Treasury Department

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Chinese Firm Sent Large Shipments of Gunpowder to Russian Munitions Factory

    by

    The previously unreported shipments between a state-owned Chinese company and a Russian munitions factory last year raise new questions about Beijing’s role in Russia’s war against Ukraine.On two separate occasions last year, railroad cars carrying tens of thousands of kilograms of smokeless powder — enough propellant to collectively make at least 80 million rounds of ammunition — rumbled across the China-Russia border at the remote town of Zabaykalsk.The powder had been shipped by Poly Technologies, a state-owned Chinese company on which the United States had previously imposed sanctions for its global sales of missile technology and providing support to Iran. Its destination was Barnaul Cartridge Plant, an ammunition factory in central Russia with a history of supplying the Russian government.These previously unreported shipments, which were identified by Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator, raise new questions about the role China has played in supporting Russia as it fights to capture Ukrainian territory. U.S. officials have expressed concerns that China could funnel products to Russia that would help in its war effort — what is known as “lethal aid” — though they have not said outright that China has made such shipments.Speaking from Beijing on Monday, Antony J. Blinken, the U.S. secretary of state, said China had assured the United States that it was not providing lethal assistance to Russia for use in Ukraine, and that the U.S. government had “not seen anything right now to contradict that.”“But what we are concerned about is private companies in China that may be providing assistance,” Mr. Blinken said.Some experts said the shipments Poly Technologies had made to Barnaul Cartridge Plant since the invasion, which totaled nearly $2 million, according to customs records, constituted such lethal assistance. According to the customs records, Poly Technology intended its shipments to be used in the kinds of ammunition fired by Russian Kalashnikov assault rifles and sniper rifles.William George, the director of research at Import Genius, said that Poly Technologies “may be toeing the line on exactly what constitutes lethal aid to Russia,” but that the implications of the shipments were clear.“When shipping large quantities of gunpowder intended for the creation of military cartridges to a country at war, it’s unreasonable to imagine that the finished product won’t be used to lethal effect on the battlefield,” Mr. George said.“It is lethal support,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “The question is, how impactful and large scale is that?”Spent Russian ammunition casings near a destroyed Russian armored vehicle at a frontline position in the northern region of Kyiv in March 2022.Mr. Gabuev said that China had generally refrained from any actions that would “in a visible, forceful way” cross red lines the U.S. government had detailed at the beginning of the war about what would constitute a violation of Western sanctions. Since Poly Technologies has a history of shipments to the Barnaul plant before the war though, China might see those shipments as part of regular trade flows.“By and large, China tries to stick to those red lines,” he said. “Having said that, we see that there are some contracts and transactions going on.”Poly Technologies is a subsidiary of China Poly Group Corporation, which is owned by the Chinese government. Previous reports by The Wall Street Journal and CNN documented shipments of navigation equipment and helicopter parts from Poly Technologies to Russian state-backed firms.Barnaul Cartridge Plant, the recipient of the powder shipments, is privately owned. But Russian procurement records provided to The New York Times by C4ADS, a Washington, D.C.-based global security nonprofit, show the company had numerous contracts with divisions of the Russian government and military over the past decade, including the Russian Ministry of Defense.Barnaul Cartridge Plant was added to a list of companies sanctioned by the European Union in December. Open source information suggests the plant may have served as a training camp linked with the Wagner Group, a private Russian military force with ties to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.There is no known direct link between these particular shipments of smokeless powder and the Ukrainian battlefield, and in customs paperwork Poly Technologies described the powder as being “for assembly of foreign-style hunting cartridges.”But Brian Carlson, a China-Russia expert and the head of the global security team of the think tank at the Center for Security Studies, said that while such cartridges could be used for hunting, this was rare. “These are military cartridges,” he said.Most modern firearms and other weapons used by soldiers and civilians alike rely on smokeless powder to propel a bullet to its target. When the trigger is pulled, a firing pin strikes the rear of the ammunition cartridge, igniting the powder, which burns extremely fast and forces the bullet down the barrel of a firearm.This kind of powder is also used by militaries as the propellant for mortar ammunition, launching explosive-laden projectiles weighing from four pounds to 30 pounds or more.Poly Technologies and Barnaul Cartridge Plant did not respond to requests for comment.The war in Ukraine, now in its 17th month, has intensified in recent weeks. The ability of both militaries to obtain munitions and equipment has become a crucial factor that could influence the war’s outcome.Ukrainian soldiers after firing a rocket-propelled grenade at Russian troops. The type of powder sent by a Chinese company to a Russian ammunition factory is used as the propellant for mortar ammunition.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesWestern countries clamped down on their trade with Russia following the invasion, to try to starve the country of military goods as well as supplies that feed their economy and help the government generate revenue.But countries like China, India, the United Arab Emirates, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey stepped in to provide Russia with goods ranging from mundane products like smartphones and cars to aircraft parts and ammunition.Both state-owned and private Chinese companies have sold Russia products that could plausibly be used by either civilians or the military — including drones, semiconductors, hunting rifles, navigation equipment and airplane parts.China has remained officially unaligned in the war. Officials there argue Beijing is a neutral party and a peacemaker. In practice, however, China has become an important diplomatic, economic and security partner for Russia, after proclaiming a “no limits” partnership early last year.In a speech in April in Washington, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen called that partnership a “worrisome indication” that China is not serious about ending the war. And she warned that the consequences for China of providing Russia with material support or assisting in evading sanctions “would be severe.”In recent months, U.S. officials have also privately reached out directly to Chinese financial institutions to discuss the risks of facilitating the evasion or circumvention of sanctions and export controls.Chinese companies “have a choice to make,” Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said in an interview on Fox Business TV earlier this month. “They can provide Russia with material support for their military and continue to do business with an economy that represents maybe $1.5 trillion and is getting smaller, or you can continue to do business with the rest of the world.”Poly Technologies is one of China’s largest arms exporters. It produces equipment for police and military forces, including weapons, personal protective gear, explosives and missile systems. It attracted censure in past decades for shipping small arms to Zimbabwe. In the last few years, it has sent weapons shipments to Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nigeria, according to records accessed through Sayari Graph, a mapping tool for corporate ownership and commercial relationships.Barnaul products have been common on American shelves in recent years, including ammunition for military-style rifles, hunting rifles and American handguns. The goods came to America through several importers, including MKS Supply, LLC, a wholesale ammunition distributor in Dayton, Ohio.According to an MKS Supply official, the company stopped working with Barnaul Cartridge Plant early last year following a U.S. government ban on imports of Russian ammunition.Edward Wong More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Energy Tax Credits, Meant to Help U.S. Suppliers, May Be Hard to Get

