Federal Reserve System

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Fear Lurks, Even as Officials Say Not to Worry

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Biden’s Stimulus PlanWhat to Know About the BillSenate PassageWhat the Senate Changed$15 Minimum WageChild Tax CreditAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyInflation Fear Lurks, Even as Officials Say Not to WorryPrices have yet to show much movement, but the prospect of an unbridled economy’s surging back from the pandemic has unsettled the markets.Shoppers in Southaven, Miss. Higher spending seems almost certain in the months ahead as vaccinations prompt Americans to get out and about, deploying savings.Credit…Rory Doyle for The New York TimesNelson D. Schwartz and March 10, 2021Updated 5:46 p.m. ETWhile the Biden administration’s ambitious effort to salve the pandemic’s deep economic wounds made its way through Congress, proponents insisted that funneling $1.9 trillion to American households and businesses wouldn’t unshackle a long-vanquished monster: inflation.Officials at the Federal Reserve, responsible for balancing the job needs of Americans with price pressures that could erode their buying power, have said there is little cause for worry.Yet as the legislation moved toward the finish line, inflation prospects increasingly influenced political commentary and Wall Street trading.The worries reflect expectations of a rapid economic expansion as businesses reopen and the pandemic recedes. Millions are still unemployed, and layoffs remain high. But for workers with secure jobs, higher spending seems almost certain in the months ahead as vaccinations prompt Americans to get out and about, deploying savings built up over the last year.Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, is among those tracking the inflation threat. “There’s a very good chance you’re going to have a gangbuster economy for the rest of this year and easily into 2022, and the question is: Does that overheat everything?” he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week.In addition to the $1.9 trillion about to pour forth, Mr. Dimon said, $1 trillion in savings that piled up during the pandemic remain unspent.The inflation fixation has been one driver behind a sharp sell-off in government bonds since the start of the year, pairing with a stronger growth outlook to push yields on 10-year notes up to about 1.5 percent, from below 1 percent. Bonds, like stocks, tend to lose value when inflation expectations grow, eroding asset values.“I would not buy 10-year Treasurys,” Mr. Dimon said.The volatile bond trading prompted several unnerving days on Wall Street last week. High-flying tech stocks — previously seen as a haven for those chasing market-beating yields — were particularly upended, though broad share indexes remain near record highs.“I would suspect there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to see rates going up,” Mr. Dimon said. “And people are starting to worry about that.”Rising bond yields have also caused an uptick in mortgage rates, threatening one of the brightest spots in the coronavirus economy, the housing market. Home prices have been surging, especially in the suburbs, but a sustained rise in borrowing costs would almost certainly undermine that trend.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, and other central bank officials have made clear that they are not worried about the expected bounce in inflation. “There’s a difference between a one-time surge in prices and ongoing inflation,” Mr. Powell said this month, making it clear that he expected the coming increase to be transitory.The Fed earned an inflation-fighting reputation in the 1970s and 1980s, when it eventually contained runaway prices with double-digit interest rates that caused a recession. But price gains have been slow for decades, and Mr. Powell and his colleagues have been working to ensure that consumers and businesses don’t start to expect ever-lower inflation.Healthy economies tend to have gentle price increases, which give businesses room to raise wages and leave the central bank with more room to cut interest rates during times of trouble. If inflation drops too low, it risks price declines that are especially painful for debtors, whose debts stay the same even as prices and wages fall.Fed officials revised their framework for setting monetary policy last summer, saying that instead of shooting exactly for 2 percent inflation, they would aim for 2 percent on average — welcoming inflation that runs faster some of the time.Inflation is expected to increase in the coming months as prices are measured against weak readings from last year. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expect the Consumer Price Index to hit an annual rate of 2.9 percent from April through June, easing to 2.5 percent in the three months after that before easing gradually to year-over-year gains of 2.2 percent in 2022, based on the median projection.But those numbers are nothing like the staggering price increases of the 1970s, and evidence of renewed inflation is paltry so far.Gasoline prices rose 6.4 percent in February, the Labor Department said on Wednesday.Credit…Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York TimesOn Wednesday, the Labor Department reported that prices rose modestly in February, nudged by an increase in gasoline prices that lifted the Consumer Price Index by 0.4 percent.Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, the index rose 0.1 percent.Gasoline prices alone were up 6.4 percent in February. But over all, the data matched projections, suggesting that inflation remains under control, despite a recent rise in prices for commodities like oil and copper. Stock markets rose on the news, with the Dow Jones industrial average reaching a new high.“Outside of another buoyant advance in energy prices in February, consumer price inflation remains very tame,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics.The inflation concerns among some investors are a turnaround from the aftermath of the 2007-9 recession, which was followed by a decade of frustratingly slow growth in the United States and Europe. For much of that time, deflation, or falling prices, was a leading cause of anxiety among investors and economic experts..css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-k59gj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;width:100%;}.css-1e2usoh{font-family:inherit;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;border-top:1px solid #ccc;padding:10px 0px 10px 0px;background-color:#fff;}.css-1jz6h6z{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;text-align:left;}.css-1t412wb{box-sizing:border-box;margin:8px 15px 0px 15px;cursor:pointer;}.css-hhzar2{-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform ease 0.5s;-webkit-transition:transform ease 0.5s;transition:transform ease 0.5s;}.css-t54hv4{-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-1r2j9qz{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-e1ipqs{font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;padding:0px 30px 0px 0px;}.css-e1ipqs a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-e1ipqs a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1o76pdf{visibility:show;height:100%;padding-bottom:20px;}.css-1sw9s96{visibility:hidden;height:0px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cz6wm{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’nyt-franklin’,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:left;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cz6wm{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1cz6wm:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1cz6wm{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}Frequently Asked Questions About the New Stimulus PackageThe stimulus payments would be $1,400 for most recipients. Those who are eligible would also receive an identical payment for each of their children. To qualify for the full $1,400, a single person would need an adjusted gross income of $75,000 or below. For heads of household, adjusted gross income would need to be $112,500 or below, and for married couples filing jointly that number would need to be $150,000 or below. To be eligible for a payment, a person must have a Social Security number. Read more. Buying insurance through the government program known as COBRA would temporarily become a lot cheaper. COBRA, for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, generally lets someone who loses a job buy coverage via the former employer. But it’s expensive: Under normal circumstances, a person may have to pay at least 102 percent of the cost of the premium. Under the relief bill, the government would pay the entire COBRA premium from April 1 through Sept. 30. A person who qualified for new, employer-based health insurance someplace else before Sept. 30 would lose eligibility for the no-cost coverage. And someone who left a job voluntarily would not be eligible, either. Read moreThis credit, which helps working families offset the cost of care for children under 13 and other dependents, would be significantly expanded for a single year. More people would be eligible, and many recipients would get a bigger break. The bill would also make the credit fully refundable, which means you could collect the money as a refund even if your tax bill was zero. “That will be helpful to people at the lower end” of the income scale, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Read more.There would be a big one for people who already have debt. You wouldn’t have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt if you qualify for loan forgiveness or cancellation — for example, if you’ve been in an income-driven repayment plan for the requisite number of years, if your school