Powell, Jerome H

More stories

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Before Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the Fed Spotted Big Problems

    by

    The bank was using an incorrect model as it assessed its own risks amid rising interest rates, and spent much of 2022 under a supervisory review.WASHINGTON — Silicon Valley Bank’s risky practices were on the Federal Reserve’s radar for more than a year — an awareness that proved insufficient to stop the bank’s demise.The Fed repeatedly warned the bank that it had problems, according to a person familiar with the matter.In 2021, a Fed review of the growing bank found serious weaknesses in how it was handling key risks. Supervisors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw Silicon Valley Bank, issued six citations. Those warnings, known as “matters requiring attention” and “matters requiring immediate attention,” flagged that the firm was doing a bad job of ensuring that it would have enough easy-to-tap cash on hand in the event of trouble.But the bank did not fix its vulnerabilities. By July 2022, Silicon Valley Bank was in a full supervisory review — getting a more careful look — and was ultimately rated deficient for governance and controls. It was placed under a set of restrictions that prevented it from growing through acquisitions. Last autumn, staff members from the San Francisco Fed met with senior leaders at the firm to talk about their ability to gain access to enough cash in a crisis and possible exposure to losses as interest rates rose.It became clear to the Fed that the firm was using bad models to determine how its business would fare as the central bank raised rates: Its leaders were assuming that higher interest revenue would substantially help their financial situation as rates went up, but that was out of step with reality.By early 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was in what the Fed calls a “horizontal review,” an assessment meant to gauge the strength of risk management. That checkup identified additional deficiencies — but at that point, the bank’s days were numbered. In early March, it faced a run and failed, sending shock-waves across the broader American banking system that ultimately led to a sweeping government intervention meant to prevent panic from spreading. On Sunday, Credit Suisse, which was caught up in the panic that followed Silicon Valley Bank’s demise, was taken over by UBS in a hastily arranged deal put together by the Swiss government.Major questions have been raised about why regulators failed to spot problems and take action early enough to prevent Silicon Valley Bank’s March 10 downfall. Many of the issues that contributed to its collapse seem obvious in hindsight: Measuring by value, about 97 percent of its deposits were uninsured by the federal government, which made customers more likely to run at the first sign of trouble. Many of the bank’s depositors were in the technology sector, which has recently hit tough times as higher interest rates have weighed on business.And Silicon Valley Bank also held a lot of long-term debt that had declined in market value as the Fed raised interest rates to fight inflation. As a result, it faced huge losses when it had to sell those securities to raise cash to meet a wave of withdrawals from customers.The Fed has initiated an investigation into what went wrong with the bank’s oversight, headed by Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision. The inquiry’s results are expected to be publicly released by May 1. Lawmakers are also digging into what went awry. The House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on recent bank collapses for March 29.Michael S. Barr’s review of the Silicon Valley Bank problems will focus on a few key questions.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressThe picture that is emerging is one of a bank whose leaders failed to plan for a realistic future and neglected looming financial and operational problems, even as they were raised by Fed supervisors. For instance, according to a person familiar with the matter, executives at the firm were told of cybersecurity problems both by internal employees and by the Fed — but ignored the concerns.The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which has taken control of the firm, did not comment on its behalf.Still, the extent of known issues at the bank raises questions about whether Fed bank examiners or the Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington could have done more to force the institution to address weaknesses. Whatever intervention was staged was too little to save the bank, but why remains to be seen.“It’s a failure of supervision,” said Peter Conti-Brown, an expert in financial regulation and a Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania. “The thing we don’t know is if it was a failure of supervisors.”Mr. Barr’s review of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse will focus on a few key questions, including why the problems identified by the Fed did not stop after the central bank issued its first set of matters requiring attention. The existence of those initial warnings was reported earlier by Bloomberg. It will also look at whether supervisors believed they had authority to escalate the issue, and if they raised the problems to the level of the Federal Reserve Board.The Fed’s report is expected to disclose information about Silicon Valley Bank that is usually kept private as part of the confidential bank oversight process. It will also include any recommendations for regulatory and supervisory fixes.The bank’s downfall and the chain reaction it set off is also likely to result in a broader push for stricter bank oversight. Mr. Barr was already performing a “holistic review” of Fed regulation, and the fact that a bank that was large but not enormous could create so many problems in the financial system is likely to inform the results.Typically, banks with fewer than $250 billion in assets are excluded from the most onerous parts of bank oversight — and that has been even more true since a “tailoring” law that passed in 2018 during the Trump administration and was put in place by the Fed in 2019. Those changes left smaller banks with less stringent rules.Silicon Valley Bank was still below that threshold, and its collapse underlined that even banks that are not large enough to be deemed globally systemic can cause sweeping problems in the American banking system.As a result, Fed officials could consider tighter rules for those big, but not huge, banks. Among them: Officials could ask whether banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets should have to hold more capital when the market price of their bond holdings drops — an “unrealized loss.” Such a tweak would most likely require a phase-in period, since it would be a substantial change.But as the Fed works to complete its review of what went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank and come up with next steps, it is facing intense political blowback for failing to arrest the problems.Supervisors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw Silicon Valley Bank, issued six citations in 2021.Aaron Wojack for The New York TimesSome of the concerns center on the fact that the bank’s chief executive, Greg Becker, sat on the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s board of directors until March 10. While board members do not play a role in bank supervision, the optics of the situation are bad.“One of the most absurd aspects of the Silicon Valley bank failure is that its CEO was a director of the same body in charge of regulating it,” Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, wrote on Twitter on Saturday, announcing that he would be “introducing a bill to end this conflict of interest by banning big bank CEOs from serving on Fed boards.”Other worries center on whether Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, allowed too much deregulation during the Trump administration. Randal K. Quarles, who was the Fed’s vice chair for supervision from 2017 to 2021, carried out a 2018 regulatory rollback law in an expansive way that some onlookers at the time warned would weaken the banking system.Mr. Powell typically defers to the Fed’s supervisory vice chair on regulatory matters, and he did not vote against those changes. Lael Brainard, then a Fed governor and now a top White House economic adviser, did vote against some of the tweaks — and flagged them as potentially dangerous in dissenting statements.“The crisis demonstrated clearly that the distress of even noncomplex large banking organizations generally manifests first in liquidity stress and quickly transmits contagion through the financial system,” she warned.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has asked for an independent review of what happened at Silicon Valley Bank and has urged that Mr. Powell not be involved in that effort.  He “bears direct responsibility for — and has a long record of failure involving” bank regulation, she wrote in a letter on Sunday.Maureen Farrell More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Washington Decided to Rescue Silicon Valley Bank

