderate this year, said Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.Wall Street economists generally think inflation will fade toward 3 percent this year, based on recent analyst notes and interviews. A recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that consumers, who had been penciling in higher inflation in the years ahead, have begun to lower their expectations for price increases.But several forecasters said there was room for humility and wariness, because the pandemic economy has repeatedly confounded expectations. It has also drastically changed America’s economic backdrop.“The last 20 years have been years of very low inflation, very stable inflation,” Mr. Blanchard said. Before the coronavirus, inflation had hovered around — and then below — 2.5 percent for decades. Today, it has jumped to 7.5 percent.As prices for products including gas, steaks, bacon and camping equipment climb rapidly, eating into paychecks and dominating headlines, consumers are more likely to take note and ask for better pay.“Things change completely when inflation is a big number,” Mr. Blanchard said. “Salience changes.”There are signs that wages are feeding into price increases, at the margin. Prices have recently begun to rise sharply for core services, a set of purchases outside of health care, rent and transportation for which wages tend to make up a major cost of production.“That was concerning,” said Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS who formerly led the Fed’s wage and price section. But, he added, it is hardly conclusive.More anecdotally, stories of workers winning big wage increases in a tight labor market abound.While wages in lower-qualification fields like leisure and hospitality have been rising rapidly for months, professional pay may also be on the cusp of picking up: Banks have been making big base salary increases, and Amazon will raise its maximum base salary for corporate and technology workers to $350,000 from $160,000 as it competes for a limited pool of highly trained employees.Amazon, which has also increased wages for warehouse employees, has raised prices partly in response.“With the continued expansion of Prime member benefits and the increased member usage that we’ve seen, as well as the rise in wages and transportation costs, Amazon will increase the price of our Prime membership in the United States,” Brian T. Olsavsky, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a Feb. 3 earnings call. The monthly price is rising to $14.99 from $12.99, and the annual membership is jumping to $139 from $119.“This is our first price increase since 2018,” Mr. Olsavsky noted.Other companies are raising pay but have said they are covering the climbing costs by improving efficiency. That’s the sort of sweet spot the White House and the Fed are hoping for, because it could leave workers earning more without pressuring prices relentlessly up.“We do anticipate when we do our annual review process that we will have a nominally higher wage rate increase provided to our associates,” Kevin Hourican, president and chief executive at the food distributor Sysco, said on a Feb. 8 earnings call. “And we have productivity improvement efforts that can help offset those types of increases.” More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    January Fed Minutes Show Concern About Inflation's Spread

    by

    Officials at the Federal Reserve expressed concern about inflation at their meeting in January, in particular that it had spread beyond pandemic-affected sectors into other areas, and agreed it would be warranted to begin scaling back their support for the economy faster than they previously had anticipated, minutes of the meeting released Wednesday showed.Fed officials noted that the labor market remained strong, though the Omicron wave of the coronavirus had worsened supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages, and that inflation continued to significantly exceed the levels the central bank targets.Most officials still expect inflation to moderate over the year as pandemic-related supply bottlenecks ease and the Fed removes some of its support for the economy. But some participants warned that inflation could continue to accelerate, pointing to factors like rising wages and rents. If inflation does not move down as they expect, most Fed officials agreed that they might need to pare back their support for the economy even more quickly, though that could carry some risk.The outlook for inflation could be worsened by China’s zero-tolerance policy toward Covid, which has led to expansive lockdowns that have shuttered factories; a clash in Ukraine that could push up global energy prices; or the spread of another variant, they said.The central bank emphasized that the pace of interest rate increases would hinge on how the economy developed. But most officials agreed that the Fed should take a faster approach to cooling the economy than it did in 2015, when it began raising rates at a slow and plodding pace in the wake of the Great Recession.“Most participants suggested that a faster pace of increases in the target range for the federal funds rate than in the post-2015 period would likely be warranted, should the economy evolve generally in line with the committee’s expectation,” the minutes read.Fed officials also agreed that it was appropriate to proceed with plans to trim the nearly $9 trillion in securities that the central bank holds. Most officials preferred to keep to a schedule announced in December, which would end such purchases starting next month, though some viewed an earlier end to the program as warranted and a way to signal that they were taking a stronger stance to fight inflation.Policymakers said the labor market had made “remarkable progress in recovering from the recession associated with the pandemic and, by most measures, was now very strong.”The January meeting solidified what markets had been anticipating: that the Fed was on track to raise interest rates in March. The question now is how quickly, and by how much. Many investors have speculated that the Fed could raise its interest rate by half a percentage point in March, instead of its usual quarter-point increase.In a statement after their two-day policy meeting in January, Fed officials laid the groundwork for higher borrowing costs “soon.” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at a news conference after the meeting that “I would say that the committee is of a mind to raise the federal funds rate at the March meeting, assuming that the conditions are appropriate for doing so.”Inflation has continued to run hot since the Fed’s last meeting, and wage growth remains elevated. A key inflation measure released last week showed that prices were climbing at the fastest pace in 40 years and broadening beyond pandemic-affected goods and services, a sign that rapid gains could prove longer lasting and harder to shake off.January’s Consumer Price Index showed prices jumping 7.5 percent over the year and 0.6 percent from the prior month, exceeding forecasts. A separate inflation gauge that the Fed prefers also showed that prices remained elevated at the end of 2021. Overall, prices have been climbing at the fastest pace since 1982.Wall Street is now anticipating that interest rates could rise to more than 1.75 percent by the end of the year, up from near zero now. Markets began to bet on a double-size rate increase after January’s inflation data came in surprisingly strong. But some Fed officials have been tempering those expectations, saying they need to take a steady approach.Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said on Sunday that the Fed needed to get moving but that its approach ought to be “measured.”“I see that it is obvious that we need to pull some of the accommodation out of the economy,” Ms. Daly said on “Face the Nation.” “But history tells us with Fed policy that abrupt and aggressive action can actually have a destabilizing effect on the very growth and price stability we’re trying to achieve.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Senate Republicans Stall Crucial Vote on Fed Nominees