    by

    The Inflation Reduction Act contains tax breaks for solar and wind companies to buy American equipment. Qualifying won’t be easy.In April, Vice President Kamala Harris visited Qcells, a solar panel manufacturing facility in Dalton, Ga., to announce an early triumph of the Inflation Reduction Act: Summit Ridge Energy, one of the nation’s largest developers of community solar projects, would purchase 2.5 million U.S.-made solar panels.Subsidies under the new law brought the price in line with that of imported panels, allowing the companies to fight climate change and promote American manufacturing in one fell swoop.A month later, the Treasury Department issued guidance that functionally would require the solar cells — not just the panels — to be made in the United States for Summit Ridge to have confidence that it will get its 10 percent tax credit on installations that use them. Qcells won’t be able to produce cells until late 2024, sending Summit Ridge scrambling to find cheaper components for projects currently in its pipeline.“There’s not a single solar manufacturer who fully qualifies for this at this moment in time, which makes it difficult and is actually starting to cool investment,” said Leslie Elder, Summit Ridge’s vice president of political and regulatory affairs. “Now we have to re-evaluate based on what can pencil.”On paper, the Inflation Reduction Act is transformative for electricity generation in the United States.The law offers tax credits that could cover up to 70 percent of a renewable energy project’s cost if it checks several boxes meant to support American workers and communities. A new analysis finds that those incentives more than offset the additional expense associated with using domestically produced goods and paying prevailing wages.But guidance rolling out from the Biden administration — presaging formal rules — has raised alarm among energy companies that some of the credits might be difficult if not impossible to use, at least in the near term. The resulting frustration is emblematic of the current stage of climate action: an eye-straining haze of technical rule-making that reflects a tension between urgency and ensuring that the benefits of the energy transition are widely shared.Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the Treasury, expressed confidence that in combination, the rules would strike that balance.“We have a great deal of clarity about the strategic objectives, and we’re already seeing the impact of that in terms of the economy,” Mr. Adeyemo said. “It isn’t about any one rule. It’s about an ecosystem of rules that have been created under the I.R.A. that put us in a position to go from a country that had underinvested in the clean energy transition to being at the head of the pack.”The analysis, overseen by professors at Princeton and Dartmouth experienced in modeling climate policy’s effects, finds that the incentive aimed at U.S. manufacturers makes domestic solar panels more than 30 percent less costly to produce than imports. With incentives claimed by clean energy developers that meet labor standards and use domestic content, the total cost of generating utility-scale solar electricity could be lowered by 68 percent, and onshore wind energy by 77 percent.The study was funded by the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership of unions and environmental groups. The organization has championed elements of the Biden administration’s climate agenda that support domestic manufacturing, particularly in places hurt by globalization, automation and the decline of fossil fuels.“Until now, the moral case and the business case did not always align,” said Ben Beachy, the organization’s vice president for industrial policy. “The I.R.A. changes that by offering developers an airtight business case for supporting high-paying jobs and a stronger and fairer U.S. manufacturing base.”The impact of the climate law is already evident, with announcements of 47 new plants to make batteries, solar panels and wind turbines since it was passed, according to American Clean Power, a trade association. Other analyses, including a paper by economists and engineers at the Electric Power Research Institute, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the University of California, Berkeley, found that the law would encourage more low-emissions projects eligible for uncapped tax credits than anticipated, potentially making the costs to the government substantially higher than earlier estimates.A recent study found that federal incentives could reduce the total cost of utility-scale onshore wind energy generation by 77 percent.Alisha Jucevic for The New York TimesBut the BlueGreen Alliance’s study shows significant uncertainty about the impact of rising material costs as demand for domestically sourced aluminum, steel and concrete increases, and doesn’t account for profits manufacturers might command before more competition enters the market. It also projects four million more jobs will be available in wind and solar energy by 2035 than if the I.R.A. hadn’t passed — more than eight times the current employment base — but does not model whether labor supply will measure up.