Government Bonds

More stories

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Limit Workarounds: The Coin, the Constitution, Premium Bonds

    by

    As Congress hurtles toward a debt limit showdown, ways to work around it are garnering attention.Move over, trillion-dollar coin, there is a new debt limit workaround in town — and this one sounds more sophisticated, which some of its proponents have suggested could make it more likely to work.For years, debt limit skeptics have argued that the United States can get around the cap on how much it can borrow by minting a large-denomination coin, depositing it in the government’s account at the Federal Reserve. Officials could then use the resulting money to pay the country’s bills. The maneuver would exploit a quirk in U.S. law, which gives the Treasury secretary wide discretion when it comes to minting platinum coins.But there have always been challenges with the idea: Treasury has expressed little appetite. It is unclear whether the Fed would take the coin. It just sounds unconventional to the point of absurdity. And now, some are arguing for a fancier-sounding alternative: premium bonds.The government typically funds itself by issuing debt in the form of financial securities called bonds and bills. They are worth a set amount after a fixed period of time — for example, $1,000 in 10 years — and they pay “coupons” twice a year in between. Typically, those coupon rates are set near market interest rates.But in the premium bond idea, the government would renew old, expiring bonds at higher coupon rates. Doing so would not technically add to the nation’s debt — if the government previously had a 10-year bond worth $1,000 outstanding, it would still have a 10-year bond worth $1,000 outstanding. But investors would pay more to hold a bond that pays $7 a year than one that pays $3.50, so promising a higher interest rate would allow Treasury to raise more money.Would those higher interest rates, which would cost the government more money, pose a problem? Not technically. The debt limit applies to the face value of outstanding federal government debt ($1,000 in our example), not future promises to pay interest.And the idea could also come in a slightly different flavor. The government could issue bonds that pay regular coupons, but which never pay back principal, or perpetual bonds. People would buy them for the long-term cash stream, and they would not add to the principal of debt outstanding.The premium bond idea has gained support from some big names. The economic commentator Matthew Yglesias brought it up in January, the Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine has written about it, and The New York Times columnist and Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman made a case for it this week.But even some proponents of premium bonds acknowledge that it could face legal challenges or damage the United States’ reputation in the eyes of investors. Plus, their design and issuance would have to happen fast.“Normally, Treasury makes changes slowly, with lots of consulting of bond market participants and advance announcement of auctions,” said Joseph E. Gagnon, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, adding that the government might have to offer a discount.But, he added, it “sure beats defaulting” and he “would argue it is better than not paying workers or retirees.”While the premium bond idea might come in different packaging, it has a lot of similarities with the coin idea. Either plan would exploit a loophole to add to government coffers without actually lifting the debt limit. Because both are seen as gimmicky, it could be hard for either to become reality.Of all the options the government could use to unilaterally get around the debt ceiling, “they are the least likely in our opinion,” said Chris Krueger, a policy analyst at TD Cowen.But a workaround that hinges on the 14th Amendment could garner broader support, Mr. Krueger said. That would leverage a clause in the Constitution that says that the validity of public debt should not be questioned.Some legal scholars contend that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion. The idea is that the government’s responsibility to pay what it owes would trump the debt limit rules — so the debt limit could be ignored.It would not be a perfect solution: The move would draw an immediate court challenge and could sow uncertainty in the bond market, even its proponents acknowledge. Still, some White House officials have looked into the option. More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    As Possible Debt Limit Crisis Nears, Wall Street Shrugs