    by

    President Biden’s plans to reshape the Federal Reserve suffered a setback on Tuesday as Republicans delayed a key vote on his five nominees for its Board of Governors.Republicans did not show up for a committee decision that would have advanced the nominees to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Because a majority of the Senate Banking Committee’s members need to be physically present for such votes to count, their blockade effectively halted the process.The unusual maneuver, spearheaded by Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, was driven by Republican opposition to Mr. Biden’s pick for the nation’s top bank cop, Sarah Bloom Raskin.The president has renominated Jerome H. Powell as Fed chair and has tapped Lael Brainard, a current Fed governor, as vice chair. He has also nominated the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson as Fed governors. But Ms. Raskin — a longtime Washington policymaker and lawyer whom Mr. Biden has picked as vice chair for bank supervision — has garnered the most pushback.To prevent her nomination from advancing to the full Senate, Republicans held up the vote on all five nominees.Democrats and the White House criticized Republicans for engineering a boycott and scrambled for a solution that could get the nominees to a confirmation vote. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and chair of the Banking Committee, on Tuesday shot down the idea that he would separate Ms. Raskin from the other nominees to allow the rest to advance. Ms. Raskin could face tough odds of passing, especially on her own.By nominating five of the Fed’s seven governors and all of its highest-ranking leaders, Mr. Biden had a chance to shake up the institution. While some of his picks — like Mr. Powell — represented continuity, together they would have made up the most racially and gender-diverse Fed leadership team ever.Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University who co-wrote a book on the politics of the Fed, said Democrats would need to come up with a strategy to overcome the Republican block or the nominees could get stuck in limbo.“It is really a delay — it might yet scupper Raskin,” she said. She noted that Democrats could break the nominations up or try to garner enough support among the full Senate to override the rules and get the nominees past the committee, though that might be a challenge.“It’s pretty uncharted, and they’re going to have to find a way,” Dr. Binder said.Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that outside of trying to change Senate rules — which she called the “nuclear option” — Democrats’ clearest avenue was probably to negotiate with Republicans.“They just need a Republican to show up,” she noted, explaining that the senator would not even need to vote yes for the committee to secure a majority and move the candidates along.Tuesday’s maneuver was the latest step in Mr. Toomey’s opposition campaign against Ms. Raskin, who would serve as arguably the nation’s most important bank regulator if confirmed.Mr. Toomey has criticized Ms. Raskin for past comments on climate-related regulation, worrying that she would be too activist in bank oversight. More recently, he has pressed for more information about her interactions with the Fed while she was on the board of a financial technology company that was pushing for a potentially lucrative central bank account.“Until basic questions have been adequately addressed, I do not think the committee should proceed with a vote on Ms. Raskin,” Mr. Toomey said in the statement.White House officials criticized his move as inappropriate when the Fed is wrestling with rapidly rising prices and preparing to raise interest rates next month.