Senate Committee on Banking

Latest story

138 Shares199 Views

Silicon Valley Bank’s Risks Went Deep. Congress Wants to Know Why.

by

Lapses at the bank will be a focus as a top Federal Reserve official testifies to House and Senate committees this week.WASHINGTON — The nation’s top financial regulators will face a grilling from lawmakers on Tuesday over the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank as they push to understand why the firm was allowed to grow so rapidly and build up so much risk that it failed, requiring a government rescue for depositors and sending shock waves across global markets.Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, will testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday alongside Martin Gruenberg, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Nellie Liang, the Treasury’s under secretary for domestic finance. The same officials are set to testify before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday.Lawmakers are expected to focus on what went wrong. The picture that has emerged so far is of a bank that grew ravenously and ran itself more like a start-up than a 40-year-old lender. The bank took in a large share of big — and uninsured — depositors even as it used its assets to double down on a bet that interest rates would stay low.Instead, the Fed raised rates sharply to slow rapid inflation, reducing the market value of Silicon Valley Bank’s large holdings of longer-term bonds and making them less attractive as new securities offered higher returns. When SVB sold some of its holdings to shore up its balance sheet, it incurred big losses.That spooked its customers, many of whom had deposits far above the $250,000 limit on what the government would guarantee in the event the bank failed. They raced to pull their money out, and the bank collapsed on March 10.The question is why supervisors at the Fed failed to stop the bank from making dangerous mistakes that seem obvious in hindsight. And the answer is important: If the Fed missed the problems because of widespread flaws in the ways banks are overseen and regulated, it could mean other weak spots in the industry are slipping through the cracks.Here is a rundown of what is already known, and where lawmakers could push for firmer answers this week.As Silicon Valley Bank grew, the Fed found problems.Silicon Valley Bank went to just above $115 billion in assets at the end of 2020 from $71 billion at the end of 2019. That growth catapulted it to a new level of oversight at the Fed by late 2021 — into the purview the Large and Foreign Banking Organization group.That group includes a mix of staff members from the Fed’s regional reserve banks and its Board of Governors in Washington. Banks that are large enough to fall under its remit get more scrutiny than smaller organizations.Silicon Valley Bank would most likely have moved to that more onerous oversight rung at least a couple of years earlier had it not been for a watering-down of rules that the Fed carried out under Randal K. Quarles, who was its supervisory vice chair during the Trump administration.By the time the bank had come under intense scrutiny, problems had already started: Fed officials found big issues in their first sweeping review.Supervisors promptly issued six citations — called matters requiring attention or matters requiring immediate attention — that amounted to a warning that SVB was doing a faulty job of managing its ability to raise cash in a pinch if needed.It is not clear precisely what those citations said, because the Fed has not released them. By the time the bank went through a full supervisory review in 2022, supervisors were seeing glimmers of progress on the issues, a person familiar with the matter said.Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, is scheduled to testify at the hearings.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesSilicon Valley Bank was given a ‘satisfactory’ rating despite its issues.Perhaps in part because of that progress, SVB’s liquidity — its ability to come up with money quickly in the face of trouble — was rated satisfactory last year.Around that time, bank management was intensifying its bet that rates would stop climbing. SVB had been maintaining protection against rising rates on a sliver of its bond portfolio — but began to drop even those in early 2022, booking millions in profits by selling off the protection. According to a company presentation, SVB was newly focused on a scenario in which borrowing costs fell.That was a bad call. The Fed raised interest rates at the fastest pace since the 1980s last year as it tried to control rapid inflation — and Silicon Valley Bank was suddenly staring down huge losses.The bank’s demise set off cascading concerns.By mid-2022, Fed supervisors had focused a skeptical eye on SVB’s management, and it was barred from growing by buying other institutions. But by the time Fed officials had reviewed the bank’s liquidity fully again in 2023, its problems had turned crippling.SVB had been borrowing heavily from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco for months to raise cash. On March 8, the bank announced that it would need to raise capital after selling its bond portfolio at a loss.On March 9, customers tried to pull $42 billion from SVB in one day — the fastest bank run in history — and it had to scramble to tap the Fed’s backup funding source, the discount window. What loans it could get in exchange for its assets were not enough. On March 10, it failed.That only started the problems for the broader banking system. Uninsured depositors at other banks began to nervously eye their own institutions. On March 12 — a Sunday evening — regulators announced that they were closing another firm, Signature Bank.To forestall a nationwide bank run, regulators said they would make sure even the failed banks’ big depositors were paid back in full, and the Fed opened a new program to help banks get cash in a pinch.But that did not immediately stem the bleeding: Fed data showed that bank deposits fell by $98 billion to $17.5 trillion in the week that ended March 15, the biggest decline in nearly a year. But even those numbers hid a trend playing out under the surface: People moved their money away from smaller banks to banking giants that they thought were less likely to fail.Deposits at small banks dropped by $120 billion, while those at the 25 largest banks shot up by about $67 billion. Government officials have said those flows have abated.As customers and investors began to probe for weak spots in the financial system, other banks found themselves in tumult — including Credit Suisse in Switzerland, which was taken over, and First Republic, which took a capital injection from other banks.Lawmakers from both parties want answers.“It is concerning that Federal Reserve staff did not intervene in a timely manner and use the powerful supervisory and enforcement tools available to prevent the firm’s failure and subsequent market uncertainty,” Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee wrote in a letter released Friday.Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, have introduced legislation to require a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed inspector general at the Fed and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Fed already has an internal watchdog, but this one would be appointed by the president.Recent bank failures “serve as a clear reminder that banks cannot be left to supervise themselves,” Ms. Warren warned. She has also pushed for an inspector general review of what went wrong with Silicon Valley Bank.Congress wants to know whom to blame.Much of the focus in recent weeks has been on who at the Fed is to blame. Mr. Barr started in his role midway through 2022, so he has mostly been left out of the finger-pointing.Some have pointed to Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Presidents of regional Fed banks typically do not play a leading role in bank oversight, though they can flag gaping problems to the Federal Reserve Board in extreme cases.Others have pointed to Mr. Barr’s predecessor, Mr. Quarles, who left his supervisory vice chair post in October 2021. Mr. Quarles helped to roll back regulations, and people familiar with his time at the Fed have said his tone when it came to supervision — which he thought should be more transparent and predictable — led many bank overseers to take a less strict approach.And some critics have suggested that Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, helped to enable the problems by voting for Mr. Quarles’s deregulatory changes in 2018 and 2019.An internal Fed review of what went awry is set for release on May 1. And the central bank has expressed an openness to an outside inquiry.“It’s 100 percent certainty that there will be independent investigations and outside investigations and all that,” Mr. Powell said at news conference last week. “Of course we welcome that.” More