    by

    Few investors have focused on the possibility that Congress will not raise the nation’s borrowing limit in time to avoid an economically catastrophic default.WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy chose the New York Stock Exchange on Monday to deliver his most detailed comments yet on House Republicans’ demands for raising the nation’s borrowing limit. But his comments made little impression on Wall Street, where investors continue to trade stocks and Treasury bonds under the assumption that Congress and President Biden will find a way to avoid a calamitous government default.The lack of a market panic about the talks reflects a been-there, done-that attitude that investors have increasingly taken to partisan showdowns over taxes, spending and the government’s ability to pay its bills on time, which lawmakers often resolve at the last possible moment.But there are reasons to believe that this time could play out differently, starting with the chaos in Mr. McCarthy’s caucus — and new warnings that lawmakers might have less time to raise the $31.4 trillion limit than previously thought.The next few weeks will more precisely determine how quickly the government will exhaust its ability to pay bondholders, employees, Social Security recipients and everyone else it sends money to on a regular basis. That’s because data on the government’s tax receipts for the year will come into sharper focus after Tuesday’s deadline for people to file individual income tax returns for 2022.On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs economists sounded a warning that the potential default date could be much sooner than previous forecasts — which typically pegged the date in July or August — if revenue comes in soft. “While the data are still very preliminary, weak tax collections so far in April suggest an increased probability that the debt limit deadline will be reached in the first half of June,” they wrote.Republicans are refusing to raise the borrowing cap unless Mr. Biden agrees to reduce government spending and slow the growth of the national debt, a position that risks plunging the United States into recession if the Treasury Department runs out of money to pay all its bills on time. But Mr. McCarthy has struggled to unite his Republicans around specific cuts, even though he said Monday that he will put such a plan on the House floor next week.Moderates in the Republican caucus are wary of deep cuts to popular domestic programs, like education and national parks, that would be spurred by his proposal to cap domestic spending growth at a level well below the current inflation rate. Fiscal hawks, including a faction that resisted Mr. McCarthy’s appointment as speaker and could effectively force a vote to oust him at any time, have pushed for far more aggressive reductions. They include lawmakers who have never voted to raise or suspend the debt limit, even under President Donald J. Trump, who signed three suspensions of the limit into law.Mr. McCarthy detailed his plan to fellow Republicans on Tuesday. As outlined on Monday, it would raise the limit for about a year. It would also return most domestic spending to fiscal year 2022 levels and cap its growth over a decade. Mr. McCarthy also wants to add work requirements for recipients of federal food assistance and reduce federal regulations on fossil fuel development and other projects, which he says will increase economic growth.It is unclear if enough Republicans would vote for that package to ensure its passage in the House. Senate Democrats would almost certainly reject it, as would Mr. Biden, who has said repeatedly that he expects Congress to raise the borrowing limit with no strings attached.Mr. Biden has shown no indication that he will intervene to speed up discussions over raising the limit, or seek to broker any deals in Congress to do so. The president has said he will negotiate taxes and spending levels separately from the borrowing limit. But he and his aides are refusing to engage further with Mr. McCarthy on fiscal policy until Republicans rally around a budget plan.Mr. Biden slammed Mr. McCarthy’s plan in a speech on Tuesday, saying he has “proposed huge cuts to important programs that millions of Americans count on.” Mr. Biden said that Mr. McCarthy had “threatened to become the first speaker to default on our debt unless he gets the cuts he wants.”The only market thus far to reflect stress about the debt limit is the one most attuned to it: credit default swaps, which price the risk of the government failing to make scheduled payments to bondholders. Mr. McCarthy shrugged off that stress in a question-and-answer session after his speech on Monday.“Markets go up and down,” he said.Stock and bond markets were unfazed after Mr. McCarthy’s comments. They have in recent months been far more reactive to any evidence about what the Federal Reserve will do next in its campaign to tame high inflation by raising interest rates.Some White House officials privately say they expect Republicans to step up their efforts to raise the limit if and when investors begin to worry more about negotiations. That’s what happened in 2011, when a showdown between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama nearly ended in default. Stocks plunged, and borrowing costs rose for corporations and home buyers. The damage took months to repair.Some Republicans are similarly hopeful that a wake-up on Wall Street will push Mr. Biden to change his negotiating stance, including Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.“I don’t think market participants have any idea of how bad off these negotiations are right now, which should give them pause and concern, and actually should bring the president to the table,” he said.Catie Edmondson More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Banks Are Borrowing More From the Fed: What to Know