defrauded you or if Congress or the president wipes away $10,000 of debt for large numbers of people. This would be the case for debt forgiven between Jan. 1, 2021, and the end of 2025. Read more.The bill would provide billions of dollars in rental and utility assistance to people who are struggling and in danger of being evicted from their homes. About $27 billion would go toward emergency rental assistance. The vast majority of it would replenish the so-called Coronavirus Relief Fund, created by the CARES Act and distributed through state, local and tribal governments, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That’s on top of the $25 billion in assistance provided by the relief package passed in December. To receive financial assistance — which could be used for rent, utilities and other housing expenses — households would have to meet several conditions. Household income could not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, at least one household member must be at risk of homelessness or housing instability, and individuals would have to qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced financial hardship (directly or indirectly) because of the pandemic. Assistance could be provided for up to 18 months, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Lower-income families that have been unemployed for three months or more would be given priority for assistance. Read more.Now there is a belief that economic growth will ramp up at least temporarily, thanks to relief from Capitol Hill and increased vaccinations across the country.The about-face was noted Wednesday by the economist Bernard Baumohl in a letter to clients. “If you suddenly feel the ground shaking beneath you, it’s not because an earthquake struck,” he wrote. “What you’re experiencing is a wild stampede of Wall Street bulls trampling over their previous softer economic forecasts and now charging ahead with near frothy upward revisions to G.D.P. growth and inflation projections for 2021.”Mr. Powell, the Fed chair, has made it clear that officials will need to see the economy at full employment, inflation above 2 percent and evidence that it will stay higher for some time before they will raise their key interest rate from rock bottom.“Those are the conditions,” he said this month. “When they arrive, we will consider raising interest rates. We’re not intending to raise interest rates until we see those conditions fulfilled.”Fed officials have been less concrete about what might prod them into slowing their vast bond purchases, which they have been using to make many types of borrowing cheaper and bolster demand. Officials have said they would like to see “substantial” progress before tapering off their buying, and have repeatedly said they will signal any change far in advance.The Fed will meet in Washington next week and release a fresh set of policymakers’ economic projections next Wednesday. Although the Fed looks at the Consumer Price Index, it bases its policy on a different gauge of price trends, which tends to run slightly lower.“It is possible that participants will project higher 2021 inflation, especially if the Fed staff forecast incorporates policy effects on inflation or a reopening demand surge in select categories,” Goldman Sachs economists wrote last week. “Signaling awareness of these transient boosts to inflation in advance might make it easier for Fed officials to credibly downplay them later.”The Goldman analysts expect the Fed’s projections to suggest that it might make one rate increase in 2023. Previously, Fed officials had not penciled in any rate increases through the end of that year.Over the long term, inflation can be a concern because it hurts the value of many financial assets, especially stocks and bonds. It makes everything from milk and bread to gasoline more expensive for consumers, leaving them unable to keep up if salaries stall. And once inflation becomes entrenched, it can be hard to subdue.But most mainstream economists doubt that a sustained bout of troublesome inflation is on its way.“The inflation narrative has switched to concerns about rising prices,” said Rubeela Farooqi, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics. “For the Fed, price response to the economy reopening is seen as transitory and is unlikely to cause too much angst, given inflation pressures are not expected to be sustained.”And Mr. Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase chief, signaled that inflation fears needed to be put in perspective. “I would put that on the things to worry about,” he said, but “I wouldn’t worry too much about it” — certainly not compared with taming the pandemic itself.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Move Over, Nerds. It’s the Politicians’ Economy Now.

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Biden’s Stimulus PlanWhat to Know About the BillSenate PassageWhat the Senate Changed$15 Minimum WageChild Tax CreditAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyMove Over, Nerds. It’s the Politicians’ Economy Now.Leaders of both parties have become willing to act directly to extract the nation from economic crisis, taking that role back from the central bank.March 9, 2021Updated 4:58 p.m. ETPresident Biden at a roundtable meeting where he listened to some Americans who would benefit from the pandemic relief measure.Credit…Samuel Corum/Getty ImagesAmerican political leaders have learned a few things in the last 12 years, since the nation last tried to claw its way out of an economic hole.Among them: People like having money. Congress has the power to give it to them. In an economic crisis, budget deficits don’t have to be scary. And it is better for both the economy and the democratic legitimacy of a rescue effort when elected leaders choose to help people by spending money, versus when pointy-headed technocrats help by obscure interventions in financial markets.Lawmakers rarely phrase things so bluntly, but those are the implications of a pivot in American economic policy over the last year, culminating with the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill. It is set to pass the House within days and be signed by President Biden soon after. And while this vote will fall along partisan lines, stimulus bills with similar goals passed with bipartisan support last year.Leaders of both parties have become more willing to use their power to extract the nation from economic crisis, taking the primary role for managing the ups and downs of the economy that they ceded for much of the last four decades, most notably in the period after the 2008 global financial crisis.It is an implicit rejection of an era in which the Federal Reserve was the main actor in trying to stabilize the nation’s economy. Now, elected officials are embracing the government’s ability to borrow and spend — the “great fiscal power of the United States” as Fed Chair Jerome Powell has called it — as the primary tool to fight a crisis.“That’s really been the story of this recovery,” Mr. Powell said at a recent hearing. “Fiscal policy has really stepped up.”The new relief bill is similarly a rejection of the concerns of centrist economists, including the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and the former I.M.F. chief economist Olivier Blanchard, that its size and structure invite inflation or other problems. Democratic lawmakers have concluded that the favorable politics of this plan outweigh such risks.If sustained, this assertion of control over economic management by elected leaders would be as momentous a change as the one that followed the Paul Volcker Fed in the 1980s.“This is an enduring regime shift,” said Paul McCulley, who teaches at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business. “Having the tools of economic stabilization work a whole lot more through the fiscal channel and a whole lot less through the monetary channel is a profound, pro-democracy policy mix.”It is in distinct contrast with the experience after the 2008 financial crisis.There was a large 2009 fiscal stimulus action, but a mix of legislative politics and deficit concerns by some officials in President Barack Obama’s inner circle restrained its size. Many of its components were relatively invisible to the average voter. And when the economy remained weak into 2010 and beyond, Republicans and many Democrats focused on deficit reduction. “Stimulus” became a dirty word in Washington.The Fed stepped in, undertaking quantitative easing (essentially, buying bonds with newly created money) and other untested strategies in an effort to keep the expansion going.But central bankers’ tools are limited. They can adjust interest rates and push money into the financial system in hope of making credit easier to obtain. That can spur more investment and spending, which in turn can generate more jobs and higher wages.Sound circuitous? It is — the economics equivalent of a triple bank shot in billiards.In the 2010s, the strategy sort of worked. There was no dip back into recession, and the expansion was the longest on record, until the pandemic ended it. But it took years and years for the economy to return to health, and it was a deeply unequal recovery in which owners of financial assets saw the biggest gains. That the effort was led by unelected central bankers reduced its democratic legitimacy, by appearing as if it were merely an effort by elitist institutions to protect the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.