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Default Would Cripple U.S. Economy, New Analysis Warns

    by

    As President Biden prepares to release his latest budget proposal, a top economist warned lawmakers that Republicans’ refusal to raise the nation’s borrowing cap could put millions out of work.WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy could quickly shed a million jobs and fall into recession if lawmakers fail to raise the nation’s borrowing limit before the federal government exhausts its ability to pay its bills on time, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, Mark Zandi, warned a Senate panel on Tuesday.The damage could spiral to seven million jobs lost and a 2008-style financial crisis in the event of a prolonged breach of the debt limit, in which House Republicans refuse for months to join Democrats in voting to raise the cap, Mr. Zandi and his colleagues Cristian deRitis and Bernard Yaros wrote in an analysis prepared for the Senate Banking Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Policy.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, held the subcommittee hearing on the debt limit, and its economic and financial consequences, at a moment of fiscal brinkmanship. House Republicans are demanding deep spending cuts from President Biden in exchange for voting to raise the debt limit, which caps how much money the government can borrow.That debate is likely to escalate when Mr. Biden releases his latest budget proposal on Thursday. The president is expected to propose reducing America’s reliance on borrowed money by raising taxes on high earners and corporations. But he almost certainly will not match the level of spending cuts that will satisfy Republican demands to balance the budget in a decade.The report also warns of stark economic damage if Mr. Biden, in an attempt to avert a default, agrees to those demands. In that scenario, the “dramatic” spending cuts that would be needed to balance the budget would push the economy into recession in 2024, cost the economy 2.6 million jobs and effectively destroy a year’s worth of economic growth over the next decade, Mr. Zandi and his colleagues wrote.The U.S. economy could quickly shed a million jobs and fall into recession if lawmakers fail to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times“The only real option,” Mr. Zandi said in an interview before his testimony, “is for lawmakers to come to terms and increase the debt limit in a timely way. Any other scenario results in significant economic damage.”Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Withdraws Sarah Bloom Raskin as Nominee for Fed’s Top Bank Cop