    by

    As turmoil sweeps the United States financial system, banks are turning to the Federal Reserve for loans to get them through the squeeze.Banks are turning to the Federal Reserve’s loan programs to access funding as turmoil sweeps the financial system in the wake several high-profile bank failures.The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 followed by Signature Bank on March 12 prompted depositors to pull their money from some banks and sent the stock prices for financial firms on a roller-coaster ride. The tumult has left some institutions looking for a ready source of cash — either to pay back customers or to make sure they have enough money on hand to weather a rough patch.That is where the Fed comes in. The central bank was founded in 1913 partly to serve as a backstop to the banking system — it can loan financial institutions money against their assets in a pinch, which can help banks raise cash more quickly than they would be able to if they had to sell those securities on the open market.But the Fed is now going further than that: Central bankers on March 12 created a program that is lending to banks against their financial assets as if those securities were still worth their original value. Why? As the Fed has raised interest rates to contain inflation over the past year, bonds and mortgage debt that paid lower rate of interest became less valuable.By lending against the assets at their original price instead of their lower market value, the Fed can insulate banks from having to sell those securities at big losses. That could reassure depositors and stave off bank runs.Two key programs together lent $163.9 billion this week, according to Fed data released on Wednesday — roughly in line with $164.8 billion a week earlier. That is much higher than normal. The report usually shows banks borrowing less than $10 billion at the Fed’s so-called “discount window” program.The elevated lending underlines a troubling reality: Stress continues to course through the banking system. The question is whether the government’s response, including a new central bank lending program, will be enough to quell it.A Little HistoryBefore diving into what the fresh figures mean, it’s important to understand how the Fed’s lending programs work.The first, and more traditional, is the discount window, affectionately called “disco” by financial wonks. It is the Fed’s original tool: At its founding, the central bank didn’t buy and sell securities as it does today, but it could lend to banks against collateral.In the modern era, though, borrowing from the discount window has been stigmatized. There is a perception in the financial industry that if a big bank taps it, it must be a sign of distress. Borrower identities are released, though it’s on a two-year delay. Its most frequent users are community banks, though some big regional lenders like Bancorp used it in 2020 at the onset of the pandemic. Fed officials have tweaked the program’s terms over the years to try to make it more attractive during times of trouble, but with mixed results.Enter the Fed’s new facility, which is like the discount window on steroids. Officially called the Bank Term Funding Program, it leverages emergency lending powers that the Fed has had since the Great Depression — ones that the central bank can use in “extraordinary and exigent” circumstances with the sign-off of the Treasury secretary. Through it, the Fed is lending against Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities valued at their original price for up to a year.Policymakers seem to hope that the program will help reduce interest rate risk in the banking system — the problem of the day — while also getting around the stigma of borrowing from the discount window.Banks are Borrowing More Than UsualThe backstops seem to be working:  During the recent turmoil, banks are using both programs.Discount window borrowing climbed to $110.2 billion as of Wednesday, down slightly from $152.9 billion the previous week — when the turmoil started. Those figures are abnormally elevated: Discount window borrowing had stood at just $4.6 billion the week before the tumult began.The new program also had borrowers. As of Wednesday, banks were borrowing $53.7 billion, according to the Fed data. The previous week, it stood at $11.9 billion. The names of specific borrowers will not be released until 2025.The Borrowing Could Be a Sign of TroubleThe next issue is perhaps more critical: Analysts are trying to parse whether it is a good thing that banks are turning to these programs, or whether the stepped up borrowing is a sign that their problems remain serious.“You still have some banks that feel the need to tap these facilities,” said Subadra Rajappa, head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale. “There’s definitely cash moving from the banking sector and into other investments, or into the biggest banks.”While Silicon Valley Bank had some obvious weaknesses that regulation experts said were not widely shared across the banking system, its failure has prodded people to look more closely at banks — and depositors have been punishing those with similarities to the failed institutions by withdrawing their cash. PacWest Bancorp has been among the struggling banks. The company said this week that it had borrowed $10.5 billion from the Fed’s discount window.Or the Borrowing Could Be a Good SignThe fact that banks feel comfortable using these tools might reassure depositors and financial markets that cash will keep flowing, which might help avert further troubles.In the past, borrowing from the Fed carried a stigma because it signaled a bank might be in trouble. This time around, the securities the banks hold aren’t at risk of defaulting, they are just worth less in the bond market as a result of the rapid increase in interest rates.“For me, this is a very different situation to what I have seen in the past,” said Greg Peters, co-chief investment officer at PGIM Fixed Income. More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Low Rates Were Meant to Last. Without Them, Finance Is In for a Rough Ride.