“You can do it and it can be successful, but the income and wealth inequality consequences of it will stink to high heaven,” Professor McCulley said. “You can do it that way, but it is anathema to democratic inclusion.”By contrast, fiscal authorities can spend money directly, funneling it where it is needed, without expectation of being paid back. The United States has done exactly that over the last year on a scale with no parallel since World War II.The new $1.9 trillion package includes, among other provisions, $1,400 payments to most Americans, a new child care tax credit that will put $300 per month in the bank accounts of most parents of a young child, help for those facing eviction or foreclosure, and billions of dollars in grants for small businesses. Public opinion polling finds it considerably more popular than other major domestic policy legislation in recent years.“For all the failures and weaknesses of American democracy over recent months, this is a dramatic demonstration of democracy’s power to act,” said Adam Tooze, a Columbia University economic historian who has written extensively of the aftermath of the financial crisis. “When it comes to delivering popular policies at the right moment, working on the basis of established constitutional norms, they’re doing that, which is infinitely to be preferred to an economic policy that depends on well-meaning enlightened technocrats.”Some lawmakers, especially on the left, have raised the notion that relying on congressional action to support the economy improves democratic legitimacy..css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-k59gj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;width:100%;}.css-1e2usoh{font-family:inherit;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;border-top:1px solid #ccc;padding:10px 0px 10px 0px;background-color:#fff;}.css-1jz6h6z{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;text-align:left;}.css-1t412wb{box-sizing:border-box;margin:8px 15px 0px 15px;cursor:pointer;}.css-hhzar2{-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform ease 0.5s;-webkit-transition:transform ease 0.5s;transition:transform ease 0.5s;}.css-t54hv4{-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-1r2j9qz{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-e1ipqs{font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;padding:0px 30px 0px 0px;}.css-e1ipqs a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-e1ipqs a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1o76pdf{visibility:show;height:100%;padding-bottom:20px;}.css-1sw9s96{visibility:hidden;height:0px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cz6wm{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’nyt-franklin’,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:left;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cz6wm{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1cz6wm:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1cz6wm{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}Frequently Asked Questions About the New Stimulus PackageThe stimulus payments would be $1,400 for most recipients. Those who are eligible would also receive an identical payment for each of their children. To qualify for the full $1,400, a single person would need an adjusted gross income of $75,000 or below. For heads of household, adjusted gross income would need to be $112,500 or below, and for married couples filing jointly that number would need to be $150,000 or below. To be eligible for a payment, a person must have a Social Security number. Read more. Buying insurance through the government program known as COBRA would temporarily become a lot cheaper. COBRA, for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, generally lets someone who loses a job buy coverage via the former employer. But it’s expensive: Under normal circumstances, a person may have to pay at least 102 percent of the cost of the premium. Under the relief bill, the government would pay the entire COBRA premium from April 1 through Sept. 30. A person who qualified for new, employer-based health insurance someplace else before Sept. 30 would lose eligibility for the no-cost coverage. And someone who left a job voluntarily would not be eligible, either. Read moreThis credit, which helps working families offset the cost of care for children under 13 and other dependents, would be significantly expanded for a single year. More people would be eligible, and many recipients would get a bigger break. The bill would also make the credit fully refundable, which means you could collect the money as a refund even if your tax bill was zero. “That will be helpful to people at the lower end” of the income scale, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Read more.There would be a big one for people who already have debt. You wouldn’t have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt if you qualify for loan forgiveness or cancellation — for example, if you’ve been in an income-driven repayment plan for the requisite number of years, if your school defrauded you or if Congress or the president wipes away $10,000 of debt for large numbers of people. This would be the case for debt forgiven between Jan. 1, 2021, and the end of 2025. Read more.The bill would provide billions of dollars in rental and utility assistance to people who are struggling and in danger of being evicted from their homes. About $27 billion would go toward emergency rental assistance. The vast majority of it would replenish the so-called Coronavirus Relief Fund, created by the CARES Act and distributed through state, local and tribal governments, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That’s on top of the $25 billion in assistance provided by the relief package passed in December. To receive financial assistance — which could be used for rent, utilities and other housing expenses — households would have to meet several conditions. Household income could not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, at least one household member must be at risk of homelessness or housing instability, and individuals would have to qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced financial hardship (directly or indirectly) because of the pandemic. Assistance could be provided for up to 18 months, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Lower-income families that have been unemployed for three months or more would be given priority for assistance. Read more.“This legislation has everything to do with restoring the confidence of the American people in democracy and in their government, and if we can’t respond to the pain of working families today, we don’t deserve to be here,” said Senator Bernie Sanders of the Biden bill, known as the American Rescue Plan Act.Republicans unanimously opposed the Biden legislation, but it has not been quite the scorched-earth opposition to deficit-widening action seen during the Obama administration.A signing ceremony last April for one of the several rounds of pandemic relief that the Trump administration put together with bipartisan support last year.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesAs evidenced by previous rounds of pandemic relief, there has been enough common ground between Democrats and Republicans to reach bipartisan agreements of relatively large scale, including the $2 trillion CARES Act enacted last March.“A relief package like this one might not have been everything both parties wanted, but a compromise deal that provides help to Americans is better than no deal at all,” said Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, at the outset of the House debate on a $900 billion bipartisan bill in late December.All in all, Congress and the Trump and Biden administrations have authorized about $6 trillion in pandemic relief spending over the last year, about 28 percent of 2019 G.D.P. (Less than that will ultimately be spent, because the economy’s improvement has left some programs with more money allocated than they needed.)The bipartisan agreement around many of the components of the pandemic aid legislation suggests a future model for how the United States government responds to economic crises. For example, in the past the federal government has extended the duration that jobless people are eligible for unemployment insurance payments during recessions, but has not expanded the size of those payments.The CARES Act, by contrast, increased unemployment checks by $600 a week, aiming to replace the income lost by those forced out of work. Subsequent legislation has included smaller increases. Economists generally say that this has been a well-targeted policy that has helped temporarily jobless people to keep paying their bills — and has softened the collapse of demand in the economy.“We’re at a watershed moment where this type of tool will be used in future recessions,” said Constance Hunter, chief economist of the global accounting firm KPMG. “What we did here is different and unique, and we are going to learn whether it was effective at providing a bridge to the other side of the pandemic.”There are risks in the Biden administration’s approach, of course. If the concerns described by Mr. Summers and Mr. Blanchard about the size of the new relief bill materialize, and the result is excessive inflation or some type of crisis, Democrats will pay a price for their actions.But that’s the thing about democracy: It has much clearer mechanisms for holding elected officials accountable for their economic policy decisions than it does for scrutinizing appointed experts for their interest rate policies. If Americans don’t like the results, they have a straightforward way to make it known: at the ballot box in November 2022 and November 2024.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Presses Economic Aid Plan, Rejecting Inflation Fears

