Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Latest story

125 Shares23 Views

Small Banks Say Their Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Fine

by

Community banks are big commercial real-estate lenders. But they say their loans are to sturdy local businesses, not those facing vacant office space.Small banks are feeling misunderstood.They see themselves as integral to neighborhoods across the country: backers of local dry cleaners, dentists and sandwich shops. Investors worry that those banks could be a crisis waiting to happen.The pride and the anxiety both reflect the fact that community banks are big lenders in the commercial real-estate market, which has been rocked by falling property values as large office buildings sit empty.But executives at these firms — which number about 4,100 in total — say there is an important distinction, and some industry analysts concur. They caution that small banks are being lumped in with lenders to the owners of half-empty towers in Manhattan, San Francisco and Chicago, which are in the most trouble.Instead, a majority of commercial building loans by community banks are for smaller buildings — like those housing doctors and local businesses — that tend to be fully leased. And while there are concerns about financial pressure on apartment building landlords if interest rates remain high, missed payments on those types of mortgages have not risen substantially.“The focus has been on office as that is the weak category,” said John Buran, the chief executive officer of Flushing Financial, based in Uniondale, N.Y., which operates branches as Flushing Bank in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn and on Long Island. “Most community banks don’t have the type of exposure.”All of Flushing Financial’s loans are performing well, said John Buran, the firm’s chief executive.Graham Dickie/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares45 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Refuses to Block F.T.C.’s Noncompete Ban as Lawsuits Play Out

    by

    A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied a request to delay the rule, siding with the agency and diverging from another court’s decision earlier this month.A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday declined to block the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, diverging from another judge’s recent finding that the agency’s move was on shaky legal ground.The decision clears one obstacle to the F.T.C.’s move to prohibit virtually all noncompete agreements, which prohibit employees from switching jobs within an industry and affect roughly one in five American workers. The rule is set to take effect on Sept. 4.Several business groups sued to block the ban as soon as the F.T.C. voted to adopt it in April, saying it would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information. ATS Tree Services, a tree-removal company, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing that it used noncompetes to “provide its employees with necessary and valuable specialized training while minimizing the risk that employees will leave and immediately use that specialized training and ATS’s confidential information to benefit a competitor.”But on Tuesday, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled that ATS had not proved that it would suffer irreparable harm from the rule. Denying the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, she said the lawsuit was unlikely to ultimately prevail on the merits.Judge Hodge’s decision “fully vindicates” the F.T.C.’s authority to ban noncompete clauses, “which harm competition by inhibiting workers’ freedom and mobility while stunting economic growth,” Douglas Farrar, a commission spokesman, said in a statement.A lawyer representing ATS, Josh Robbins of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian law group, said the firm was disappointed by the court’s decision and would “continue to fight the F.T.C.’s power grab.” Mr. Robbins declined to say whether the firm intended to appeal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares69 Views

    in Economy

    Antitrust Regulator Tells Chains: Back Off Your Franchisees

    by

    After a yearlong inquiry, the Federal Trade Commission warned brands not to gag their small business operators or charge them extra fees.In the long-simmering conflict between franchisers and franchisees, the federal government has weighed in on behalf of the smaller guys.In a business relationship that has become fundamental to American commerce, franchisers — brands like McDonald’s and Jiffy Lube — license the right to operate their concept to individual entrepreneurs, who provide start-up capital and may own one location or many.On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement and staff guidance that cautioned franchisers not to restrict their franchisees’ ability to speak to government officials or to tack on fees that weren’t disclosed in documents provided to prospective franchise buyers.In a news release, the commission said it was acting amid “growing concern about unfair and deceptive practices by franchisers — to ensure that the franchise business model remains a ladder of opportunity to owning a business for honest small business owners.”The agency has been scrutinizing the industry, which includes 800,000 business establishments, since issuing a request for information early last year that asked several questions about the franchisee-franchiser relationship. Around the same time, the Government Accountability Office issued a report finding that franchisees lacked control over crucial business decisions and that they often did not understand all the risks they faced before purchasing a license.Across the more than 2,200 comments posted in response to the F.T.C. request, a central theme emerged: A majority of franchisees wanted changes to the rules that governed the industry, while a majority of franchisers did not.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares156 Views

    in Economy

    Here’s Where Climate Change Is Driving Up Home Insurance Rates

    by

    Source: Keys and Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research (2024) Note: State average is shown in counties with few or no observations. Enid, Okla., surrounded by farms about 90 minutes north of Oklahoma City, has an unwelcome distinction: Home insurance is more expensive, relative to home values, than almost anywhere else in the country. Enid […] More