    by

    Economists expected inflation and rates to stay low for years. With Silicon Valley Bank’s implosion, Wall Street is starting to reckon with how wrong that prediction has proved.WASHINGTON — If a number defined the 2010s, it was 2 percent. Inflation, annual economic growth, and interest rates at their highest all hovered around that level — so persistently that economists, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street began to bet that the era of low-everything would last.That bet has gone bad. And with the implosion of Silicon Valley Bank, America is beginning to reckon with the consequences.Inflation surprised economists and policymakers by spiking after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, and at 6 percent in February, it is proving difficult to stamp out. The Fed has lifted interest rates by 4.5 percentage points in just the past 12 months as it tries to slow the economy and wrestle price increases under control. The central bank’s decision next Wednesday could nudge rates even higher. And that jump in borrowing costs is catching some businesses, investors and households by surprise.Silicon Valley Bank is the most extreme example of an institution’s being caught off guard so far. The bank had amassed a big portfolio of long-term bonds, which pay more interest than shorter-term ones. But it wasn’t paying to sufficiently protect its assets against the possibility of an interest rate spike — and when rates jumped, it found the market value of its holdings seriously dented. The reason: Why would investors want those old bonds when they could buy new ones at more attractive rates?Those impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed the institution and shot tremors across the American banking system.The bank’s mistake was a bad — and ultimately lethal — one. But it wasn’t wholly unique.Many banks are holding big portfolios of long-term bonds that are worth a lot less than their original value. U.S. banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses from securities that had dropped in price at the end of 2022, based on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data, with many regional banks facing big hits.Adding in other potential losses, including on mortgages that were extended when rates were low, economists at New York University have estimated that the total may be more like $1.75 trillion. Banks can offset that with higher earnings on deposits — but that doesn’t work if depositors pull their money out, as in Silicon Valley Bank’s case.“How worried should we be comes down to: How likely is it that the deposit franchise leaves?” said Alexi Savov, who wrote the analysis with his colleague Philipp Schnabl.Regulators are conscious of that potentially broad interest rate risk. The Fed unveiled an emergency loan program on Sunday night that will offer banks cash in exchange for their bonds, treating them as though they were still worth their original value in the process. The setup will allow banks to temporarily escape the squeeze they are feeling as interest rates rise.But even if the Fed succeeds at neutralizing the threat of bank runs tied to rising rates, it is likely that other vulnerabilities grew during decades of relatively low interest rates. That could trigger more problems at a time when borrowing costs are substantially higher.Impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed Silicon Valley Bank and shot tremors across the U.S. banking system.Jason Henry for The New York Times“There’s an old saying: Whenever the Fed hits the brakes, someone goes through the windshield,” said Michael Feroli, chief economist at J.P. Morgan. “You just never know who it’s going to be.”America has gone through regular bouts of financial pain brought about by rising interest rates. A jump in rates has been blamed for helping to burst the bubble in technology stocks in the early 2000s, and for contributing to the decline in house prices that helped to set off the crash in 2008.Even more closely related to the current moment, a sharp rise in interest rates in the 1970s and 1980s caused acute problems in the savings and loan industry that ended only when the government intervened.There’s a simple logic behind the financial problems that arise from rising interest rates. When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash — and that typically means that they tie up their money for longer or they throw their cash behind risky ventures.When the Fed raises interest rates to cool the economy and control inflation, though, money moves toward the comparative safety of government bonds and other steady investments. They suddenly pay more, and they seem like a surer bet in a world where the central bank is trying to slow the economy.That helps to explain what is happening in the technology sector in 2023, for example. Investors have pulled back from tech company stocks, which tend to have values that are predicated on expectations for growth. Betting on prospective profits is suddenly less attractive in a higher-rate environment.A more challenging business and financial backdrop has quickly translated into a souring job market in technology. Companies have been making high-profile layoffs, with Meta announcing a fresh round just this week.That is more or less the way Fed rate moves are supposed to work: They diminish growth prospects and make access to financing tougher, curb business expansions, cost jobs and end up slowing demand throughout the economy. Slower demand makes for weaker inflation.But sometimes the pain does not play out in such an orderly and predictable way, as the trouble in the banking system makes clear.“This just teaches you that we really have these blind spots,” said Jeremy Stein, a former Fed governor who is now at Harvard. “You put more pressure on the pipes, and something is going to crack — but you never know where it is going to be.”The Fed was conscious that some banks could face trouble as rates rose meaningfully for the first time in years.“The industry’s lack of recent experience with rising and more volatile interest rates, coupled with material levels of market uncertainty, presents challenges for all banks,” Carl White, the senior vice president of the supervision, credit and learning division at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, wrote in a research note in November. That was true “regardless of size or complexity.”But it has been years since the central bank formally tested for a scenario of rising rates in big banks’ formal stress tests, which examine their expected health in the event of trouble. While smaller regional banks aren’t subject to those tests, the decision not to test for rate risk is evidence of a broader reality: Everyone, policymakers included, spent years assuming that rates would not go back up.When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash.John Taggart for The New York TimesIn their economic forecasts a year ago, even after months of accelerating inflation, Fed officials projected that interest rates would peak at 2.8 percent before falling back to 2.4 percent in the longer run.That owed to both recent experience and to the economy’s fundamentals: Inequality is high and the population is aging, two forces that mean there are lots of savings sloshing around the economy and looking for a safe place to park. Such forces tend to reduce interest rates.The pandemic’s downswing upended those forecasts, and it is not clear when rates will get back on the lower-for-longer track. While central bankers still anticipate that borrowing costs will hover around 2.5 percent in the long run, for now they have pledged to keep them high for a long time — until inflation is well on its way back down to 2 percent.Yet the fact that unexpectedly high interest rates are putting a squeeze on the financial system could complicate those plans. The Fed will release fresh economic forecasts alongside its rates decision next week, providing a snapshot of how its policymakers view the changing landscape.Central bankers had previously hinted that they might raise interest rates even higher than the roughly 5 percent that they had previously forecast this year as inflation shows staying power and the job market remains strong. Whether they will be able to stick with that plan in a world colored by financial upheaval is unclear. Officials may want to tread lightly at a time of uncertainty and the threat of financial chaos.“There’s sometimes this sense that the world works like engineering,” Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, said of the way central bankers think about monetary policy. “How the machine actually works is such a complex and fickle thing that you have to be paying attention.”And policymakers are likely to be attuned to other pockets of risk in the financial system as rates climb: Mr. Stein, for instance, had expected rate-related weakness to show up in bond funds and was surprised to see the pain surface in the banking system instead.“Whether it is stabler than we thought, or we just haven’t hit the air pocket yet, I don’t know,” he said.Joe Rennison More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    January Jobs Report Contained Hopeful and Worrying News for the Fed