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateWhen the Checks Run OutThe Economy in 9 ChartsThe First 6 MonthsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBiden Presses Economic Aid Plan, Rejecting Inflation FearsDespite a better-than-expected jobs report, administration officials stressed that millions of workers still needed help from a proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus package.President Biden continued to press his case for his stimulus plan on Friday after a stronger-than-expected jobs report.Credit…Al Drago for The New York TimesJim Tankersley and March 5, 2021, 6:58 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — With a $1.9 trillion economic aid package on the brink of passing Congress and the pace of vaccinations picking up, some economists, Republican lawmakers and Wall Street traders are increasingly raising a counterintuitive concern: that the economy, still emerging from its precipitous pandemic-induced drop, could be on a path toward overheating.The Biden administration rejected that argument again on Friday. Despite a stronger-than-expected jobs report, the president and his aides said there was still a long way to go to ensure the benefits of the recovery flow to workers hardest hit by the pandemic, who are predominantly people of color.Passing President Biden’s recovery plan, they said, remains essential to a full and equitable recovery.“Black workers are still facing an economic crisis,” Janelle Jones, the chief economist at the Labor Department, said in an interview. “We cannot talk about recovery and taking our foot off the gas while these workers are still facing economic devastation.”For those workers, Ms. Jones said, “It really matters what we do in the next two weeks.”But some Republicans, saying the economy no longer needs an injection of nearly $2 trillion in borrowed money, continued to urge Democrats to pare back the stimulus package, which Senate Democrats have modified slightly in recent days.On Wall Street, there were signs this week that investors are beginning to believe that such a large package could spur some resurgence in inflation, though there is little to suggest that markets anticipate a return to the dangerous levels of the 1970s, as a few prominent economists have warned.Mr. Biden continued to press his case for the full $1.9 trillion plan in afternoon events at the White House, meeting with top economic advisers and then hosting a round-table discussion to build support for the plan.“Today’s jobs report shows that the American Rescue Plan is urgently needed,” the president told reporters before the start of the meeting with aides. He said the jobs gains in February were likely because of a $900 billion relief bill Congress and President Donald J. Trump approved in December, and he warned that without more assistance, further gains “are going to be slow.”“We can’t go one step forward and two steps backward,” Mr. Biden said.In the Senate, lawmakers began voting on a flurry of amendments to the bill, which could pass as soon as Saturday. Democrats huddled to find agreement on last-minute tweaks to the legislation to appease centrists in their caucus.Republicans on Capitol Hill have locked arms against the bill. Some senators say their opposition comes, in part, from fears that Mr. Biden’s plan would pour too much money into a recovery that is accelerating on its own.The Biden plan “risks overheating an already recovering economy,” Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, said this week on the Senate floor, “leading to higher inflation, hurting middle-class families and threatening long-term growth.”Mr. Portman cited inflation concerns voiced in recent weeks by the Harvard economist Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and top economic aide to President Barack Obama. In an email this week to reporters, an aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, highlighted reports of rising fears of American inflation among top British officials.Mr. Biden has ambitious ideas for other big programs this year, including a major infrastructure package, further fueling concerns about economic overheating. The administration insists those plans would not be inflationary because they would be offset by tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, but some economists and Democrats say they could end up being at least partly financed by deficit spending.Inflation expectations have climbed gradually since the November election, and moved up slightly after a strong jobs report on Friday. Even so, commonly cited measures show that investors are penciling in price gains just a bit above 2 percent in coming years. That is consistent with the Fed’s stated goals, and not the kind of destabilizing, runaway price gains that the economy experienced a generation ago.A closed restaurant in Phoenix this week. The president and his aides said there was still a long way to go to ensure the benefits of the recovery flow to workers hardest hit by the pandemic.Credit…Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesStill, the fact that investors are expecting growth to surge this year has mattered for markets.Bond yields have been climbing since the start of 2021, as investors anticipate a little more inflation and a rapid economic bounceback. That adjustment has caused stock prices to drop in recent weeks. Higher interest rates make it more expensive for companies to borrow and can attract money away from the stock market.As investors look for a pickup in growth and slightly faster price increases, watchers of the Federal Reserve have begun to expect that it might begin to slow its big bond purchases, which it has been using to bolster growth, and raise interest rates sooner than had been anticipated.The central bank has promised to leave interest rates near zero until the economy has achieved full employment and inflation is above 2 percent and expected to stay there for some time. If markets expect the economy to reach those goals sooner rather than later, that could be seen as an expression of optimism.“If you look at why they’re moving up, it’s to do with expectations of a return to more normal levels, more mandate-consistent levels of inflation, higher growth, an opening economy,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said of rates during a recent congressional testimony.But markets are forward-looking: The economy has a long way to go before it will be back to full strength. Administration officials have vowed not to be distracted by improvements in high-profile numbers, like overall job growth, and instead keep pouring fuel on the recovery until historically disadvantaged groups have regained jobs, income and the benefits of other measures of economic progress.Job gains last month came in above economists’ forecasts, but it would take more than two years of hiring at the current level to return the labor market to its employment level in early 2020.In addition, while all demographic groups continue to feel economic pain, the fallout has not been evenly spread. Employment for Black workers remains nearly 8 percent below its prepandemic level, while employment for white workers is down about 5 percent. Black workers tend to lose jobs heavily during recessions, then gain them back only after a long stretch of job growth.Ms. Jones, the labor department economist, said the administration was determined to accelerate the recovery for marginalized workers, noting that Black workers, in particular, took years longer to recover from the 2008 financial crisis — a delay that left lasting scars on those households.“Nothing about the state of the world means that Black workers have to face a large amount of labor market slack,” she said. “We can choose the benchmark that we actually want to restore the economy to.”People waiting last month at a food bank in Pflugerville, Texas. The Biden administration says its stimulus package is still necessary to accelerate the recovery for marginalized workers.Credit…Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesBut even some economists who have favored substantial government spending in the past, most prominently Mr. Summers and Olivier Blanchard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, have warned that Congress risks overdoing it by pouring so much money into the economy at a time when it is already healing.Mr. Blanchard posted on Twitter on Friday morning, comparing the big fiscal package with a snake swallowing an elephant: “The snake was too ambitious. The elephant will pass, but maybe with some damage.”Mr. Summers warned in a recent opinion piece in The Washington Post that the Biden package is going to pump far more money into the economy than it is missing, arguing that the monthly amount “is at least three times the size of the output shortfall.”One major concern is that as the government pushes money into an economy that does not need so much support, too many dollars will end up chasing too few goods and services.Fed officials do not believe that big spending is going to fundamentally change the way consumers and businesses think about prices. Inflation has been low for decades, and businesses often report that they have little pricing power in a world where technology and globalization makes competition fierce.Inflation is likely to jump temporarily this year as economic data rebounds from its very low readings last year and people spend their savings on missed vacations and restaurant dinners. But Fed officials have said there is little to suggest that such an increase would last.“I think it’s a constructive thing for people to point out potential risks,” Mr. Powell said this week during a question-and-answer session. “But I do think it’s more likely that what happens in the next year or so is going to amount to prices moving up but not staying up — and certainly not staying up to the point where they would move inflation expectations materially above 2 percent.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Investors Are Focused on Treasurys. Here’s What the Fed Could Do.