    by

    President Biden will withdraw his nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to serve as the Federal Reserve’s top bank regulator on Tuesday, after a Democratic senator said he would join Republicans in voting against her, most likely dooming her chances of confirmation.Ms. Raskin earlier on Tuesday sent a letter to the White House asking to withdraw her name from consideration to be the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, according to two people familiar with the decision. The New Yorker earlier reported the existence of the letter.“Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups,” Mr. Biden said in a statement released on Tuesday afternoon.While the end of Ms. Raskin’s candidacy will leave the Biden administration without the regulatory voice it was hoping for at the Fed Board, which oversees the nation’s largest banks, it could pave the way toward confirmation for the White House’s other Fed picks. Republicans had been stonewalling Ms. Raskin’s nomination, and in the process they were holding up the White House’s four other Fed nominees, including Jerome H. Powell, who is seeking confirmation to a second term as Fed chair.Besides Mr. Powell, Mr. Biden has nominated Lael Brainard to be the Fed’s vice chair and two academic economists — Philip N. Jefferson and Lisa D. Cook — to serve as governors.“I urge the Senate Banking Committee to move swiftly to confirm the four eminently qualified nominees for the Board of Governors,” Mr. Biden wrote in his statement.Ms. Raskin almost certainly lacked sufficient support to pass the Senate. Republicans opposed her nomination to be vice chair for bank supervision and Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said on Monday that he would not vote to confirm her.In deciding to withhold support for Ms. Raskin, Mr. Manchin essentially doomed her chances in an evenly divided Senate. Democrats most likely needed all 50 lawmakers who caucus with their party to vote for Ms. Raskin, with Vice President Kamala Harris able to break ties.Republicans had shown little appetite for placing a supporter of tougher bank regulation into a powerful regulatory role at the Fed and had also boycotted her nomination over her work in the private sector. Lawmakers refused to show up to a key committee vote to advance her nomination to the full Senate.They had also seized on Ms. Raskin’s writings, saying her statements showed that she would be too aggressive in policing climate risks within the financial system and would overstep the unelected central bank’s boundaries.“President Biden was literally asking for senators to support a central banker who wanted to usurp the Senate’s policymaking power for herself,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said on Tuesday. He added: “It is past time the White House admit their mistake and send us someone suitable.”Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, cited Ms. Raskin’s past comments on the role that financial regulation should play in fighting climate change for his opposition.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Manchin, who represents a coal state and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, cited Ms. Raskin’s climate comments in explaining his opposition.Ms. Raskin had written an opinion piece in September 2021 arguing that “U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”She did not argue that the Fed push beyond its legal boundaries, and the fierce backlash underlined that the issue of climate-related regulation is politically fraught territory in the United States.The White House “may want to take some time, lick their wounds, and make sure they carefully think about who to nominate next,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. He noted that he would expect the White House to name a new nominee before the midterm elections in November. “They’re not having success with candidates who do not sit well with moderate Democrats.”Saule Omarova, a Cornell Law School professor whom critics painted as a communist after Mr. Biden picked her to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, withdrew her candidacy late last year.Opponents to Ms. Raskin’s confirmation targeted more than just her climate views. They also took issue with work she did in the private sector — and the way she answered questions about that work.Republicans had specifically cited concerns about Ms. Raskin’s time on the board of directors of a financial technology firm. The company, Reserve Trust, secured a coveted account with the Fed — giving it access to services that it now prominently advertises — after Ms. Raskin reportedly called a central bank official to intervene on its behalf.It is unclear how much Ms. Raskin’s involvement actually helped. But the episode raised questions because she previously worked at the Fed and because she made about $1.5 million from the stock she earned for her Reserve Trust work. Democrats regularly denounce the revolving door between regulators and financial firms.Republicans had demanded that Ms. Raskin provide more details about what happened while she was on the company’s board, but she had largely said she could not remember. Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, led his colleagues in refusing to show up to vote on Ms. Raskin and the other Fed nominees until she provided more answers.Mr. Toomey signaled on Monday that he would favor allowing the other Fed nominees to proceed.Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would hold a markup for the other nominees, and later told reporters that he might move them as soon as this week.“Sadly, the American people will be denied a thoughtful, experienced public servant who was ready to fight inflation, stand up to Wall Street and corporate special interests, and protect our economy from foreign cyberattacks and climate change,” Mr. Brown said in his statement.Several more progressive Democrats expressed disappointment that Ms. Raskin would not be confirmed.“The lobbyists have power on Capitol Hill, and when they see their power threatened, they fight back hard — Sarah Bloom Raskin is just the latest casualty,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in response to the news.Michael D. Shear More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Federal Reserve Chair Pledges to Bring Inflation Under Control