“It’s totally irresponsible, in our view — it’s never been more important to have confirmed leadership at the Fed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. She added that the administration’s focus now was moving the nominees through the committee and called Mr. Toomey’s probing of Ms. Raskin’s background “false allegations.”The dispute centers on the revolving door between government regulators and the arcane world of financial technology.Mr. Toomey and his colleagues have said Ms. Raskin, a former Fed and Treasury official, had contacted the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on behalf of Reserve Trust, a financial technology company. Reserve Trust secured a strategically important account at the Fed while she was on its board: To this day, it advertises that it is the only company of its kind with what’s known as a “master” account.Master accounts give companies access to the U.S. payment system infrastructure, allowing firms to move money without working with a bank, among other advantages.Republicans are blocking the process over concerns about one of the nominees, Sarah Bloom Raskin.Pool photo by Ken CedenoMs. Raskin said in written responses to Mr. Toomey’s questions early this month that she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account.” But Mr. Toomey said in a subsequent letter that the president of the Kansas City Fed, Esther George, had told his staff that Ms. Raskin called her about the account in 2017.The Kansas City Fed has insisted that it followed its normal protocol in granting Reserve Trust’s master account and noted that talking with a firm’s board members was “routine.” But Mr. Toomey has continued to push for more information.“Important questions about Ms. Raskin’s use of the ‘revolving door’ remain unanswered largely because of her repeated disingenuousness with the committee,” Mr. Toomey said in his statement Tuesday.Democrats have emphasized that Ms. Raskin recently committed to a new set of ethics standards, agreeing not to work for financial services companies for four years after she leaves government — a pledge Ms. Cook and Mr. Jefferson also made, at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.Ms. Brainard agreed to a weaker version of that commitment that would bar her from working at bank holding companies and depository institutions outside of mission-driven exceptions like banks that target underserved communities, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren’s office said Tuesday.Mr. Powell declined to make a similar commitment, the spokesperson said. The Fed chair did signal that he would adhere to the administration’s ethics rules, which ban paid work related to government service for two years upon leaving office.On Tuesday, a dozen Republican chairs in the room where the committee met remained empty while Democrats occupied their seats across the room. Democrats took a vote to show support, though it was not binding, and Mr. Brown pledged to reschedule.“Few things we do as senators will do more to help address our country’s economic concerns more than to confirm this slate of nominees, the most diverse and most qualified slate of Fed nominees ever put forward,” Mr. Brown said, chiding Republicans for skipping the session.“They’re taking away probably the most important tool we have — and that’s the Federal Reserve — to combat inflation,” he later added.The Fed has four current governors, in addition to its 12 regional presidents, five of whom vote on monetary policy at any given time. Mr. Powell has already been serving as chair on an interim basis, since his leadership term officially expired this month. Even if the nominees advance, Ms. Raskin may struggle to pass the full Senate. Winning confirmation would require her to maintain full support from all 50 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats and for all those lawmakers to be present unless she can win Republican votes. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, has been absent as he recovers from a stroke.“The Republicans are playing hardball because they can,” said Ian Katz, the managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. “At the least, it delays her confirmation. It could have the ultimate effect of killing it.” More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    CPI Inflation Climbed 7.5 Percent in January, the Fastest Rise Since 1982

    by

    Consumer Price Index data showed prices climbing faster than expected, picking up across a broad array of goods and services.