  • 125 Shares165 Views

    in Economy

    One Obstacle for Trump’s Promises: This Isn’t the 2016 Economy

    by

    Donald J. Trump slapped tariffs on trading partners and cut taxes in his first term. But after inflation’s return, a repeat playbook would be riskier.When Donald J. Trump became president in 2017, prices had risen roughly 5 percent over the previous four years. If he were to win the race for the White House in 2024, he would be entering office at a time when they are up 20 percent and counting.That is a critically different economic backdrop for the kind of policies — tariffs and tax cuts — that the Republican contender has put at the center of his campaign.Mr. Trump regularly blames the Biden administration for the recent price surge, but inflation has been a global phenomenon since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Supply chain problems, shifting consumer spending patterns and other quirks related to pandemic lockdowns and their aftermath collided with stimulus-fueled demand to send costs shooting higher.The years of unusually rapid inflation that resulted have changed the nation’s economic picture in important ways. Businesses are more accustomed to adjusting prices and consumers are more used to those changes than they were before the pandemic, when costs had been quiescent for decades. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve has lifted interest rates to 5.3 percent in a bid to slow demand and wrestle the situation under control.That combination — jittery inflation expectations and higher interest rates — could make many of the ideas Mr. Trump talks about on the campaign trail either riskier or more costly than before, especially at a moment when the economy is running at full speed and unemployment is very low.Mr. Trump is suggesting tax cuts that could speed up the economy and add to the deficit, potentially boosting inflation and adding to the national debt at a time when it costs a lot for the government to borrow. He has talked about mass deportations at a moment when economists warn that losing a lot of would-be workers could cause labor shortages and push up prices. He promises to ramp up tariffs across the board — and drastically on China — in a move that might sharply increase import prices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Many CEOs Still Support Biden Over Trump

    by

    Corporate executives complain about some of President Biden’s policies, along with his rhetoric. But so far they have not abandoned him en masse.When the White House chief of staff, Jeffrey Zients, met with dozens of top executives in Washington this month, he encountered a familiar list of corporate complaints about President Biden.The executives at the Business Roundtable, a group representing some of the country’s biggest corporations, objected to Mr. Biden’s proposals to raise taxes. They questioned the lack of business representation in the Cabinet. They bristled at what they called overregulation by federal agencies.While the meeting was not antagonistic, it was indicative of three and a half years of executive grousing about Mr. Biden. Business leaders have criticized his remarks on “corporate greed” and his appearance on a union picket line. They chafe at the actions of officials he has appointed — particularly the head of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, who has moved to block a series of corporate mergers.A number of prominent figures in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street — including the venture capitalists David Sacks and Marc Andreessen, and the hedge fund magnate Kenneth Griffin — have grown increasingly vocal in their criticism of Mr. Biden, their praise of former President Donald J. Trump, or both.Still, that shift mostly reflects movement among executives who already supported Republican politicians but had not previously embraced Mr. Trump. There is little evidence of a major shift in allegiance among executives away from Mr. Biden and toward Mr. Trump.Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who is in frequent contact with corporate leaders, said most chief executives he had spoken to preferred Mr. Biden to Mr. Trump, “some of them enthusiastically and some of them biting their lip and holding their nose.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Dilemma on Wall Street: Short-Term Gain or Climate Benefit?

    by

    A team of economists recently analyzed 20 years of peer-reviewed research on the social cost of carbon, an estimate of the damage from climate change. They concluded that the average cost, adjusted for improved methods, is substantially higher than even the U.S. government’s most up-to-date figure.That means greenhouse gas emissions, over time, will take a larger toll than regulators are accounting for. As tools for measuring the links between weather patterns and economic output evolve — and the interactions between weather and the economy magnify the costs in unpredictable ways — the damage estimates have only risen.It’s the kind of data that one might expect to set off alarm bells across the financial industry, which closely tracks economic developments that might affect portfolios of stocks and loans. But it was hard to detect even a ripple.In fact, the news from Wall Street lately has mostly been about retreat from climate goals, rather than recommitment. Banks and asset managers are withdrawing from international climate alliances and chafing at their rules. Regional banks are stepping up lending to fossil fuel producers. Sustainable investment funds have sustained crippling outflows, and many have collapsed.So what explains this apparent disconnect? In some cases, it’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma: If firms collectively shift to cleaner energy, a cooler climate benefits everyone more in the future. But in the short term, each firm has an individual incentive to cash in on fossil fuels, making the transition much harder to achieve.And when it comes to avoiding climate damage to their own operations, the financial industry is genuinely struggling to comprehend what a warming future will mean.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Starbucks Over ‘Memphis 7’ Union Case

    by

    In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices made it more difficult to order employers to reinstate fired workers.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing.Eight justices backed the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion that concurred with the overall judgment but dissented on certain points.The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating.After the firings, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying that Starbucks had acted because the workers had “joined or assisted the union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.” Separately, lawyers for the board asked a federal judge in Tennessee for an injunction reinstating the workers, and the judge issued the order in August 2022.The agency asks judges to reinstate workers in such cases because resolving the underlying legal issues can take years, during which time other workers may become discouraged from organizing even if the fired workers ultimately prevail.In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company argued that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions that reinstate workers, which the N.L.R.B. has the authority to seek under the National Labor Relations Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Has Fallen Behind the U.S. and China. Can It Catch Up?

    by

    A “competitiveness crisis” is raising alarms for officials and business leaders in the European Union, where investment, income and productivity are lagging.Europe’s share of the global economy is shrinking, and fears are deepening that the continent can no longer keep up with the United States and China.“We are too small,” said Enrico Letta, a former Italian prime minister who recently delivered a report on the future of the single market to the European Union.“We are not very ambitious,” Nicolai Tangen, head of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest, told The Financial Times. “Americans just work harder.”“European businesses need to regain self-confidence,” Europe’s association of chambers of commerce declared.The list of reasons for what has been called the “competitiveness crisis” goes on: The European Union has too many regulations, and its leadership in Brussels has too little power. Financial markets are too fragmented; public and private investments are too low; companies are too small to compete on a global scale.“Our organization, decision-making and financing are designed for ‘the world of yesterday’ — pre-Covid, pre-Ukraine, pre-conflagration in the Middle East, pre-return of great power rivalry,” said Mario Draghi, a former president of the European Central Bank who is heading a study of Europe’s competitiveness.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More