    by

    Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, told senators on Thursday that policymakers were prepared to rein in inflation as they tried to fulfill their price stability goal — even if that came at an economic cost.“We’re going to use our tools, and we’re going to get this done,” Mr. Powell told the Senate Banking Committee.Mr. Powell has signaled that the Fed is poised to raise interest rates by a quarter percentage point at its meeting that ends March 16, and follow up with additional rate increases over the next several months. Fed officials are also planning to come up with a strategy for shrinking their vast holdings of government-backed debt, which will increase longer-term interest rates.The suite of policy changes will be an effort to weigh on demand, tamping down price increases that are running at their fastest pace in 40 years. The Fed aims for 2 percent price gains on average over time, but inflation came in at 6.1 percent in the year through January.Asked if the Fed was prepared to do whatever it took to control inflation — even if that meant temporarily harming the economy, as Paul Volcker did while Fed chair in the early 1980s — Mr. Powell said it was.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.“I knew Paul Volcker,” he said during his testimony. “I think he was one of the great public servants of the era — the greatest economic public servant of the era. I hope that history will record that the answer to your question is yes.”Mr. Volcker’s campaign against double-digit price increases pushed unemployment above 10 percent in the early 1980s, hurting the economy so severely that wages and prices began to slow down.But central bankers are hoping they can engineer a smoother economic cool-down this time.They are reacting much faster to high inflation than officials did in the 1960s and 1970s, and data suggests that consumers and businesses, while cognizant of inflation, have not yet come to expect rapid increases year after year. By cooling off demand a little, the Fed’s policies may work together with easing supply chain problems to bring inflation down without tossing people out of jobs.“Mortgage rates will go up, the rates for car loans — all of those rates that affect consumers’ buying decisions,” Mr. Powell said of the way higher rates would work. “Housing prices won’t go up as much, and equity prices won’t go up as much, so people will spend less.”The goal is to allow factories and businesses to catch up so shoppers are no longer competing for a limited stock of goods and services, creating shortages that enable companies to raise prices without scaring voracious buyers away.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Senate Republicans Stall Crucial Vote on Fed Nominees