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

    Year-over-year changes in the Consumer Price Index
    Seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesA key inflation measure released on Thursday showed that prices are climbing at the fastest pace in 40 years and broadening to touch nearly every corner of the American economy, heightening the risk that they will stay elevated for longer and that policymakers may have to react more aggressively.Markets tumbled after the government released Consumer Price Index data for January, which showed prices jumping 7.5 percent over the year and 0.6 percent over the past month, exceeding forecasts. More worrying were the report’s details, which showed inflation moving beyond pandemic-affected goods and services, a sign that rapid gains could prove longer lasting and harder to shake off.Investors speculated that the hot inflation would spur a decisive reaction from the Federal Reserve — possibly a big interest rate increase at the central bank’s next gathering in March, though few Fed officials have signaled comfort with such a large move. Making money more expensive to borrow and spend could weigh on demand, slowing the economy and tamping down prices.Wall Street is now anticipating that interest rates could rise to more than 1.75 percent by the end of the year, up from near zero now, and the possibility of a more forceful Fed reaction sent a key bond yield above 2 percent for the first time since July 2019 and deflated stock prices.Most economists still believe inflation will cool by year’s end, as automobile prices climb at a more moderate pace and as supply chain problems hopefully ease. But high and widespread price increases portend trouble for a White House that is struggling to convince voters that the economy is strong, and for a Fed that looks increasingly at risk of falling behind the curve.“It was more than expected, and it was broad-based,” said Priya Misra, head of global rates strategy at TD Securities, adding that she now expects price gains to slow less drastically this year. “We’ve gotten used to these big headline numbers, but every aspect of ‘transitory’ you can push back against now.”Economists thought price gains would fade quickly in 2021 — making now-infamous predictions that inflation would prove “transitory” — only to have those projections proved wrong time and again as booming consumer demand for goods collided with roiled global supply chains that could not ramp up production fast enough.High inflation has been a political liability for the White House, as rising prices have eaten away at household paychecks, leaving consumers feeling pessimistic.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesLately, it is more than just shortages of goods at play. Price gains are increasingly hitting consumers in hard-to-avoid ways as they show up in necessities: January’s inflation reading was driven by food, electricity and shelter costs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.High and broadening inflation has become a political liability for President Biden, as rising prices eat away at household paychecks and detract from a strong labor market with solid wage growth. That has left consumers feeling pessimistic and has all but killed Mr. Biden’s chance to pass a sweeping climate and social policy bill given lawmaker concerns about rising prices.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Ryan Sweet, an economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that inflation was costing the average household $276 a month, compared with a more normal rate of inflation, which had been hovering just around 2 percent before the pandemic.“While today is a reminder that Americans’ budgets are being stretched in ways that create real stress at the kitchen table, there are also signs that we will make it through this challenge,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. He emphasized that wages grew more quickly than prices last month — though in general they have not kept up with price gains over the past year.The White House has introduced policies that might help to ease inflation slightly — discussing plans to help place military veterans into the short-staffed trucking industry, for instance — but the Fed is primarily in charge of slowing down demand to keep prices under control. Fed officials have already shifted away from trying to foster a quick economic rebound and toward bringing inflation down. After Thursday’s report, investors expected the Fed to withdraw economic support even more quickly. Markets braced for a half-percentage-point increase in the federal funds rate at the central bank’s meeting next month — double the usual increment.The inflation reading sent stocks down and government bond yields up. The S&P 500 dropped 1.8 percent, while the Nasdaq composite fell 2.1 percent. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes rose 0.1 percentage points, to about 2.03 percent, the highest level since November 2019.James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, fretted about the January inflation report in an interview with Bloomberg News and suggested that policymakers should be open to both a bigger-than-normal rate increase and to increasing rates in between officially scheduled meetings.“You have got the highest inflation in 40 years, and I think we are going to have to be far more nimble and far more reactive to data,” said Mr. Bullard, who has at times espoused bold stances that are not followed by his policymaking colleagues.The Fed generally moves borrowing costs in between meetings only at stressed moments and in emergencies, as was the case when it cut rates to zero between planned gatherings in March 2020.Inflation is abnormally high relative to the central bank’s goal: The Fed aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, defining that target using a different but related inflation index that is also sharply elevated.And it increasingly appears to be driven less by the pandemic and more by a strong economy. Price increases in 2021 came heavily from roiled supply chains that sent new and used car prices and furniture costs up sharply. Those continue to be a big factor elevating overall inflation, but other areas are also fueling the rapid rise.

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

    Year-over-year changes in the Consumer Price Index
    Not seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesRent of a primary residence, which counts for a big chunk of overall inflation and tends to respond more to economic conditions than to one-off trends, climbed 0.5 percent in January from the prior month, a slight acceleration. Other shelter costs rose at a steady but notable pace.“Low vacancies and the end of rent moratoriums are expected to continue to push rents higher in the year ahead,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton, wrote in a note after the release.As costs for shelter and other services pick up, policymakers are hoping that supply chains will start to catch up. That could allow prices for goods to moderate or even fall — taking pressure off overall inflation.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More