    by

    The Federal Reserve is tracking incoming labor figures as it decides how high interest rates need to go and how long they should stay elevated.WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve officials have said they are looking for the labor market to cool as they assess how much more they need to do to slow the economy, and the job report on Friday underscored that policymakers may still have a ways to go.Employers hired ravenously in January, adding 517,000 workers. The jobless rate dipped to a level not seen since 1969, and revisions to last year’s data showed that job growth was even stronger in 2021 and 2022 than previously understood — all signs that the demand for labor is booming.Yet at the same time, wage growth continued to moderate. Average hourly earnings climbed 4.4 percent over the year, more than forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists but less than the 4.8 percent year-over-year increase in December. Pay growth has been decelerating for months, though it remains faster than is typical and notably quicker than the pace that Fed officials have at times suggested would be consistent with their 2 percent inflation goal.For central bankers who are trying to bring down the fastest inflation in decades, the report offered both encouraging and worrying news. On one hand, the continued slowdown in pay increases was a welcome sign that, if it persists, could pave the way for slower price increases down the road. But Fed policymakers who spoke on Friday focused more intently on the fresh evidence that demand for workers remains intense despite their efforts, suggesting that they have more work to do before they will be able to feel confident that rapid inflation will fade fully.“The biggest surprise — and the thing to take the most signal from — is the combination of the job gains over the past month and the restatement over the past year,” Thomas Barkin, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, said in an interview with The New York Times. “We still have more to do. Inflation is the guidepost.”Fed officials have already lifted rates from near zero a year ago to more than 4.5 percent, ushering in a quarter-point move just this week. While they have signaled more to come, investors and economists had been betting that they might stop moving after their next meeting, in March.The strong job numbers upended that expectation. Investors on Friday penciled in another rate move in May, and stocks fell in response to the jobs data as Wall Street braced for a more aggressive central bank. Higher rates weigh on demand by making it more expensive to borrow to buy a house or expand a business.The State of Jobs in the United StatesEconomists have been surprised by recent strength in the labor market, as the Federal Reserve tries to engineer a slowdown and tame inflation.Job Trends: The Labor Department reported that the nation’s demand for labor only got stronger in December, as job openings rose to 11 million.Burrito Season: Chipotle Mexican Grill, the fast-casual food chain, said that it planned to hire 15,000 workers ahead of its busiest time of year, from March to May.Retail Industry: With consumers worried about inflation in the prices of day-to-day necessities like food, retailers are playing defense and reducing their work forces.Tech Layoffs: The industry’s recent job cuts have been an awakening for a generation of workers who have never experienced a cyclical crash.Fed officials themselves underlined that further rate adjustments are coming.“The number today on the jobs report was a ‘wow’ number,” Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said on Fox Business. She added that it did not change the economic narrative: It was just additional confirmation that the labor market is strong.She said the Fed’s December forecast — which called for two more quarter-point rate increases, pushing rates just above 5 percent — remained “a good indicator of where policy is at least headed,” adding that she is “prepared to do more than that if more is needed.”Wage growth is slowing along with inflationYear-over-year percentage change in earnings vs. inflation More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Wall St. Is Counting on a Debt Limit Trick That Could Entail Trouble