    by

    President Biden’s plans to reshape the Federal Reserve suffered a setback on Tuesday as Republicans delayed a key vote on his five nominees for its Board of Governors.Republicans did not show up for a committee decision that would have advanced the nominees to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Because a majority of the Senate Banking Committee’s members need to be physically present for such votes to count, their blockade effectively halted the process.The unusual maneuver, spearheaded by Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, was driven by Republican opposition to Mr. Biden’s pick for the nation’s top bank cop, Sarah Bloom Raskin.The president has renominated Jerome H. Powell as Fed chair and has tapped Lael Brainard, a current Fed governor, as vice chair. He has also nominated the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson as Fed governors. But Ms. Raskin — a longtime Washington policymaker and lawyer whom Mr. Biden has picked as vice chair for bank supervision — has garnered the most pushback.To prevent her nomination from advancing to the full Senate, Republicans held up the vote on all five nominees.Democrats and the White House criticized Republicans for engineering a boycott and scrambled for a solution that could get the nominees to a confirmation vote. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and chair of the Banking Committee, on Tuesday shot down the idea that he would separate Ms. Raskin from the other nominees to allow the rest to advance. Ms. Raskin could face tough odds of passing, especially on her own.By nominating five of the Fed’s seven governors and all of its highest-ranking leaders, Mr. Biden had a chance to shake up the institution. While some of his picks — like Mr. Powell — represented continuity, together they would have made up the most racially and gender-diverse Fed leadership team ever.Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University who co-wrote a book on the politics of the Fed, said Democrats would need to come up with a strategy to overcome the Republican block or the nominees could get stuck in limbo.“It is really a delay — it might yet scupper Raskin,” she said. She noted that Democrats could break the nominations up or try to garner enough support among the full Senate to override the rules and get the nominees past the committee, though that might be a challenge.“It’s pretty uncharted, and they’re going to have to find a way,” Dr. Binder said.Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that outside of trying to change Senate rules — which she called the “nuclear option” — Democrats’ clearest avenue was probably to negotiate with Republicans.“They just need a Republican to show up,” she noted, explaining that the senator would not even need to vote yes for the committee to secure a majority and move the candidates along.Tuesday’s maneuver was the latest step in Mr. Toomey’s opposition campaign against Ms. Raskin, who would serve as arguably the nation’s most important bank regulator if confirmed.Mr. Toomey has criticized Ms. Raskin for past comments on climate-related regulation, worrying that she would be too activist in bank oversight. More recently, he has pressed for more information about her interactions with the Fed while she was on the board of a financial technology company that was pushing for a potentially lucrative central bank account.“Until basic questions have been adequately addressed, I do not think the committee should proceed with a vote on Ms. Raskin,” Mr. Toomey said in the statement.White House officials criticized his move as inappropriate when the Fed is wrestling with rapidly rising prices and preparing to raise interest rates next month.“It’s totally irresponsible, in our view — it’s never been more important to have confirmed leadership at the Fed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. She added that the administration’s focus now was moving the nominees through the committee and called Mr. Toomey’s probing of Ms. Raskin’s background “false allegations.”The dispute centers on the revolving door between government regulators and the arcane world of financial technology.Mr. Toomey and his colleagues have said Ms. Raskin, a former Fed and Treasury official, had contacted the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on behalf of Reserve Trust, a financial technology company. Reserve Trust secured a strategically important account at the Fed while she was on its board: To this day, it advertises that it is the only company of its kind with what’s known as a “master” account.Master accounts give companies access to the U.S. payment system infrastructure, allowing firms to move money without working with a bank, among other advantages.Republicans are blocking the process over concerns about one of the nominees, Sarah Bloom Raskin.Pool photo by Ken CedenoMs. Raskin said in written responses to Mr. Toomey’s questions early this month that she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account.” But Mr. Toomey said in a subsequent letter that the president of the Kansas City Fed, Esther George, had told his staff that Ms. Raskin called her about the account in 2017.The Kansas City Fed has insisted that it followed its normal protocol in granting Reserve Trust’s master account and noted that talking with a firm’s board members was “routine.” But Mr. Toomey has continued to push for more information.“Important questions about Ms. Raskin’s use of the ‘revolving door’ remain unanswered largely because of her repeated disingenuousness with the committee,” Mr. Toomey said in his statement Tuesday.Democrats have emphasized that Ms. Raskin recently committed to a new set of ethics standards, agreeing not to work for financial services companies for four years after she leaves government — a pledge Ms. Cook and Mr. Jefferson also made, at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.Ms. Brainard agreed to a weaker version of that commitment that would bar her from working at bank holding companies and depository institutions outside of mission-driven exceptions like banks that target underserved communities, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren’s office said Tuesday.Mr. Powell declined to make a similar commitment, the spokesperson said. The Fed chair did signal that he would adhere to the administration’s ethics rules, which ban paid work related to government service for two years upon leaving office.On Tuesday, a dozen Republican chairs in the room where the committee met remained empty while Democrats occupied their seats across the room. Democrats took a vote to show support, though it was not binding, and Mr. Brown pledged to reschedule.“Few things we do as senators will do more to help address our country’s economic concerns more than to confirm this slate of nominees, the most diverse and most qualified slate of Fed nominees ever put forward,” Mr. Brown said, chiding Republicans for skipping the session.“They’re taking away probably the most important tool we have — and that’s the Federal Reserve — to combat inflation,” he later added.The Fed has four current governors, in addition to its 12 regional presidents, five of whom vote on monetary policy at any given time. Mr. Powell has already been serving as chair on an interim basis, since his leadership term officially expired this month. Even if the nominees advance, Ms. Raskin may struggle to pass the full Senate. Winning confirmation would require her to maintain full support from all 50 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats and for all those lawmakers to be present unless she can win Republican votes. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, has been absent as he recovers from a stroke.“The Republicans are playing hardball because they can,” said Ian Katz, the managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. “At the least, it delays her confirmation. It could have the ultimate effect of killing it.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Sarah Bloom Raskin Faces a Contentious Senate Hearing