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyInvestors Are Focused on Treasurys. Here’s What the Fed Could Do.Central bankers have said they aren’t worried about a pop in longer-term bond yields. If they do become concerned, they have some options.The Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, may be asked about higher bond yields during a scheduled event on Thursday.Credit…Al Drago for The New York TimesMarch 4, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETLonger-term interest rates have jumped in recent weeks, a move that has been broadly interpreted as a sign that investors are betting higher growth and slightly faster inflation may be right around the corner.Federal Reserve officials have mostly brushed off the increase to date, saying it is a signal of economic optimism. But many investors have wondered whether the central bank might feel a need to intervene. The adjustment has at times roiled stock markets, which tend to sink when interest rates increase, and it could weigh on consumer spending and growth if it is sustained and borrowing becomes more expensive.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, is set to speak at noon on Thursday at a Wall Street Journal event, where he may be asked to address the recent bond activity.Many on or adjacent to Wall Street have begun to put forward a two-part question: They are curious whether the Fed will step in to keep rates low and, if so, how. Below, we run through a few of the most likely options, along with plain-English explainers of what they mean and how they work.First, a little background.The yield on a 10-year Treasury note, a reference point for the cost of many types of borrowing, has popped since the start of the year. After dropping as low as about 0.5 percent in 2020, the yield jumped to 1.6 percent during the day last Thursday. It hovered around 1.5 percent by Wednesday.That is still very low by historical standards: The 10-year yield was above 3 percent as recently as 2018, and in the 1980s it was double digits. But a rapid adjustment in longer-term rates around the world has drawn attention. Global officials like Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, have voiced concern about the increases.U.S. officials have generally painted the adjustment as a sign that investors are growing more optimistic about growth as millions of Americans begin receiving Covid-19 vaccines and the government supports the economy with spending. And while markets appear to be penciling in slightly higher inflation, Fed officials had been hoping to push price expectations — which had been slipping — a little bit higher.“If you look at why they’re moving up, it’s to do with expectations of a return to more normal levels, more mandate-consistent levels of inflation, higher growth, an opening economy,” Mr. Powell said of rates during a hearing on Feb. 23.But last week’s gyrations prompted U.S. officials to make clear they’re watching to make sure that market moves don’t counteract the Fed’s policies, which make borrowing inexpensive to encourage spending and help the economy recover more quickly.“I am paying close attention to market developments — some of those moves last week and the speed of those moves caught my eye,” Lael Brainard, a Fed governor, said at a Council on Foreign Relations webcast on Tuesday. “I would be concerned if I saw disorderly conditions or persistent tightening in financial conditions that could slow progress toward our goal.”The question is what the Fed could do if rates get too high.Lael Brainard, a Fed governor, said she was monitoring market developments. Credit…Brian Snyder/ReutersBuying longer-term bonds is one option.The Fed’s most obvious choice to push back on a surge in longer-term bond yields is to just buy more of the bonds in question: If the central banks snaps up five-year, 10-year or 30-year securities, the added demand will push up prices, forcing yields — which move in the opposite direction — lower.The Fed is already buying $120 billion in mortgage-backed securities and Treasury bonds each month, a program it started last year both to soothe markets and to make many types of credit cheaper. Right now, it’s purchasing many types of bonds, but it could shake up that approach to focus on longer-term debt.There’s precedent for such a maneuver. The Fed bought long-term bonds to push down interest rates and bolster the economy in 2011. A similar policy was used in the 1960s. Economists and business networks often call such policies either “maturity extension” — shifting future purchases toward longer-dated debt — or “Operation Twist,” which tends to refer to selling short-term notes while buying longer-term bonds.Promising to ‘cap’ certain yields is another.The Fed’s more drastic option is called “yield curve control.” While it sounds nerdy, the approach is simple. The central bank could just pledge to keep a certain rate — say the five-year Treasury yield — below a certain level and buy as many bonds as necessary to keep that cap in place.Other central banks around the world, including the Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank of Australia, have used yield curve control. But the tool carries risks: For example, it could force the Fed to buy huge sums of bonds and vastly expand its balance sheet in a worst-case scenario. That could matter for perceptions, since politicians sometimes criticize the Fed’s growing holdings, and it might have implications for market functioning.Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, told reporters on Tuesday that she was not worried about the yield curve yet. But she suggested that if the Fed did need to do something, shifting to long-term purchases would probably be preferable.“Right now I don’t think of yield curve control as something we would implement, myself, right away,” she said.The Fed can take several steps to deal with rockiness in the bond markets.Credit…Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Powell Says Better Child Care Policies Might Lift Women in Work Force

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateWhen the Checks Run OutThe Economy in 9 ChartsThe First 6 MonthsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPowell Says Better Child Care Policies Might Lift Women in Work ForceThe Fed chair said better caregiving options was an “area worth looking at” for Congress, while reiterating the central bank’s full-employment pledge.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair. He said that affordable child care could help women regain a foothold in the labor market.Credit…Al Drago for The New York TimesFeb. 24, 2021, 5:48 p.m. ETJerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, suggested on Wednesday that improved child care support policies from the government might help pull more women into the labor market.The Fed chief studiously avoided commenting on specific government policy proposals during three hours of wide-ranging testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. But he did acknowledge, in response to a question, that enabling better options for affordable child-care is an “area worth looking at” for Congress.“Our peers, our competitors, advanced economy democracies, have a more built-up function for child care, and they wind up having substantially higher labor force participation for women,” Mr. Powell said, answering a question from Representative Cindy Axne, an Iowa Democrat. “We used to lead the world in female labor force participation, a quarter-century ago, and we no longer do. It may just be that those policies have put us behind.”The Fed chair, who had also testified before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, repeatedly refused to weigh in on the $1.9 trillion spending package the Biden administration has proposed or any of its individual provisions. The central bank is independent of politics, and it tries to avoid getting involved in partisan debates.But Mr. Powell did voice qualified support for a few broader ideas — like exploring better child-care options — and he stressed that in the near-term, it is critical to help workers who have been displaced from their jobs during the pandemic. He made it clear that the labor market remained far from healed, that the pandemic’s economic fallout has disproportionately hurt women and minorities, and that both Congress and the central bank have a role to play in supporting vulnerable families until the economy has recovered more fully.“Some parts of the economy have a long way to go,” he said Wednesday.Women’s labor force participation had climbed for decades in the United States before stalling out — and then actually dropping slightly — starting in the 1990s. As Mr. Powell alluded to, adult women in the United States hold jobs or look for them at lower rates than women in some other major advanced economies, such as Canada or Germany.Research has suggested that the divergence may be linked to child care policies. In a 2018 paper that asked why the share of Canadians who work or look for jobs had climbed even as United States labor force attachment had fallen, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco pointed out that most of the gap owed to different outcomes for women. And they pointed to caregiving policy differences as a likely culprit.