    by

    If the debt limit is breached, investors expect Treasury to put bond payments first. It’d be politically and practically fraught.Washington’s debt limit drama has Wall Street betting that the United States will employ a fallback option to ensure it can make good on payments to its lenders even if Congress doesn’t raise the nation’s borrowing limit before America runs out of cash.But that untested idea has significant flaws and has been ruled out by the Biden administration, which could make it less of a bulwark against disaster than many investors and politicians are counting on.Many on Wall Street believe that the Treasury Department, in order to avoid defaulting on U.S. debt, would “prioritize” payments on its bonds if it could no longer borrow funds to cover all its expenses. They expect that America’s lenders — the bondholders who own U.S. Treasury debt — would be first in line to receive interest and other payments, even if it meant delaying other obligations like government salaries or retirement benefits.Those assumptions are rooted in history. Records from 2011 and 2013 — the last time the U.S. tipped dangerously close to a debt limit crisis — suggested that officials at the Treasury had laid at least some groundwork to pay investors first, and that policymakers at the Federal Reserve assumed that such an approach was likely. Some Republicans in the House and Senate have painted prioritization as a fallback option that could make failure to raise the borrowing cap less of a disaster, arguing that as long as bondholders get paid, the U.S. will not experience a true default.But the Biden administration is not doing prioritization planning this time around because officials don’t think it would prevent an economic crisis and are unsure whether such a plan is even feasible. The White House has not asked Treasury to prepare for a scenario in which it pays back investors first, according to multiple officials. Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, has said such an approach would not avoid a debt “default” in the eyes of markets.“Treasury systems have all been built to pay all of our bills when they’re due and on time, and not to prioritize one form of spending over another,” Ms. Yellen told reporters this month.Perhaps more worrisome is that, even if the White House ultimately succumbed to pressure to prioritize payments, experts from both political parties who have studied the temporary fix say it might not be enough to avert a financial catastrophe.Senator Ted Cruz, center, and other Republicans during a news conference on debt ceiling on Capitol Hill last week.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“Prioritization is really default by another name,” said Brian Riedl, formerly chief economist to former Republican Senator Rob Portman and now an economist at the Manhattan Institute. “It’s not defaulting on the government’s debt, but it’s defaulting on its obligations.”Congress must periodically raise the nation’s debt ceiling to authorize the Treasury to borrow to cover America’s commitments. Raising the limit does not entail any new spending — it is more like paying a credit-card bill for spending the nation has already incurred — and it is often completed without incident. But Republicans have occasionally attempted to attach future spending cuts or other legislative goals to debt limit increases, plunging the United States into partisan brinkmanship.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    As Debt Ceiling Threat Looms, Wall Street and Washington Have Only Rough Plans