    by

    Sarah Bloom Raskin is a longtime Washington policy player with progressive credentials and a track record of speaking out against the fossil fuel industry, qualities that helped her to win the White House’s nomination to be America’s top bank cop.But those same views could leave her with a narrow path to confirmation as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision — especially if Senator Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat who is recovering from a stroke, is not present for her vote before the full Senate. (A senior aide to Mr. Luján said he was expected to make a full recovery, and would return in four to six weeks, barring complications.)And Ms. Raskin’s views are almost certain to ignite sparks at her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday.Ms. Raskin has been nominated alongside Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson, both economists up for seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Ms. Raskin, Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson will field questions from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs at 8:45 a.m. on Thursday.Ms. Raskin, a former Fed governor and high-ranking Treasury official who was most recently a professor at Duke Law School, is seen as a known entity by the banking industry that she would oversee. But business groups have been critical of her attention to climate issues — including an opinion piece she wrote in 2020 criticizing the Fed’s decision to design one of its emergency loan programs in a way that allowed fossil fuel companies to access emergency loans.“I’m deeply concerned that Sarah Bloom Raskin has — let’s be honest, she has explicitly, publicly advocated that the Fed use its powers to allocate capital,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said in an interview on Tuesday. “I think that’s disqualifying, and I think that is going to be a topic of discussion.”Such full-throated opposition from Republicans may mean more than just a heated hearing — Ms. Raskin may need to maintain the support of every Democrat in the Senate to stay on the narrow path to confirmation. If Democrats were to lose their fragile grasp on the Senate majority because Mr. Luján has not returned yet, it is not clear that she would garner the votes she would need to pass.Fed nominees need a simple majority to clear the Senate Banking Committee and then to win confirmation from the Senate as a whole, meaning that it is possible that Ms. Raskin could skate through if all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote in her favor, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie.Vice chair for supervision is arguably the most important job in American financial regulation, and given those high stakes, Ms. Raskin’s chances are being closely watched.“I’m not expecting her to get many, if any, Republican votes,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, explaining that he thinks she will ultimately secure enough Democratic support to pass, assuming all the Senators, including Mr. Luján, vote. “You hear different things from the industry: You hear some concerns that she is too progressive, but you also hear that she’s well within the mainstream.”Oil and gas businesses are mounting a campaign against more decisive climate monitoring by the Fed, worried that the central bank will subject banks to stringent oversight that dissuades them from lending money to the industry. This could bring skeptical questioning for all three nominees.“I am concerned about all of the Fed nominees and their apparent willingness, despite what some of them said, to include bank and financial regulations designed to prohibit legal industries from operating in the United States borrowing money,” Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, a Republican who sits on the committee, said on Wednesday.Mr. Toomey said during an interview on Wednesday that he also had some reservations about Dr. Cook.Lisa D. Cook, a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics, will also face questions from the committee on Thursday.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesMuch of the opposition coming from Republicans and lobbyists alike is aimed at Ms. Raskin, though. She argued in a Project Syndicate column recently that “all U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”But Ms. Raskin struck a gentler tone in her prepared testimony for the hearing, released Wednesday night, noting that the role does not involve excluding certain sectors and asserting that bank supervisors must ensure that “the safety of banks and the resilience of our financial system are never compromised in favor of short-term political agendas or special interest groups.”It is unclear at this point whether those assurances will be enough for her critics.The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to the Senate committee last week, urged lawmakers to ask Ms. Raskin about her position on