“I find some of their key results to be highly optimistic, and that they likely underestimate some of the economywide costs associated with this scale of clean energy deployment,” said Daniel Raimi, a fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future who reviewed the analysis.At the same time, clean energy companies are digesting the administration’s guidance on how the tax credits will be allocated, and finding some unworkable in ways that may slow deployment.Take the bonus of up to 20 percent for developers that locate projects in low-income communities (which is separate from a bonus of 10 percent for locating in areas struggling with the transition away from fossil fuels). The Treasury Department, wanting to ensure that credits give rise to projects that wouldn’t otherwise happen, will award them only to projects not yet completed. Solar installers would have to sell the system and then wait to see if they got the credit before starting work.“I think we will lose some development in low-income communities this year because of the way that credit has been constructed,” said Sean Gallagher, a vice president for policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. “Either the developer is going to absorb that difference, or they’ll have to go back to the customer to renegotiate the price, or the project’s not going to happen.”An even thornier issue is the extra 10 percent for using domestically manufactured components. Manufacturers are concerned that while effectively requiring solar cells to be made in the United States to qualify for the credit, the Treasury Department did not require their foundational component — the wafer, a thin slice of silicon that conducts energy — to be domestically produced. That could allow Chinese factories to continue to dominate a key part of the supply chain.“The prices they’re ultimately getting from the developers are undermined because the Chinese wafer manufacturers can crash the prices,” said Mike Carr, the executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America Coalition.Developers are upset because receiving the credit will, in most cases, require a complex calculation of the cost of each component to reach the threshold of 40 percent U.S.-produced content, and manufacturers are loath to disclose sensitive pricing information. Many also expected a more gradual phase-in process that would allow some of the current U.S. factory output to qualify for the credit, while planning for more stringent requirements.Brett Bouchy is the chief executive of Freedom Forever, a residential solar installation company that did more than $1 billion in business last year. He had planned to build a solar module and cell manufacturing plant in Arizona, which would cost $100 million and employ 1,000 people, to supply his own operations. After the guidance came out, he halted those plans — he couldn’t be confident his panels would qualify for the domestic content credit on top of the 7 cents per watt available to manufacturers.“We cannot make it work,” Mr. Bouchy said. “There is no benefit, because that 7 cents is eaten up with increased U.S. labor costs. Why would you invest $100 million when you really can’t get a return?”Those who support the administration’s approach emphasize that the bonus tax credits are just that: bonuses, not requirements, to offset costs associated with going the extra mile. Developers already get a 30 percent base incentive — and at least 10 years of certainty — for paying prevailing wages and employing apprentices, which most don’t consider very difficult.Todd Tucker, the director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, said high standards were necessary to make investors confident that new U.S. factories would have enough orders to stay in business.“Once you start indicating that you’re going to allow some flexibility, that, by definition, softens the market signal,” he said.The Treasury Department is still taking comments on the rules for all of the credits, and industry trade associations are vying to change them. Even so, most companies say that the Inflation Reduction Act overall is a powerful force for decarbonization, and that companies have a strong incentive to seek every credit it allows.“It’s amazing how focusing this is for the mind, when people start throwing these kinds of dollars around,” said Sheldon Kimber, the chief executive of Intersect Power, a clean energy developer. “We’re being asked to do a hard thing, but there’s a lot of money in it for us.” More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    A $1 Trillion Borrowing Binge Looms After Debt Limit Standoff