    by

    Officials were initially unsure about the need for the measures they eventually announced to shore up the financial system, but changed their minds quickly.WASHINGTON — On Friday afternoon, the deputy Treasury secretary, Wally Adeyemo, met with Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Company, at Mr. Dimon’s office in New York.The Biden administration and the Federal Reserve were considering what would be the most aggressive emergency intervention in the banking system since the 2008 financial crisis, and the question the two men debated was at the heart of that decision.Could the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the mega start-up lender that had just collapsed, spread to other banks and create a systemic risk to the financial system?“There’s potential,” Mr. Dimon said, according to people familiar with the conversation.Mr. Adeyemo was one of many administration officials who entered last weekend unsure of whether the federal government needed to explicitly rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors before markets opened on Monday morning.In the White House and the Treasury, some officials initially saw the bank’s swift plunge to insolvency as unlikely to spark an economic crisis — particularly if the government could facilitate a sale of the bank to another financial institution.They quickly changed their minds after signs of nascent bank runs across the country — and direct appeals from small businesses and lawmakers from both parties — convinced them the bank’s problems could imperil the entire financial system, not just rich investors in Silicon Valley.On Friday morning, aides met with President Biden in the Oval Office, where they warned that the panic engulfing Silicon Valley Bank could spread to other financial institutions, according to a White House official. Mr. Biden told them to keep him updated on developments.By Friday afternoon, before financial markets had even closed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had stepped in and shut down the bank.Still, the kind of rescue that the United States ultimately engineered would not materialize publicly until Sunday, after intense deliberations across the government.This account is based on interviews with current and former officials in the White House, Treasury and the Fed; financial services executives; members of Congress; and others. All were involved or close to the discussions that dominated Washington over a frenzied process that began Thursday evening and ended 72 hours later with an extraordinary announcement timed to beat the opening of financial markets in Asia.The episode was a test for the president — who risked criticism from the left and the right by greenlighting what critics called a bailout for banks. It also confronted Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen with the prospect of a banking crisis at a moment when she had become more optimistic that a recession could be avoided. And it was the starkest demonstration to date of the impact that the Fed’s aggressive interest rate increases were having on the economy.Wally Adeyemo, deputy Treasury secretary, was initially unsure whether the government would need to intervene to rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors. Andrew Harnik/Associated PressSilicon Valley Bank failed because it had put a large share of customer deposits into long-dated Treasury bonds and mortgage bonds that promised modest, steady returns when interest rates were low. As inflation jumped and the Fed lifted interest rates from near zero to above 4.5 percent to fight it over the last year, the value of those assets eroded. The bank essentially ran out of money to make good on what it owed to its depositors.By Thursday, concern was growing at the Federal Reserve. The bank had turned to the Fed to borrow money through the central bank’s “discount window” that day, but it soon became clear that was not going to be enough to forestall a collapse.Officials including Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Fed, and Michael S. Barr, its vice chair for supervision, worked through Thursday night and into Friday morning to try to find a solution to the bank’s unraveling. By Friday, Fed officials feared the bank’s failure could pose sweeping risks to the financial system.Compounding the worry: The prospects of arranging a quick sale to another bank in order to keep depositors whole dimmed through the weekend. A range of firms nibbled around the idea of purchasing it — including some of the largest and most systemically important.One large regional bank, PNC, tiptoed toward making an acceptable offer. But that deal fell through as the bank scrambled to scrub Silicon Valley Bank’s books and failed to get enough assurances from the government that it would be protected from risks, according to a person briefed on the matter.A dramatic government intervention seemed unlikely on Thursday evening, when Peter Orszag, former President Barack Obama’s first budget director and now chief executive of financial advisory at the bank Lazard, hosted a previously scheduled dinner at the bank’s offices in New York City’s Rockefeller Center..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.Among those in attendance were Mr. Adeyemo and a pair of influential senators: Michael D. Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. Both were sponsors of a 2018 law that rolled back regulation on smaller banks that critics now say left Silicon Valley Bank vulnerable.Blair Effron, a large Democratic donor who had just been hired by Silicon Valley Bank to advise it on its liquidity crunch, was also there. Earlier that day, the bank had attempted to raise money to stave off collapse with the help of Goldman Sachs — an effort that, by Thursday evening, had clearly failed.The Federal Reserve ultimately opened a lending program to help keep money flowing through the banking system.Al Drago for The New York TimesMr. Effron and Mr. Adeyemo spoke as it became evident that Silicon Valley Bank was running out of options and that a sale — or some bigger intervention — might be necessary. Jeffrey Zients, Mr. Biden’s new chief of staff, and Lael Brainard, the new director of his National Economic Council, were also being pelted by warnings about the bank’s threat to the economy. As Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors raced to withdraw their money on Thursday, sending its stock into free fall, both Ms. Brainard and Mr. Zients began receiving a flurry of calls and texts from worried leaders in the start-up community that the bank heavily served.Ms. Brainard, who had experienced financial crises in other countries while serving in Mr. Obama’s Treasury Department and as a Federal Reserve Board member, had begun to worry about a new crisis emanating from SVB’s failure. She and Mr. Zients raised that possibility with Mr. Biden when they briefed him in the Oval Office on Friday morning.Other officials across the administration were more skeptical, worrying that the lobbying blitz Ms. Brainard and others were receiving was purely a sign of wealthy investors trying to force the government to backstop their losses. And there were concerns that any kind of government action could be seen as bailing out a bank that had mismanaged its risk, potentially encouraging risky behavior by other banks in the future.Ms. Brainard started fielding anxious calls again on Saturday morning and did not stop until late in the evening. She and Mr. Zients briefed Mr. Biden that afternoon — virtually this time, because the president was spending the weekend in his home state of Delaware.Mr. Biden also spoke Saturday with Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who was pushing aggressively for government intervention in fear that a wide range of companies in his state would otherwise not be able to pay employees or other operational costs on Monday morning.Concerns mounted that day as regulators reviewed data that showed deposit outflows increasing at regional banks nationwide — a likely sign of systemic risk. They began pursuing two possible sets of policy actions, ideally a buyer for the bank. Without that option, they would need to seek a “systemic risk exception” to allow the F.D.I.C. to insure all of the bank’s deposits. To calm jittery investors, they surmised that a Fed lending facility would also be needed to buttress regional banks more broadly.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” President Biden said on Monday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Yellen on Saturday convened top officials — Mr. Powell, Mr. Barr and Martin J. Gruenberg, the chairman of the F.D.I.C.’s board of directors — to figure out what to do. The Treasury secretary was fielding back-to-back calls on Zoom from officials and executives and at one point described what she was hearing about the banking sector as hair-raising.F.D.I.C. officials initially conveyed reservations about their authority to back deposits that were not insured, raising concerns among those who were briefed by the F.D.I.C. that a rescue could come too late.By Saturday night, anxiety that the Biden administration was dragging its feet was bubbling over among California lawmakers.At the glitzy Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cornered Steve Ricchetti, a top White House aide and close adviser to the president, and urged Mr. Biden and his team to be decisive. He warned that many of Mr. Biden’s major achievements would be washed away if the banking system melted down.“I said, Steve, this is a massive issue not just for Silicon Valley, but for regional banks around America,” Mr. Khanna said, adding that Mr. Ricchetti replied: “I get it.”Privately, it was becoming clear to Mr. Biden’s economic team that banking customers were getting spooked. On Saturday evening, officials from the Treasury, the White House and the Fed tentatively agreed to two bold moves they finalized and announced late on Sunday afternoon: The government would ensure that all depositors would be repaid in full, and the Fed would offer a program providing attractive loans to other financial institutions in hopes of avoid a cascading series of bank failures.But administration officials wanted to ensure the rescue had limits. The focus, according to a person familiar with the conversation, was ensuring that businesses around the country would be able to pay their employees on Monday and that no taxpayer money would be used by tapping the F.D.I.C.’s Deposit Insurance Fund.It was a priority that the rescue not be viewed as a bailout, which had become a toxic word in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The depositors would be protected, but the bank’s management and its investors would not.By Sunday morning, regulators were putting the finishing touches on the rescue package and preparing to brief Congress. Ms. Yellen, in consultation with the president, approved the “systemic risk exception” that would protect all of the bank’s deposits. The bipartisan members of the Federal Reserve and the F.D.I.C. voted unanimously to approve the decision.That evening, they announced a plan to make sure all depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and another large failed financial institution, Signature Bank, were repaid in full. The Fed also said it would offer banks loans against their Treasury and many other asset holdings, whose values had eroded.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks at the White House.By Tuesday afternoon the intervention was showing signs of working. Regional bank stocks, which had fallen on Monday, had partially rebounded. The outflow of deposits from regional banks had slowed. And banks were pledging collateral at the Fed’s new loan program, which would put them in a position to use it if they decided that doing so was necessary.The financial system appeared to have stabilized, at least for the moment. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    SVB Collapse Upsets Expectations for Federal Reserve’s Rate Decision