whether the Fed’s regulatory approach should try to curb credit access for oil and gas companies. The business group asked whether Ms. Raskin would be independent of politics. After Democratic members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board clashed with and ultimately precipitated the resignation of the Trump appointee Jelena McWilliams, who was the regulator’s chairwoman, some Republicans have raised concerns that something similar could happen at the Fed. In December, partisan politics helped to scupper the nomination of Saule Omarova, who withdrew herself from consideration to be comptroller of the currency after attacks from Republicans and banking lobbyists, and as she struggled to draw wide enough support from Democrats.By contrast, the banking industry has taken a more benign view of Ms. Raskin. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the chief executive officers of the largest banks, congratulated Ms. Raskin and the other White House Fed picks in a statement after their nominations were announced, as did the American Bankers Association.Ms. Raskin is seen as a qualified candidate who understands the roles various regulators play in overseeing banks, according to one banking industry executive who asked not to be identified discussing regulatory matters. Even though bankers expect Ms. Raskin to be confirmed, they are awaiting more clarity around her stance on climate finance and disclosures, the executive said.As she is received as a mainstream pick, centrist Democrats have sounded content with Ms. Raskin.“I’ve been very impressed with her,” Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said on Tuesday, adding that he had not met her yet but that he was “favorably inclined” and noting that banks have expressed comfort with her.Senator Joe Manchin III from West Virginia, a key centrist Democrat, said on Wednesday that he hadn’t yet studied the nominees, adding that he’s “going to get into that” because he’s “very concerned” about issues including inflation.A Harvard-trained lawyer, Ms. Raskin is a former deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, where she focused on financial system cybersecurity, among other issues. She also spent several years as Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation. Ms. Raskin is married to Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat.If confirmed, she would be only the second person formally appointed as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, succeeding Randal K. Quarles, a Trump administration pick who typically favored lighter and more precise regulation. Ms. Raskin, by contrast, has a track record of calling for stricter regulation. Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson might both might be quizzed about their views on policy and professional backgrounds. The Fed has seven governors — including its chair, vice chair and vice chair for supervision — who vote on monetary policy alongside five of its 12 regional bank presidents. Governors hold a constant vote on regulation.Philip N. Jefferson, an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed, is also a nominee for the Fed’s board.John Crawford/Davidson CollegeDr. Cook, who would be the first Black woman ever to sit on the Fed’s board, is a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics. She earned a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and was an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.“High inflation is a grave threat to a long, sustained expansion, which we know raises the standard of living for all Americans and leads to broad-based, shared prosperity,” Dr. Cook said, after emphasizing her decades of experience, calling tackling America’s current burst in prices the Fed’s “most important task.”Dr. Jefferson, who is also Black, is an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed. He has written about the economics of poverty, and his research has delved into whether monetary policy that stokes investment with low interest rates helps or hurts less-educated workers.He seconded that the Fed must “ensure that inflation declines to levels consistent with its goals,” speaking in his prepared testimony.Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson, and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who had previously been renominated as Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the committee chairman, said all five candidates will face a key committee vote on Feb. 15, and that Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, “knows to move quickly” for a full floor vote.If all pass, the Fed’s leadership will be the most diverse in both race and gender that it has ever been — fulfilling a pledge of Mr. Biden’s to make the long heavily male and white central bank more representative of the public that it is intended to serve. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Lael Brainard predicts that the Fed will engineer a soft economic landing.