    by

    The government has avoided default, but the effects of the debt-ceiling brinkmanship may still ripple across the economy.The United States narrowly avoided a default when President Biden signed legislation on Saturday that allowed the Treasury Department, which was perilously close to running out of cash, permission to borrow more money to pay the nation’s bills.Now, the Treasury is starting to build up its reserves and the coming borrowing binge could present complications that rattle the economy.The government is expected to borrow around $1 trillion by the end of September, according to estimates by multiple banks. That steady state of borrowing is set to pull cash from banks and other lenders into Treasury securities, draining money from the financial system and amplifying the pressure on already stressed regional lenders.To lure investors to lend such huge amounts to the government, the Treasury faces rising interest costs. Given how many other financial assets are tied to the rate on Treasuries, higher borrowing costs for the government also raise costs for banks, companies and other borrowers, and could create a similar effect to roughly one or two quarter-point rate increases from the Federal Reserve, analysts have warned.“The root cause is still very much the whole debt ceiling standoff,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, an interest rate strategist at TD Securities.Some policymakers have indicated that they may opt to take a break from raising rates when the central bank meets next week, in order to assess how policy has so far impacted the economy. The Treasury’s cash rebuild could undermine that decision, because it would push borrowing costs higher regardless.That could in turn exacerbate worries among investors and depositors that flared up in the spring over how higher interest rates had eroded the value of assets held at small and medium sized banks.The deluge of Treasury debt also amplifies the effects of another Fed priority: the shrinking of its balance sheet. The Fed has curtailed the number of new Treasuries and other debt that it buys, slowly letting old debt roll-off and already leaving private investors with more debt to digest.“The potential hit to the economy once Treasury goes to market selling that much debt could be extraordinary,” said Christopher Campbell, who served as assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions from 2017 to 2018. “It’s difficult to imagine Treasury going out and selling what could be $1 trillion of bonds and not have that have an impact on borrowing costs.”The cash balance at the Treasury Department’s general account fell below $40 billion last week as lawmakers raced to reach an agreement to increase the nation’s borrowing cap. Mr. Biden on Saturday signed legislation that suspended the $31.4 trillion debt limit until January 2025.For months, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had been using accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to delay a default. Those included suspending new investments in retirement funds for postal workers and civil servants.Restoring those investments is essentially a simple accounting fix, but refilling the government’s cash coffers is more complicated. The Treasury Department said on Wednesday that it hoped to borrow enough to rebuild its cash account to $425 billion by the end of June. It will need to borrow much more than that to account for planned spending, analysts said.“The supply floodgates are now open,” said Mark Cabana, an interest rate strategist at Bank of America.A Treasury Department spokesman said that when making decisions on issuing debt, the department carefully considered investor demand and market capacity. In April, Treasury officials started surveying key market players about how much they thought the market could absorb after the debt-limit standoff was resolved. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York this month asked large banks for their estimates of what they expected to happen to bank reserves and borrowing from certain Fed facilities in the next months.The spokesman added that the department had managed similar situations before. Notably, after a bout of debt-limit wrangling in 2019, the Treasury Department rebuilt its cash pile over the summer, contributing to factors that drained reserves from the banking system and upended the market’s plumbing, prompting the Fed to intervene to stave off a worse crisis.One of the things the Fed did was establish a program for repurchase agreements, a form of financing with Treasury debt posted as collateral. That backstop could provide a safety net to banks short on cash from lending to the government, though its use was widely seen in the industry as a last resort.A similar but opposite program, which doles out Treasury collateral in exchange for cash, now holds over $2 trillion, mostly from money market funds that have struggled to find attractive, safe investments. This is viewed by some analysts as money on the sidelines that could flow into the Treasury’s account as it offers more attractive interest rates on its debt, reducing the impact of the borrowing spree.But the mechanism by which the government sells its debt, debiting bank reserves held at the Fed in exchange for the new bills and bonds, could still test the resilience of some smaller institutions. As their reserves decline, some banks may find themselves short on cash, while investors and others may not be willing to lend to institutions they see as troubled, given recent worries about some corners of the industry.That could leave some banks reliant on another Fed facility, set up at the height of this year’s banking turmoil, to provide emergency funding to deposit taking institutions at relatively high cost.“You may see one or two or three banks caught unprepared and suffer the consequences, starting a daisy chain of fear that can permeate through the system and create trouble,” Mr. Goldberg of TD Securities said. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen’s Debt Limit Warnings Went Unheeded, Leaving Her to Face Fallout

