Interest Rates

More stories

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Lurches as It Struggles to Find a Savior

    by

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

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

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

  • 75 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    America’s Inflation Antihero Gets a Makeover

    by

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

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Fretted Bank Turmoil Could Have Serious Economic Consequences

    by

    Minutes from the Federal Reserve’s March 21-22 meeting showed that officials were grappling with how much more to lift borrowing costs.WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve officials wanted to remain flexible about the path ahead for interest rates, minutes from their March meeting showed, as they weighed a strong labor market and stubbornly high inflation against the risks that recent bank turmoil posed to the economy.Central bankers have spent more than a year waging a battle against the most painful burst of price increases in decades, raising interest rates to slow the economy and to wrestle price increases under control. After lifting their main rate to nearly 5 percent over the past 12 months, policymakers are contemplating when to stop those moves. But that choice has been complicated by recent high-profile bank blowups.Before Silicon Valley Bank failed on March 10 and Signature Bank failed on March 12, sending jitters across the global banking system, Fed officials had been contemplating making several more rate moves in 2023 to bring stubbornly inflation back under control. “Some” had even thought a large half-point rate move might be appropriate at the March 21-22 gathering, the minutes from the meeting showed.But officials adjusted their views after the shock to the banking system, the minutes released on Wednesday made clear. The Fed lifted rates at the March meeting, but only by a quarter point, and officials forecast just one more rate increase this year. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, made it clear during his news conference after the meeting that whether and how much officials adjusted policy going forward would hinge on what happened both to credit conditions and to incoming economic data.At the meeting, “several participants emphasized the need to retain flexibility and optionality in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy given the highly uncertain economic outlook,” the minutes showed.Officials on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee thought that “inflation remained much too high and that the labor market remained tight,” on one hand, but that they would also need to watch for signs that the bank issues had curbed bank lending and business and consumer confidence enough to meaningfully slow the economy.They said it would be “particularly important” to watch data on credit and financial conditions, which signal how difficult and expensive it is to borrow or raise money, the minutes showed.In the weeks since the meeting, early signs that lenders are becoming more cautious have begun to surface, but it is still too soon to tell exactly how much credit rates and availability will adjust in response to the turmoil.Fed staff projected that the bank tumult would even spur a “mild” recession later this year. “Given their assessment of the potential economic effects of the recent banking-sector developments, the staff’s projection at the time of the March meeting included a mild recession starting later this year with a recovery over the subsequent two years,” the minutes showed.At the same time, the latest data have suggested that inflation is slowing — though it remains abnormally rapid. A closely watched measure of consumer prices climbed 5 percent in March, down from 6 percent the previous month, as cheaper gas and flat food prices brought relief to consumers. But after stripping out food and fuel costs to get a sense of underlying trends, the “core” inflation index ticked up slightly on an annual basis to 5.6 percent.The current inflation rate is slower than the roughly 9 percent peak reached last summer, but it remains far faster than the rate that was normal before the pandemic and is still notably too quick for comfort. The Fed aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, defining that goal using a separate inflation measure that is released at more of a delay.Financial markets barely budged in the immediate aftermath of the minutes’ release. From stocks to bonds to the U.S. dollar, the earlier inflation data had proved more consequential, suggesting that the minutes presented few surprises that notably moved the needle for investors.Fed officials — including Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and Thomas Barkin, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond — suggested on Wednesday that the latest consumer price figures were encouraging but not decisive.“It was pretty much as expected,” Mr. Barkin said on CNBC. Ms. Daly said during an event in Salt Lake City that the report was “good news,” but noted that inflation was still elevated.The Fed’s next rate decision is set for release on May 3.Joe Rennison More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Bank Turmoil Squeezes Borrowers, Raising Fears of a Slowdown

    by

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

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Jobs Report Bolsters Biden’s Economic Pitch, but Inflation Still Nags