    by

    Listen to This ArticleThe Federal Reserve’s hotly anticipated March 22 interest rate decision is just a week and a half away, and the drama that swept the banking and financial sector over the weekend is drastically shaking up expectations for what the central bank will deliver.The Fed had been raising interest rates rapidly to try to contain the most painful burst of inflation since the 1980s, lifting them to above 4.5 percent from near zero a year ago. Concern about rapid inflation prompted the central bank to make four consecutive 0.75-point increases last year before slowing to a half point in December and a quarter point in February.Before this weekend, investors believed there was a substantial chance that the Fed would make a half-point increase at its meeting next week. That step up was seen as an option because job growth and consumer spending have proved surprisingly resilient to higher rates — prompting Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, to signal just last week that the Fed would consider a bigger move.But investors and economists no longer see that as a likely possibility.Three notable banks have failed in the past week alone as Fed interest rate increases ricochet through the technology sector and cryptocurrency markets and upend even usually staid bank business models.Regulators unveiled a sweeping intervention on Sunday evening to try to prevent panic from coursing across the broader financial system, with the Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Fed saying depositors at the failed banks will be paid back in full. The Fed announced an emergency lending program to help funnel cash to banks facing steep losses on their holdings because of the change in interest rates.The Downfall of Silicon Valley BankOne of the most prominent lenders in the world of technology start-ups collapsed on March 10, forcing the U.S. government to step in.A Rapid Fall: The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the biggest U.S. bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, was caused by a run on the bank. But will the turmoil prove to be fleeting — or turn into a true crisis?The Fallout: The bank’s implosion rattled a start-up industry already on edge, and some of the worst casualties of the collapse were companies developing solutions for the climate crisis.Signature Bank: The New York financial institution closed its doors abruptly after regulators said it could threaten the entire financial system. To some extent, it is a victim of the panic around Silicon Valley Bank.The Fed’s Next Move: The Federal Reserve has been rapidly raising interest rates to fight inflation, but making big moves could be trickier after Silicon Valley Bank’s blowup.The tumult — and the risks that it exposed — could make the central bank more cautious as it pushes forward.Investors have abruptly downgraded how many interest rate moves they expect this year. After Mr. Powell’s speech last week opened the door to a large rate change at the next meeting, investors had sharply marked up their 2023 forecasts, even penciling in a tiny chance that rates would rise above 6 percent this year. But after the wild weekend in finance, they see just a small move this month and expect the Fed to cut rates to just above 4.25 percent by the end of the year.Economists at J.P. Morgan said the situation bolstered the case for a smaller, quarter-point move this month.“I don’t hold that view with tons of confidence,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan, explaining that a move this month was conditional on the banking system’s functioning smoothly. “We’ll see if these backstops have been enough to quell concerns. If they are successful, I think the Fed wants to continue on the path to tightening policy.”Goldman Sachs economists no longer expect a rate move at all. While Goldman analysts still think the Fed will raise rates to above 5.25 percent this year, they wrote on Sunday evening that they “see considerable uncertainty” about the path.“I think the Fed is going to want to wait awhile to see how this plays out,” said William English, a former director of the monetary affairs division at the Fed who is now at Yale. He explained that tremors in the banking system could spook lenders, consumers and businesses — slowing the economy and meaning that the Fed had to do less to cool the economy and lower inflation.“If it were me, I’d be inclined to pause,” Mr. English said.Other economists went even further: Nomura, saying it was unclear whether the government’s relief program was enough to stop problems in the banking sector, is now calling for a quarter-point rate cut at the coming meeting.The Fed will receive fresh information on inflation on Tuesday, when the Consumer Price Index is released. That measure is likely to have climbed 6 percent over the year through February, economists in a Bloomberg forecast expected. That would be down slightly from 6.4 percent in a previous reading.But economists expected prices to climb 0.4 percent from January after food and fuel prices, which jump around a lot, are stripped out. That pace would be quick enough to suggest that inflation pressures were still unusually stubborn — which would typically argue for a forceful Fed response.The data could underline why this moment poses a major challenge for the Fed. The central bank is in charge of fostering stable inflation, which is why it has been raising interest rates to slow spending and business expansions, hoping to rein in growth and cool price increases.But it also charged with maintaining financial system stability, and higher interest rates can reveal weaknesses in the financial system — as the blowup of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and the towering risks for the rest of the banking sector illustrated. That means those goals can come into conflict.Subadra Rajappa, head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale, said on Sunday afternoon that she thought the unfolding banking situation would be a caution against moving rates quickly and drastically — and she said instability in banking would make the Fed’s task “trickier,” forcing it to balance the two jobs.“On the one hand, they are going to have to raise rates: That’s the only tool they have at their disposal” to control inflation, she said. On the other, “it’s going to expose the frailty of the system.”Ms. Rajappa likened it to the old saying about the beach at low tide: “You’re going to see, when the tide runs out, who has been swimming naked.”Some saw the Fed’s new lending program — which will allow banks that are suffering in the high-rate environment to temporarily move to the Fed a chunk of the risk they are facing from higher interest rates — as a sort of insurance policy that could allow the central bank to continue raising rates without causing further ruptures.“The Fed has basically just written insurance on interest-rate risk for the whole banking system,” said Steven Kelly, senior research associate at Yale’s program on financial stability. “They’ve basically underwritten the banking system, and that gives them more room to tighten monetary policy.”Joe Rennison More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Jobs Report Gives Fed a Mixed Signal Ahead of Its March Decision