    by

    Lael Brainard, a Federal Reserve governor whom President Biden has nominated to be the central bank’s new vice chair, said the Fed would communicate its plans for removing economic support clearly — and suggested that the job market would continue to grow even as the Fed pulled back its help and as inflation began to ease.Ms. Brainard faced vetting before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. She fielded questions about her qualifications and her views on the Fed’s role in preparing the financial system for climate change and the outlook for the United States economy.In a hearing marked by limited contention — one that suggested Ms. Brainard could enjoy some bipartisan support — the nominee expressed a willingness to combat high and rising prices by removing Fed help for the economy. The central bank is already slowing its bond-buying program, and it has signaled that it could soon raise interest rates and begin to shrink its asset holdings in a bid to further cool off the economy.“I believe we’ll be able to see inflation coming back down to target while the employment picture continues to clear,” Ms. Brainard said, after noting that the Fed would communicate its plans for withdrawing support clearly. “There are some short-term constraints there that I think are limiting people from coming back into the labor market. As those are lifted, I think we’ll have continued gains.”The jobless rate has been plummeting, but millions of workers are still missing from the job market compared with before the pandemic, and many employers complain that they cannot find employees, suggesting that health concerns and other challenges are keeping many people on the sidelines for now. At the same time, price inflation is rapid, with a report on Wednesday showing that a key price index rose in December at the fastest pace since 1982.Ms. Brainard acknowledged that pandemic imbalances that have roiled global shipping and shut down factories are part of what is driving high inflation today — and that the Fed’s policies can do little to fix those supply problems. But she highlighted that Fed policies that affect borrowing costs can have a significant impact in cooling off demand.“We have a set of tools — they are very effective — and we will use them to bring inflation back down,” Ms. Brainard said.Fed officials have increasingly signaled that they expect to raise interest rates in 2022 to keep high inflation from becoming permanent. Markets increasingly expect four rate increases in 2022, which would put the Fed’s short-term policy interest rate just above 1 percent. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Lael Brainard, Nominee for Fed Vice Chair, Calls Inflation ‘Too High’

    by

    Lael Brainard, a Federal Reserve governor whom President Biden has nominated to be the central bank’s new vice chair, plans to tell lawmakers that the central bank will use its policies to wrestle inflation under control when she testifies at her confirmation hearing.Ms. Brainard, who will face vetting before the Senate Banking Committee at 10 a.m. on Thursday, is likely to garner considerable support among Democrats and may pick up some Republican votes, though how many are unclear at this point.Her nomination — and her new role at the Fed if the Senate confirms her — comes at a challenging economic moment. While unemployment is falling rapidly, inflation has taken off, with a report on Wednesday showing that a key price index rose in December at the fastest pace since 1982.“We are seeing the strongest rebound in growth and decline in unemployment of any recovery in the past five decades,” Ms. Brainard will say, according to her prepared remarks. “But inflation is too high, and working people around the country are concerned about how far their paychecks will go.”Ms. Brainard will also tell lawmakers that the Fed’s policies are “focused on getting inflation back down to 2 percent while sustaining a recovery that includes everyone,” calling that the central bank’s “most important task.”After nearly two years of propping up a virus-stricken economy by keeping interest rates at rock bottom and buying government-backed debt, Fed officials began to slow their large bond purchases late last year. That program is on track to end in March. Officials have signaled in recent weeks that they also expect to lift interest rates to make borrowing more expensive, slowing demand and helping to cool the economy.Markets increasingly expect four rate increases in 2022, which would put the Fed’s short-term policy interest rate just above 1 percent.“Today the economy is making welcome progress, but the pandemic continues to pose challenges,” Ms. Brainard will say. “Our priority is to protect the gains we have made and support a full recovery.”Ms. Brainard has been at the Fed since 2014, spanning the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Before that, she was a top international official at the Treasury Department. An economist and a Democrat, she had been seen as a potential contender to be Treasury secretary or Fed chair during the Biden administration.She has a good working relationship with Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, whom Mr. Biden has renominated for a second term. She will use her prepared statement to emphasize that she has worked for many administrations in Washington — Democrats and Republicans alike — while pledging to take the Fed’s mission to fight inflation and its independence from partisan wrangling seriously.“I will bring a considered and independent voice to our deliberations,” she will say. More