“Parental leave policies in Canada provide strong incentives to remain attached to the labor force following the arrival of a new child,” the paper, written by the San Francisco Fed president, Mary C. Daly, and co-authors, pointed out. “The contrast between the incentives Canada and the United States offer prime-age workers to remain attached to the labor force is clear.”The fact that child care responsibilities fall heavily on women in the United States has come under a brighter spotlight during the pandemic, which has shuttered schools and disproportionately left women bearing added child care responsibilities during the traditional workday.While women lost jobs less dramatically than men during the 2009 recession, their employment rate is down by about as much as men’s during the pandemic crisis. And when it comes to labor force participation, which measures the share of people who are either working or looking, women have lost more ground.Female participation dropped 2.1 percentage points to 55.7 percent in January, compared with February 2020, whereas men’s participation has dropped 1.7 points to 67.5 percent.Mr. Powell noted the disproportionate impact on Wednesday, saying that “women have taken on more of the child-care duties than men have at a time when kids are going to be at home, they’re not going to be at school in many places.”Throughout his tenure as Fed chair, Mr. Powell has been keenly focused on the job market. During the pandemic downturn, he has repeatedly said that both monetary and fiscal policymakers should support displaced workers so that they can make their way back into jobs when the economy reopens.While the Fed can help the economy and the job market to improve broadly, helping individual groups in a targeted way is generally left to elected officials, who can create more precise programs. That includes paving a clearer path to the labor market for mothers, which would mainly fall to Congress and the White House.The pandemic has shuttered schools and disproportionately left women to bear the added responsibility for looking after children during the traditional workday.Credit…Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesStill, the Fed can help to foster conditions for strong economic growth overall, which pulls people in the labor market and helps to set the stage for higher wages.Officials are trying to do that by keeping interest rates low and buying large quantities of government-backed bonds in order to keep many types of credit cheap, policies that can fuel both lending and spending. The Fed’s explicit aim is to achieve both maximum employment and slow but steady inflation that averages 2 percent over time.Mr. Powell signaled on Wednesday that interest rates, which have been at rock-bottom since March 2020, are likely to remain there for years to come. He also suggested that the Fed would be patient in slowing down its bond buying, waiting to see “substantial” further progress before changing that policy.Mr. Powell has been pledging for the past 11 months that the Fed would use its policies to help the economy get through the pandemic, but his comments have become noteworthy at a time when some lawmakers — in particular Republicans — have become worried that big government spending could fuel economic overheating that leads to rapid inflation.The Fed is tasked with keeping price gains under control. But its officials have been clear that weak price gains, not runaway ones, are the problem of the modern era. Central bankers try to keep price gains from slipping ever lower, because disinflation can be economically damaging.Mr. Powell reiterated that message Wednesday.“We live in a time when there are significant disinflationary pressures around the world,” he said, and so officials are trying to bolster prices. “We believe we can do it, we believe we will do it. It may take more than three years.”The Fed tweaked its approach to monetary policy in 2020, saying that it would aim for periods of slightly higher inflation and that it would no longer seek to cool off the economy just because the unemployment rate was falling — an approach monetary policymakers had for decades embraced as prudent. Mr. Powell’s colleague, the Fed governor Lael Brainard, explained the thinking in remarks delivered to a Harvard economics course Wednesday morning.“Removing accommodation preemptively as headline unemployment reaches low levels in anticipation of inflationary pressures that may not materialize may result in an unwarranted loss of opportunity for many Americans,” Ms. Brainard said. “It may curtail progress for racial and ethnic groups that have faced systemic challenges in the labor force.”The Fed was relatively patient in lifting interest rates after the 2007 to 2009 recession — leaving them near zero until 2015 and then raising them slowly. As they proceeded cautiously and unemployment dropped to 50-year lows, workers who had been counted out began to re-enter the labor market and employers started to go to greater lengths to recruit and train talent.“At very low levels of unemployment” the United States “saw benefits going to those at the lower end of the spectrum — which means disproportionately African Americans, other minorities, and women,” Mr. Powell said. “With our tools, what we can do, is try to get us back to that place.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Powell Focuses on Economic Need at Key Moment in Markets and Politics

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPowell Focuses on Economic Need at Key Moment in Markets and PoliticsThe Federal Reserve will continue to support the economy, its chair, Jerome H. Powell, pledged, even as concerns about inflation rise.Jerome H. Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in December. He told lawmakers on Tuesday that America’s economy is a long way from recovered.Credit…Al Drago for The New York TimesFeb. 23, 2021Updated 6:57 p.m. ETThe economy is down nearly 10 million jobs since last February, prospects for a rapid recovery — while brighter — remain far from assured, and as Democrats try to move a $1.9 trillion relief package through Congress, Republicans argue that it’s too big and could lead to inflation that would hurt consumers and businesses.Speaking against that tense backdrop on Tuesday, the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, delivered a blunt message to lawmakers that the economic outlook remains wildly uncertain and that the central bank must continue its extraordinary efforts to support the economy.It’s a pledge Mr. Powell has made many times in the last 11 months, but it also resonated through financial markets, which had begun to quiver as investors worried that a rapidly improving economy would prompt the Fed to pull back on its efforts to bolster growth.In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Powell declined to weigh in on the Biden administration’s spending plans but pushed back on the idea raised by multiple Republican senators that the economy is on the cusp of running too hot and sparking inflation.“The economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain,” Mr. Powell said. “There is a long way to go.”To bolster growth, the Fed plans to encourage lending and spending by holding interest rates near zero, where they have been since March, and by continuing to buy large quantities of bonds to keep money pumping through the financial system. Investors have grown concerned that the Fed might slow those bond purchases sooner rather than later if inflation begins to rise.Those worried investors had driven down stocks for five consecutive days. On Tuesday, the S&P 500 fell nearly 2 percent before snapping back after Mr. Powell’s remarks.In the bond market, interest rates on longer-term government debt have been climbing, reaching their highest point in a year this week. Those rates are the basis for corporate borrowing and mortgages, and their rise contributed to the stock market’s jitters.“We’re in one of these market mania moments in which there’s an intense focus on inflation,” and “he was very sanguine, very calm,” said Julia Coronado, founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives and a former Fed economist. “He kept turning attention back to the labor market.”Mr. Powell reiterated that the Fed plans to keep buying bonds until it sees “substantial further progress” toward its twin goals of full employment and stable inflation. America can “expect us to move carefully, and patiently, and with a lot of advance warning” when it comes to slowing that support, Mr. Powell said.Joblessness has come down sharply after surging last year, but the official unemployment rate remains nearly double its February 2020 level. Job losses have been more acute for members of minority groups and those with less education. Though spending has bounced back, activity in the service industry is still subdued.Vaccines are feeding hopes for a stronger and more complete 2021 rebound. Prices are expected to rise temporarily in the coming months, both compared with the weak readings from last year and, potentially, as consumers spend down savings amassed during the lockdown on restaurant dinners and vacations.But Fed officials have been clear that they do not expect inflation to pick up in a lasting way and that they plan to look past temporary increases when thinking about their policies. Price pressures have been stubbornly tepid, rather than too high, for decades and across many advanced economies.Mr. Powell said that longer-running inflation trends do not “change on a dime” and that if prices start to rise in an alarming way, the Fed has the tools to fight that.