    by

    The Federal Reserve is anxiously parsing incoming data as it decides between a small or a large rate move this month.Federal Reserve officials received a complicated signal from February’s employment report, which showed that job growth retained substantial momentum nearly a year into the central bank’s campaign to slow the economy and cool rapid inflation. But it also included details hinting that the softening the Fed has been trying to achieve may be coming.Policymakers have raised interest rates from near zero to above 4.5 percent over the past year, and Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, signaled this week that the size of the central bank’s March 22 rate move would hinge on the strength of incoming data — making Friday’s employment report a critical focal point for investors.But the figures painted a complicated picture. Employers added 311,000 workers last month, which were more than the 225,000 expected and a sign that the pace of hiring has cooled little, if at all, over the past year. At the same time, wage growth moderated to its slowest monthly pace since February 2022, and the unemployment rate ticked up slightly.“It’s exactly what I wasn’t hoping for, which is a mixed report,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan.That makes determining the Fed’s next steps more challenging.Officials raised rates in large three-quarter-point increments four times in 2022, making borrowing sharply more expensive in hopes of restraining a hot economy. But they had been slowing the pace of adjustment for months, stepping down to half a point in December and a quarter point in February. Policymakers thought they had reached the point where interest rates were high enough to significantly cool the economy, so they expected to soon stop raising rates and simply hold them at a high level for a while.But data from early 2023 have surprised the central bank. The labor market, inflation and consumer spending all showed unexpected signs of strength, which made policymakers question whether they might need to raise rates by more — or even return to a faster pace of adjustment. That’s why central bankers have been looking to incoming data from February for a sense of whether the robust January figures were a one-off or a genuine sign of strength.Employers added 311,000 workers last month, which were more than expected and a sign that the pace of hiring has cooled little.Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times“If the totality of the data were to indicate that faster tightening is warranted, we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes,” Mr. Powell told lawmakers this week, emphasizing that “no decision has been made on this.”Friday’s figures suggested that hiring is genuinely resilient: Employers added more than half a million workers in the first month of the year, even after revisions.But the slowdown in wage growth could be good news for the central bank. Officials have been nervously eyeing rapid wage gains, fretting that it will be difficult for inflation to cool when employers are paying more and trying to make up for those climbing labor bills by passing the costs along to consumers.That said, a closely watched measure of wages for production workers who are not managers — rank-and-file employees, basically — held up. Wage data bounce around, and economists often watch that measure for a clearer reading of underlying momentum in pay gains.Priya Misra, head of global rates strategy at TD Securities, said she thought the report made the size of the Fed’s next rate move a “tossup.” The pace of hiring is likely to suggest to officials that the labor market is still hot, but the other details could give them some room to watch and wait.“It’s not an obvious slam dunk for 50,” Ms. Misra said, referring to a half-point move.The upshot, she said, is that investors will need to closely watch the Consumer Price Index report that is scheduled for release on Tuesday. The fresh figures will show how hot inflation was running in February, giving central bankers a final critical reading on where the American economy stands heading into their decision.“It makes this the most important C.P.I. report — again,” Ms. Misra said.Economists in a Bloomberg survey expect monthly inflation readings — which give a clearer sense of iterative progress on cooling price increases — to slow on an overall basis, but to hold steady at 0.4 percent after volatile food and fuel prices are stripped out.The State of Jobs in the United StatesThe labor market continues to display strength, as the Federal Reserve tries to engineer a slowdown and tame inflation.Mislabeling Managers: New evidence shows that many employers are mislabeling rank-and-file workers as managers to avoid paying them overtime.Energy Sector: Solar, wind, geothermal, battery and other alternative-energy businesses are snapping up workers from fossil fuel companies, where employment has fallen.Elite Hedge Funds: As workers around the country negotiate severance packages, employees in a tiny and influential corner of Wall Street are being promised some of their biggest paydays ever.Immigration: The flow of immigrants and refugees into the United States has ramped up, helping to replenish the American labor force. But visa backlogs are still posing challenges.One challenge is that the numbers will come out during the Fed’s pre-meeting quiet period, which is in place all of next week, so central bankers will not be able to tell the world how they are interpreting the new data.Further complicating the picture: Glimmers of stress are surfacing in the banking system, ones that are tied to the Fed’s rapid rate moves over the past 12 months. Silicon Valley Bank, which lent to tech start-ups and failed on Friday, was squeezed partly by the jump in interest rates.That development — and the possibility that it might herald trouble at other regional banks — could also matter to how the Fed understands the rate outlook.“It shows us: No, we haven’t really digested all of the effects of what the Fed has done so far,” said Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist at Jefferies. “There’s still a lot of policy pain in the pipeline that hasn’t hit the economy yet.”William Dudley, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said there are probably other banks that loaded up on longer-term assets when rates were low and are now suffering from that as short-term borrowing costs rise. That makes those older assets less attractive — and less valuable — if a bank has to sell them to raise cash.But he said that Silicon Valley Bank was probably an extreme example, and that it’s possible the whole situation will have blown over by the time the Fed meets next.“By a week and a half from now, this whole thing could be over,” he said. He added, though, that he didn’t have much clarity on how big the Fed’s next rate move would be, in any case.“I am totally confused about the Fed at this point,” he said. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Will Release Dead-on-Arrival Budget, Picking Fight With GOP