    by

    WASHINGTON — Gradually slowing job gains and a growing labor force in March delivered welcome news to President Biden, nearly a year after he declared that the job market needed to cool significantly to tame high prices.The details of the report are encouraging for a president whose economic goal is to move from rapid job gains — and high inflation — to what Mr. Biden has called “stable, steady growth.” Job creation slowed to 236,000 for the month, closing in on the level Mr. Biden said last year would be necessary to stabilize the economy and prices. More Americans joined the labor force, and wage gains fell slightly. Those developments should help to further cool inflation.But the report also underscored the political and economic tensions for the president as he seeks to sell Americans on his economic stewardship ahead of an expected announcement this spring that he will seek re-election.Republicans criticized Mr. Biden for the deceleration in hiring and wage growth. Some analysts warned that after a year of consistently beating forecasters’ expectations, job growth appeared set to fall sharply or even turn negative in the coming months. That is in part because banks are pulling back lending after administration officials and the Federal Reserve intervened last month to head off a potential financial crisis.Surveys suggest that Americans’ views of the economy are improving, but that people remain displeased by its performance and pessimistic about its future. A CNN poll conducted in March and released this week showed that seven in 10 Americans rated the economy as somewhat or very poor. Three in five respondents expected the economy to be poor a year from now.As he tours the country in preparation for the 2024 campaign, Mr. Biden has built his economic pitch around a record rebound in job creation. He regularly visits factories and construction sites in swing states, casting corporate hiring promises as direct results of a White House legislative agenda that produced hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments in infrastructure, low-emission energy, semiconductor manufacturing and more.On Friday, the president took the same approach to the March employment data. “This is a good jobs report for hardworking Americans,” he said in a written statement, before listing seven states where companies this week have announced expansions that Mr. Biden linked to his agenda.But as he frequently does, Mr. Biden went on to caution that “there is more work to do” to bring down high prices that are squeezing workers and families.Aides were equally upbeat. Lael Brainard, who directs Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, told MSNBC that it was a “really nice” report overall.“Generally this report is consistent with steady and stable growth,” Ms. Brainard said. “We’re seeing some moderation — we’re certainly seeing reduction in inflation that has been quite welcome.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.But analysts warned that the coming months could bring a much more rapid deterioration in hiring, as banks pull back on lending in the wake of the government bailout of depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote Friday that he expected job gains to fall to just 50,000 in May, and for the economy to begin shedding jobs on a net basis over the summer. But he acknowledged that the job market continued to surprise analysts, in a good way, by pulling more and more workers back into the labor force.“Labor demand and supply are moving back into balance,” Mr. Shepherdson wrote.In May, Mr. Biden wrote that monthly job creation needed to fall from an average of 500,000 jobs to something closer to 150,000, a level that he said would be “consistent with a low unemployment rate and a healthy economy.”Since then, the president has had a complicated relationship with the labor market. Job creation has remained far stronger than many forecasters — and Mr. Biden himself — expected. That growth has delighted Mr. Biden’s political advisers and helped the economy avoid a recession. But it has been accompanied by inflation well above historical norms, which continues to hamstring consumers and dampen Mr. Biden’s approval ratings.The March report showed the political difficulty of reconciling those two economic realities. Analysts called the cooling in job and wage growth welcome signs for the Federal Reserve in its campaign to bring down inflation by raising interest rates.But that cooling included a decline of 1,000 manufacturing jobs, for which some groups blamed the Fed. “America’s factories continue to experience the destabilizing influence of rising interest rates,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a trade group. “The Federal Reserve must understand that its policies are undermining our global competitiveness.”Republicans blasted Mr. Biden for falling wage growth. “Average hourly wages continue to trend down even as inflation has wiped out any nominal wage gains for more than two years,” Tommy Pigott, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, said in a news release.Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the report showed that “small businesses and job creators are reacting to the dark clouds looming over the economy.”In his own release, Mr. Biden nodded to one of the clouds that could turn into an economic storm as soon as this summer: a standoff over raising the nation’s borrowing limit, which could result in a government default that throws millions of Americans out of work. Republicans have refused to budge unless Mr. Biden agrees to unspecified spending cuts.Mr. Biden has refused to negotiate directly over raising the limit. He closed his jobs report statement on Friday with a shot at congressional Republicans’ strategy. “I will stop those efforts to put our economy at risk,” he said. More