“I really do not expect that we’ll be in a situation where inflation rises to troubling levels,” Mr. Powell said. “This is not a problem for this time, as near as I can figure.”He also pushed back on the idea that government spending is poised to send prices rocketing out of control.“There perhaps once was a strong connection between budget deficits and inflation — there really hasn’t been lately,” Mr. Powell said. He noted that while he does expect inflation to jump around in coming months, there is a distinction between a temporary pop in prices and a sustained increase.Still, he declined to weigh in on how much more government support is appropriate.“I, today, will really stay away from fiscal policy,” he said near the very start of the hearing. He went on to tiptoe around or simply decline to answer questions about the minimum wage and the size and various components of the White House’s spending proposal. At one point, he was asked whether he would be “cool” with passing the spending bill or not.“I think by being either cool or uncool, I would have to be expressing an opinion,” Mr. Powell said.The Fed is politically independent and steers away from partisan issues, but it has been providing advice to policymakers in Congress and weighing in on socioeconomic disparities and financial risks tied to climate change over the last year. Some of that outspokenness has drawn Republican attention.Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, warned on Tuesday that the central bank should avoid moving beyond its core duties.“As noble as the goals might be, issues such as climate change and racial inequality are simply not the purview of our central bank,” Mr. Toomey said.Mr. Powell did talk about how strong labor markets help people on the margins — those who aren’t trained or those with criminal records — to succeed. He made it clear that the central bank is hoping to return to a strong labor market, like the one that preceded the pandemic.The Fed’s bond purchases can help to bolster the economy by lowering longer-term interest rates and by prodding investors out of safer assets, like government bonds, and into stocks and other more active uses of their cash.Mr. Powell said the economy over the last three months hasn’t “really been making” the substantial progress the Fed is looking for as a precondition for slowing its purchases, as job gains have slowed. But he said there’s an expectation that progress should “pick up as the pandemic subsides.”When it comes to the Fed’s main interest rate, the federal funds rate, which helps to guide borrowing costs across the economy, Mr. Powell also struck a cautious tone. The Fed wants to achieve full employment, hit 2 percent on inflation and believe that the economy is on track for even faster price gains before raising that rate.“Right now, our focus is on providing the economy the support it needs,” Mr. Powell said at one point, summing up his message.Matt Phillips More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    As Winter Sweeps the South, Fed Officials Focus on Climate Change

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAs Winter Sweeps the South, Fed Officials Focus on Climate ChangeA top Federal Reserve official says climate scenario analysis could be valuable in making sure that banks mind their climate-tied weak spots.A family in Austin, Texas, kept warm by a fire outside their apartment on Wednesday. They lost power early Monday morning.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesFeb. 18, 2021Updated 2:28 p.m. ETA top Federal Reserve official issued a stark warning on Thursday morning: Banks and other lenders need to prepare themselves for the realities of a world racked by climate change, and regulators must play a key role in ensuring that they do.“Climate change is already imposing substantial economic costs and is projected to have a profound effect on the economy at home and abroad,” Lael Brainard, one of the central bank’s six Washington-based governors, said at an Institute of International Finance event.“Financial institutions that do not put in place frameworks to measure, monitor and manage climate-related risks could face outsized losses on climate-sensitive assets caused by environmental shifts, by a disorderly transition to a low-carbon economy or by a combination of both,” she continued.The grim backdrop to her comments is the abnormally cold weather walloping Texas — leaving millions without electricity and underlining the fact that state and local authorities in some places are underprepared for severe weather that is expected to become more frequent.Such disruptions also matter for the financial system. They pose risks to insurers, can disrupt the payment system and make otherwise reasonable financial bets dicey. That is why it is important for the Fed to understand and plan for them, central bank officials have increasingly said.Ms. Brainard pointed out Thursday that financial companies were addressing the risk by “responding to investors’ demands for climate-friendly portfolios,” among other changes. But she added that regulators like the Fed must also adapt. She raised the possibility that bank overseers might need new supervisory tools, given the challenges associated with climate oversight, which include long time horizons and limited data due to the lack of precedent.“Scenario analysis may be a helpful tool” to assess “implications of climate-related risks under a wide range of assumptions,” Ms. Brainard said, though she was careful to distinguish that such scenarios would be distinct from full-fledged stress tests.Weighing in on climate risks publicly is new territory for the Fed. Officials spent years tiptoeing around the topic, which is politically charged in the United States. The central bank only fully joined a global coalition dedicated to research on girding the financial system against climate risk late last year. The possibility of climate-tied stress tests has been especially contentious, and has recently drawn criticism from Republican lawmakers.“We have seen banks make politically motivated and public relations-focused decisions to limit credit availability to these industries,” more than 40 House Republican lawmakers said in a December letter, specifically referring to coal, oil and gas. They added that “climate change stress tests could perpetuate this trend, allowing regulated banks to cite negative impacts on their supervisory tests as an excuse to defund or divest from these crucial industries.”Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, and Randal K. Quarles, the vice chair for supervision — both named to their jobs by President Donald J. Trump — suggested in response that the Fed was in the early stages of researching its role in climate oversight.“We would note that it has long been the policy of the Federal Reserve to not dictate to banks what lawful industries they can and cannot serve, as those business decisions should be made solely by each institution,” they wrote last month.Mr. Powell and Mr. Quarles echoed the lawmakers’ assertion that the Fed’s bank stress tests measured bank capital needs over a much shorter time frame than climate change, though they said the Fed was working to help banks manage their risks, including those related to climate.The central bank is quickly moving toward greater activism on the topic. Its Supervision Climate Committee, announced last month, will work “to develop an appropriate program” to supervise banks’s climate-related risks, Ms. Brainard said Thursday. The Fed is also co-chair of a task force on climate-related financial risks at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a global regulatory group.Though the central bank is politically independent, President Biden has placed climate at the center of his administration’s economic priorities. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has pledged to “fight the climate crisis.”Ms. Brainard, the Fed’s last remaining governor appointed by President Barack Obama, has been a leading voice in pushing for greater attention to climate issues, speaking on the matter at a conference in 2019. So has Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, who held that conference.“It is a fact that severe weather events are increasing,” Ms. Daly said during a webcast event this week, noting that “half the country is in a winter storm, and then in the summer they’ll be in a heat wave.”She said the Fed needed to figure out how to deal with potentially disruptive risks as they emerged given that it is responsible for the nation’s economic health, works with other regulators to protect the safety of the financial system and is the steward of the payments system — the guts of the financial system in which money is transferred and checks are processed.“We have to understand what the risks are, and think about how those risks can be mitigated,” Ms. Daly said. “Our responsibility is to look forward, and ask not just what is happening today, but what are the risks.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen and Regulators Met Amid GameStop Frenzy to Discuss Market Volatility