    by

    The president’s plans have little in common with the budget Republicans are set to release this spring, as the nation hurtles toward a possible default on its debt.WASHINGTON — President Biden will propose a budget on Thursday that has no chance of driving tax or spending decisions in Congress this year, but instead will serve as a statement of political priorities as he clashes with Republicans over the size of the federal government.Mr. Biden’s budget proposal, the third of his presidency, is an attempt to advance a narrative that the president is committed to investing in American manufacturing, fighting corporate profiteering, reducing budget deficits and fending off conservative attacks on safety-net programs.It is expected to include what White House officials say will be nearly $3 trillion in new deficit reduction, largely from a familiar batch of tax increases on companies and high earners, along with robust spending on the military and policies to further Mr. Biden’s attempts to support high-tech factory jobs and fight climate change.Republicans are expected to offer a starkly different budget sometime this spring, one likely to be stocked with cuts to federal health programs and aid to the poor, in an effort to eliminate the budget deficit within a decade without raising taxes. Mr. Biden is certain to reject those proposals, and they may struggle to attract enough moderate Republican votes to pass the House.The competing documents will highlight the dearth of common ground for Mr. Biden and his opposition party on fiscal policy at a high-stakes moment for the government and the global economy. That is true even though both the president and congressional Republicans are embracing the politics of promising to reduce deficits and the growth of the national debt, which topped $31 trillion late last year.Republican leaders in the House have refused to raise a congressionally imposed cap on how much the federal government can borrow unless Mr. Biden agrees to steep cuts to federal spending in exchange. Given the United States borrows huge sums of money to pay its bills, that position risks plunging the economy into crisis if the government runs out of cash and defaults on its debt later this year.Mr. Biden has refused to tie any spending cuts to raising the borrowing cap, which does not authorize any new expenditures, but said he welcomes debate over how best to ease the nation’s debt burden.The parties’ entrenched positions set Washington up for several bruising months, at least, of debt-limit discussions. Economists warn the standoff will rattle investors and poses mounting threats to the global financial system.On Wednesday, Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, urged lawmakers not to play games, saying there is no way to prevent a financial meltdown without raising the borrowing cap.“Congress raising the debt ceiling is really the only alternative,” Mr. Powell told a House committee. “There are no rabbits in hats to be pulled out on this.”Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, told a House committee: “Congress raising the debt ceiling is really the only alternative.”Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesPresidential budgets always offer visions for the nation’s fiscal policy that compete with those of their opposition — and budgets submitted by presidents to an opposition-dominated chamber of Congress rarely serve as more than messaging documents. Often, including under Mr. Biden, much of the budget fails to pass muster with the president’s own party.Mr. Biden failed to persuade a sufficient number of Democrats to pass many of the policy priorities outlined in his previous budget requests, like free community college and federally guaranteed paid leave. More than $2 trillion in tax increases from last year’s budget were never enacted despite Democrats’ control of Congress..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.Still, this year’s budget releases from Mr. Biden and House Republicans carry extra importance because of the stakes of the debt-limit fight — and the few paths to compromise on fiscal policy that the documents are expected to show.Mr. Biden’s budget will raise taxes on corporations and high earners, both to pay for his policy priorities and to reduce the growth in America’s reliance on borrowed money, including a 25 percent tax aimed at billionaires. Republicans will seek to cut taxes, including making permanent some temporary tax cuts approved under former President Donald J. Trump, and may seek to eliminate the budget deficit in 10 years by gutting huge swaths of federal spending. Mr. Biden will continue to push his vision of an expanded and empowered government hand in the economy, with new spending for child care, education and more. Republicans will seek to slash federal agencies and much of the health coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act, though it may be difficult for Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California to assemble a package of cuts that will satisfy hard-liners and centrists in his caucus alike.Leaders on both sides of the aisle are embracing the contrasts in their approach.Mr. Biden “is willing to do what Republicans are not: lower the deficit in a realistic, responsible way without cutting benefits that tens of millions of people rely on,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in a brief speech on Wednesday. “Unlike Republicans, the president is also asking the richest of the rich to pay a little more of their fair share in taxes,” he added.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, told reporters this week that Mr. Biden’s budget was “replete with what they would do if they could.”“Thank goodness the House is Republican,” Mr. McConnell said. “Massive tax increases, more spending, all of which the American people can thank the Republican House for, will not see the light of day.”Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces a challenge in coming up with cuts that will satisfy both hard-liners and centrists in the Republican caucus.Julia Nikhinson for The New York TimesRepublicans largely ignored the growth in deficits under Mr. Trump, including approving his tax cuts, which cost the federal government $2 trillion, and when joining with Democrats to pass trillions of dollars in economic aid amid the pandemic recession. Republicans joined Democrats three times to raise or suspend the debt limit without any spending cuts when Mr. Trump was in office. But after winning control of the House in November, Republican leaders have returned to warning that America’s debt load is hurting the U.S. economy and refusing to raise the debt limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to pare back federal spending.The Congressional Budget Office projects the budget deficit will grow slightly this fiscal year, from $1.375 trillion to $1.41 trillion, then continue to rise for the course of the decade, topping $2 trillion in 2032.Those increases are being driven in part by the rising costs of Medicare and Social Security as members of the baby boom generation retire, and by the growing cost of servicing the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt following a series of rapid interest rate increases by the Fed in a bid to tame high inflation. Mr. Powell told lawmakers on Wednesday that “it isn’t that the debt today is unsustainable. It’s that the path is unsustainable.”The director of the budget office, Phillip L. Swagel, briefed lawmakers about deficit projections on Wednesday at the Capitol, warning they would eventually need to raise taxes, cut spending or both in order to mitigate rising debt. The office’s projections “suggest that, over the long term, changes in fiscal policy would need to be made to address the rising costs of interest and mitigate other adverse consequences of high and rising debt,” Mr. Swagel wrote in a slide deck presented to lawmakers.From 2024 to 2033, the budget office projects, deficits will total more than $20 trillion, driving gross federal debt to nearly $52 trillion.Mr. Biden’s proposals, if enacted in full, would reduce that growth by about 15 percent. They are not likely to be. Republicans have tried already this year to repeal tax increases and the Medicare prescription drug savings measures he signed last year.Through new laws he has signed and executive actions he has issued, Mr. Biden has approved policies that would add about $5 trillion to the national debt over a decade, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. Those include his 2021 economic aid law and debt relief for certain student loan borrowers, which is under challenge at the Supreme Court.It is unclear how Mr. Biden settled on the ultimate figure of nearly $3 trillion for his budget’s deficit reduction, or to what extent he agrees with Republicans who claim that the nation’s current levels of debt and deficits pose a risk to the economy.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, did not directly answer a reporter’s questions this week on how Mr. Biden arrived at his preferred level of deficit reduction or whether the path of growth in the national debt is hurting the economy.“The president understands his fiscal responsibility. He understands how important it is to lower the deficit,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.“He’s going to put forward a fiscal budget that is going to be responsible,” she added.Catie Edmondson More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Here’s What the Fed Chair Said This Week, and Why It Matters