    by

    A default would most likely rattle markets and carry big risks, no matter how the Federal Reserve and Treasury try to curb the fallout.With days to go before the United States bumps up against a technical limit on how much debt it can issue, Wall Street analysts and political prognosticators are warning that a perennial source of partisan brinkmanship could finally tip into outright catastrophe in 2023.Big investors and bank economists are using financial models to predict when the United States, which borrows money to pay its existing bills, will run out of cash. They are assessing what it could mean if the government is unable to pay some of its bondholders and the country defaults on its debt. And they are gaming out how to both minimize risks and make the most of any opportunities to profit that might be hiding in the chaos.The need to start planning for a potential debt limit breach became more urgent last week, when Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen told Congress that the United States would hit its borrowing cap on Thursday. At that point, Treasury will begin using “extraordinary measures” to try to stay under the cap for as long as possible — but those options could be exhausted as soon as June.Congress places a limit on the amount of debt the country can issue, with a simple majority in the House and Senate required to lift it. That cap, currently $31.4 trillion, needs to be adjusted to allow the United States to borrow to pay for obligations it has already committed to, such as funding for social safety net programs, interest on the national debt and salaries for troops.Wrangling over lifting the borrowing cap has become a fixture, and this year is shaping up to be particularly complicated. Republicans hold the House by a slim majority, and a small but vocal faction of the party has won changes to the rules that govern legislative debate. They have made clear that they want deep spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit, and their empowerment could make this round of negotiations more likely to end in disaster.Bank of America analysts wrote in a note to clients this week that a default in late summer or early fall is “likely,” while Goldman Sachs called the possibility that the government would not be able to make good on its bills a “greater risk” than at any time since 2011. When the nation approached the brink in that episode, its credit rating was downgraded and wild market gyrations helped to force lawmakers to blink.A debt default would most likely rattle markets and carry big risks.Andrew Kelly/ReutersIn Washington, the Federal Reserve and Treasury are not publicly speaking about what they could do if an outright default were to happen this time, in part because the mere suggestion they will bail out warring politicians could leave lawmakers with less of an incentive to reach a deal. But they have a series of options — albeit bad ones — for mitigating the disaster if political impasse takes the nation up to or over the brink of default.It is tricky to guess exactly how financial markets will react, both because the timing of any default is uncertain and because many investors are waiting and watching to see what happens in Washington.But former government officials and cautious Wall Street observers warn that the effects could be significant. Markets have grown bigger and more complex since 2011, and an outright default could lead to mass selling, which would impair financial functioning. While the government has done contingency planning for a default, former officials say there is no foolproof option for staving off a disaster.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 4What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 188 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Close Is the U.S. to Hitting the Debt Ceiling? How Bad Would That Be?

    by

    The United States has a cap on the amount of money it can borrow. That means it can run out of cash if the limit isn’t lifted.Washington is gearing up for another big fight over whether to raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, with Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warning last week that the United States will reach its existing borrowing cap of $31.4 trillion on Thursday.The United States borrows huge sums of money by selling Treasury bonds to investors across the globe and uses those funds to pay existing financial obligations, including military salaries, safety net benefits and interest on the national debt. Once the United States hits the cap, Treasury can use “extraordinary measures” — suspending some investments and exchanging different types of debt — to try to stay beneath the cap for as long as possible. But eventually, the United States will need to either borrow more money to pay its bills or stop making good on its financial obligations, including possibly defaulting on its debt.Responsibility for lifting or suspending the borrowing cap falls to Congress, which must get a simple majority in both the House and Senate to vote for any change to the debt limit. Raising the debt limit has become a perennial fight, with Republican lawmakers using it as leverage to try to force spending cuts.This year is shaping up to be the messiest fight in at least a decade. Republicans now control the House and they have adopted new rules governing legislation that make it more difficult to raise the debt limit and strengthen Republicans’ ability to demand that any increase be accompanied by spending cuts. Senate Republicans have also insisted that increases to the debt limit should be tied to “structural spending reform.”President Biden has said he will oppose any attempt to tie spending cuts to raising the debt ceiling, raising the likelihood of a protracted standoff.All of this drama raises the question of what the debt limit really is, how it got here and why the United States does not do away with debt limit entirely and spare the nation from its periodic face-off with an economic time bomb.What is the debt limit?The debt limit is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow to fulfill its financial obligations. Because the United States runs budget deficits — meaning it spends more than it brings in through taxes and other revenue — it must borrow huge sums of money to pay its bills. That includes funding for social safety net programs, interest on the national debt and salaries for troops. The debt ceiling debate often elicits calls by lawmakers to cut back on government spending, but lifting the debt limit does not authorize any new spending and in fact simply allows the United States to finance existing obligations.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 4What is the debt ceiling? More