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyYellen and Regulators Met Amid GameStop Frenzy to Discuss Market VolatilityThe Treasury Secretary met with her fellow regulators to discuss whether markets need new attention after the rise of so-called “meme stocks.”Treasury secretary Janet L. Yellen called fellow regulators together to discuss recent market volatility.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesJeanna Smialek and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 6:58 p.m. ETTreasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen met with fellow regulators on Thursday to discuss recent market volatility and few wild weeks on Wall Street, in which a crush of retail investors sent stocks soaring — in GameStop’s case, more than 1,700 percent — and then plunging back to earth.The circumstances surrounding the trades that drove the spikes, including the trading platforms like Robinhood that enabled them, have drawn scrutiny in recent weeks, prompting Ms. Yellen to convene a meeting with top financial regulators. The risk to investors of the volatile trading was shown on Thursday, when GameStop fell 42 percent.The entire episode has caused Washington’s financial overseers to examine whether markets — in becoming both more democratized by technology and more subject to the whims of social media — have changed in ways that require new attention and potentially different regulation.Ms. Yellen on Thursday met with officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.In a statement released after the meeting, the Treasury Department said regulators “discussed market functionality and recent trading practices in equity, commodity and related markets” and said that they “believe the core infrastructure was resilient during high volatility and heavy trading volume.”Earlier in the day, Ms. Yellen told Good Morning America that “we really need to make sure that our financial markets are functioning properly, efficiently, and that investors are protected.” She added that regulators “need to understand deeply what happened before we go to action, but certainly we’re looking carefully at these events.”The statement released Thursday evening echoed those remarks, noting that regulators determined that the S.E.C. should release “a timely study of the events” and that “the S.E.C. and C.F.T.C. are reviewing whether trading practices are consistent with investor protection and fair and efficient markets.” It made no hint at any imminent changes.Investors had been piling into GameStop, AMC, BlackBerry and other assets largely to see how far they could drive up the price, rather than because the companies had solid underlying fundamentals. They discussed their efforts on internet forums and caused wild market volatility in the process.Many of the trades were facilitated by the popular trading app Robinhood, which had to temporarily limit some trading to escape financial problems as huge numbers of stocks changed hands.The gyrations served to underline that a new breed of investor can exert substantial influence, at least when it comes to individual stocks. Robinhood’s trading suspensions also highlighted the limitations of the platform and drew swift criticism from lawmakers in both parties.The S.E.C. said that it was “closely monitoring” the situation last week and that it would “act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws.”While the S.E.C. and, to a more limited extent, the C.F.T.C. have the most jurisdiction over the issues at hand, the Fed has a financial stability mandate and market insight. The New York Fed’s trading desk constantly talks with Wall Street. Fed officials have consistently struck a watchful but unworried tone when asked about GameStop in recent days.“I’m glad that Janet Yellen is getting all the regulators together to look at what happened,” Loretta Mester, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said on CNBC on Thursday morning. “We should be monitoring to make sure that volatility doesn’t spill over into other parts of the financial market. But at this point this is not one of those kinds of situations.”The central bank’s chair, Jerome H. Powell, declined to comment on GameStop specifically last week. But he pushed back on the idea that the Fed’s low interest rate and bond-buying policies are the big drivers behind recent run-ups in stocks.“Financial stability vulnerabilities overall are moderate,” he said at a news conference last week. “If you look at where it’s really been driving asset prices, really in the last couple of months, it isn’t monetary policy. It’s been expectations about vaccines, and it’s also fiscal policy.”Even if the shift that GameStop signifies is not a risk to the financial system, it could prod regulators to look into new rules, especially given the concerns of lawmakers who have already called for the S.E.C. and others to address the situation. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, sent a letter to the S.E.C. last week demanding that it respond with an explanation of how the agency will address the market distortions.“The commission must review recent market activity affecting GameStop and other companies and act to ensure that markets reflect real value, rather than the highly leveraged bets of wealthy traders or those who seek to inflict financial damage on those traders,” Ms. Warren wrote.Securities lawyers said much of the response will depend on what the regulators determine drove the market volatility around GameStop, including the role that retail investors played, whether there was any market manipulation and if there was adequate disclosure by market participants — like Robinhood — that facilitated the trading.When it comes to market manipulation, James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, said he expects the S.E.C. will focus on what role, if any, big investors like hedge funds played in moving the stocks, as well as whether any high-frequency trading strategies exacerbated the spike.Mr. Angel said it’s possible that high frequency traders engaged in a strategy known as momentum ignition, which involves initiating a series of trades with the intent to ignite a rapid move in a stock’s price.“Any kind of order ignition trades designed to manipulate prices are the kind of thing we want them to investigate,” he said.The role that retail investors played will be harder to address. Many of the small investors who drove up the price of GameStop did so in order to “squeeze” hedge funds who had bet on the share price falling. They communicated their motivations in public, on chat boards and social media, did not hide their intent to hurt investors on the other side of the trade and often boasted about losing money.Barbara Roper, the director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said policing that type of behavior will be more difficult for the S.E.C.“We’re better at regulating professional market participants than figuring out what to do when the investing population itself is driving this,” Ms. Roper said.The S.E.C. is likely to focus on Robinhood and other technology platforms that enabled the investing, including allowing investors to trade options — a financial product that appears to have exacerbated some of the huge price swings in GameStop. Options are essentially contracts that give the buyer the right to buy or sell a stock at a given price at some point in the future. That type of trading can be both risky and disruptive, market experts said.“The options trading rules are overdue for review,” Ms. Roper said. “There are supposed to be safeguards in place that limit option trading to more sophisticated traders or at least make sure investors understand the risks.”Instead, Robinhood and other platforms allowed any investor to buy options with the push of a button.“The S.E.C. will need a hypothesis. Mine is that the problem is largely a problem of leverage and that leverage comes about by the trading of options rather than individual shares,” said James Cox, a securities professor at Duke University School of Law. “We may need to really think whether there needs to be a limit on how many options a person can have and is able to execute.”[Read more about how options trading might be fueling a stock market bubble.]In addition to the risks of options trading, the S.E.C. may also focus on whether any of the incentives and marketing that lured investors to new financial technology platforms was misleading. Many companies, including Robinhood, have touted “commission-free” investing, which many investors may have misunderstood, said Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets.“The reason many of these people are in the trading arena at all is that they were induced into it by a misleading claim that trading is ‘free,’ and now many of them think there’s free money falling all over the place,” Mr. Kelleher said. “The S.E.C. should take the position that anyone claiming directly or indirectly that trading is free is false and misleading to a reasonable investor.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More