    by

    Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, opened the door to a more aggressive policy path — but emphasized that it depended on incoming data.Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, used his testimony before lawmakers this week to lay out a more aggressive path ahead for American monetary policy as the central bank tries to combat stubbornly rapid inflation.Mr. Powell, who spoke before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, explained that the economy had been more resilient — and inflation had shown more staying power — than expected.He signaled that he and his colleagues were prepared to respond by raising rates, and doing so more quickly if needed, though he emphasized on Wednesday that no decision had been made ahead of the central bank’s meeting on March 22. Mr. Powell made clear the next move would hinge on a series of job market and inflation data points set for release over the next week.Stocks initially swooned and a common recession indicator flashed red on Tuesday as investors marked up their expectations for how high Fed rates would rise in 2023 and increasingly bet on a larger March move. But they recovered on Wednesday, with the S&P 500 ending the day slightly up.Here are the key points that emerged over the two-day testimony.Rates may climb faster.Mr. Powell surprised many investors when he suggested that the pace of rate increases could pick back up.“If the totality of the data were to indicate that faster tightening is warranted, we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes,” Mr. Powell told lawmakers in both chambers. He was careful on Wednesday to underscore that “no decision has been made on this.”While Mr. Powell avoided promising anything, his comments suggested that the Fed could lift rates by a half-point in March if data reports over the coming days remained hot — which would signify a reversal.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Jerome Powell Says Interest Rate Raises Likely to Be Higher Than Expected

    by

    In light of recent strong data, Jerome H. Powell said the Federal Reserve was likely to raise rates higher than expected.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, made clear on Tuesday that the central bank is prepared to react to recent signs of economic strength by raising interest rates higher than previously expected and, if incoming data remain hot, potentially returning to a quicker pace of rate increases.Mr. Powell, in remarks before the Senate Banking Committee, also noted that the Fed’s fight against inflation was “very likely” to come at some cost to the labor market.His comments were the clearest acknowledgment yet that recent reports showing inflation remains stubborn and the job market remains resilient are likely to shake up the policy trajectory for America’s central bank.The Fed raised interest rates last year at the fastest pace since the 1980s, pushing borrowing costs above 4.5 percent, from near zero. That initially seemed to be slowing consumer and business demand and helping inflation to moderate. But a number of recent economic reports have suggested that inflation did not weaken as much as expected last year and remained faster than expected in January, while other data showed hiring remains strong and consumer spending picked up at the start of the year.While some of that momentum could have owed to mild January weather — conditions allowed for shopping trips and construction — Mr. Powell said the unexpected strength would probably require a stronger policy response from the Fed.“The process of getting inflation back down to 2 percent has a long way to go and is likely to be bumpy,” he told the committee. “The latest economic data have come in stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated.”Senator Elizabeth Warren suggested that the Fed was trying to “throw people out of work” and that millions of people stood to lose their jobs if unemployment rose as much as central bankers expected.Michael A. McCoy for The New York TimesFed officials projected in December that rates would rise to a peak of 5 to 5.25 percent, with a few penciling in a slightly higher 5.25 to 5.5 percent. Mr. Powell suggested that the peak rate would need to be adjusted by more than that, without specifying how much more.He even opened the door to faster rate increases if incoming data — which include a jobs report on Friday and a fresh inflation report due next week — remain hot. The Fed repeatedly raised rates by three-quarters of a point in 2022, but slowed to half a point in December and a quarter point in early February.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.Mislabeling Managers: New evidence shows that many employers are mislabeling rank-and-file workers as managers to avoid paying them overtime.Energy Sector: Solar, wind, geothermal, battery and other alternative-energy businesses are snapping up workers from fossil fuel companies, where employment has fallen.Elite Hedge Funds: As workers around the country negotiate severance packages, employees in a tiny and influential corner of Wall Street are being promised some of their biggest paydays ever.Immigration: The flow of immigrants and refugees into the United States has ramped up, helping to replenish the American labor force. But visa backlogs are still posing challenges.“If the totality of the data were to indicate that faster tightening is warranted, we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes,” Mr. Powell said.Before his remarks, markets were heavily prepared for a quarter-point move at the Fed’s March 21-22 meeting. After his opening testimony, investors increasingly bet that the central bank would make a half-point move in March, stock prices lurched lower, and a closely watched Wall Street recession indicator pointed to a greater chance of a downturn. The S&P 500 ended the day down about 1.5 percent.While Mr. Powell predicated any decision to pick up the pace of rate increases on incoming data, even opening the door to the possibility made it clear that “it’s definitely a policy option they’re considering pretty actively,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan.Mr. Feroli said a decision to accelerate rate moves might stoke uncertainty about what would come next: Will the Fed stick with half-point moves in May, for instance?“It raises a lot of questions,” he said.Blerina Uruci, chief U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price, previously thought the Fed would stop lifting interest rates around 5.75 percent but now thinks there is a growing chance they will rise above 6 percent, she said. She thinks that if Fed officials speed up rate increases in March, they may feel the need to keep the moves quick in May.“Otherwise, the Fed runs the risk of looking like they’re flip-flopping around,” Ms. Uruci said.While the Fed typically avoids making too much of any single month’s data, Mr. Powell signaled that recent reports had caused concern both because signs of continued momentum were broad-based and because revisions made a slowdown late in 2022 look less pronounced.“The breadth of the reversal along with revisions to the previous quarter suggests that inflationary pressures are running higher than expected at the time of our previous” meeting, Mr. Powell said.He reiterated that there were some hopeful developments: Goods inflation has slowed, and rent inflation, while high, appears poised to cool down this year.And Mr. Powell noted on Tuesday that officials knew it took time for the full effects of monetary policy to be felt, and were taking that into account as they thought about future policy.Still, he underlined that “there is little sign of disinflation thus far” in services outside of housing, which include purchases ranging from restaurant meals and travel to manicures. The Fed has been turning to that measure more and more as a signal of how strong underlying price pressures remain in the economy.“Nothing about the data suggests to me that we’ve tightened too much,” Mr. Powell said in response to lawmaker questions. “Indeed, it suggests that we still have work to do.”When the Fed raises interest rates, it slows consumer spending on big credit-based purchases like houses and cars and can dissuade businesses from expanding on borrowed money. As demand for products and demand for workers cool, wage growth eases and unemployment may even rise, further slowing consumption and causing a broader moderation in the economy.But so far, the job market has been very resilient to the Fed’s moves, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1969, rapid hiring and robust pay gains.Mr. Powell said wage growth — while it had moderated somewhat — remained too strong to be consistent with a return to 2 percent inflation. When companies are paying more, they are likely to charge more to cover their labor bills.“Strong wage growth is good for workers, but only if it is not eroded by inflation,” Mr. Powell said.Despite such explanations, some lawmakers grilled the Fed chair on Tuesday over what the central bank expected to do to the labor market with its policy adjustments.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, suggested that the Fed was trying to “throw people out of work” and that millions of people stood to lose their jobs if unemployment rose as much as central bankers expected.“I would explain to people, more broadly, that inflation is extremely high, and that it is hurting the working people of this nation badly,” Mr. Powell said. “We are taking the only measures that we have to bring inflation down.”When Ms. Warren continued to press him on the Fed’s plan, Mr. Powell responded that the central bank was doing what policymakers believed was necessary.“Will working people be better off if we just walk away from our jobs and inflation remains 5, 6 percent?” Mr. Powell asked.He also underlined that the Fed does “not seek, and we don’t believe that we need to have,” a “very significant” downturn in the labor market, because there are many job openings, so it is possible that the labor market could cool quite a bit without outright job losses.“Other business cycles had quite different back stories than this one,” he said. “We’re going to have to find out whether that matters or not.”Joe Rennison More