    by

    The Treasury secretary, who considered ways to contain the fallout of a default when she was a Fed official in 2011, had urged Democrats to raise the limit while they still had control of Congress.In the days after November’s midterm elections, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen was feeling upbeat about the fact that Democrats had performed better than expected and maintained control of the Senate.But as she traveled to the Group of 20 leaders summit in Indonesia that month, she said Republicans taking control of the House posed a new threat to the U.S. economy.“I always worry about the debt ceiling,” Ms. Yellen told The New York Times in an interview on her flight from New Delhi to Bali, Indonesia, in which she urged Democrats to use their remaining time in control of Washington to lift the debt limit beyond the 2024 elections. “Any way that Congress can find to get it done, I’m all for.”Democrats did not heed Ms. Yellen’s advice. Instead, the United States has spent most of this year inching toward the brink of default as Republicans refused to raise or suspend the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit without capping spending and rolling back parts of President Biden’s agenda.Now the federal government’s cash balance has fallen below $40 billion. And on Friday, Ms. Yellen told lawmakers that the X-date — the point at which the Treasury Department runs out of enough money to pay all its bills on time — will arrive by June 5.Ms. Yellen has held her contingency plans close to the vest but signaled this week that she had been thinking about how to prepare for the worst. Speaking at a WSJ CEO Council event, the Treasury secretary laid out the difficult decisions she would face if the Treasury was forced to choose which bills to prioritize.Most market watchers expect that the Treasury Department would opt to make interest and principal payments to bondholders before paying other bills, yet Ms. Yellen would say only that she would face “very tough choices.”White House officials have refused to say if any contingency planning is underway. Early this year, Biden administration officials said they were not planning for how to prioritize payments. As the U.S. edges closer to default, the Treasury Department declined to say whether that has changed.Yet former Treasury and Federal Reserve officials said it was nearly certain that emergency plans were being devised.Christopher Campbell, who served as assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions from 2017 to 2018, said that given the rapidly approaching X-date, “one would expect” that “there would be quiet conversations between the Treasury Department and the White House around how they would manage a technical default and perhaps prioritization of payments.”The Treasury Department has developed a default playbook from previous debt limit standoffs in 2011 and 2013. And Ms. Yellen has become quite familiar with those: During the last two significant standoffs — in 2011 and 2013 — she was a top Federal Reserve official contemplating how the central bank would try to contain fallout from a default.Ms. Yellen was briefed on the Treasury’s plans during those debates and engaged in her own contingency discussions about how to stabilize the financial system in the event that the United States could not pay all of its bills on time.According to the Fed’s transcripts, the Treasury Department did in fact plan to prioritize principal and interest payments to bondholders in the event that the X-date was breached. Although Treasury Department officials had trepidations about the idea, they had expressed to Fed officials that it could ultimately be done.Fed officials also discussed steps that they could take to stabilize money markets and to prevent failed Treasury auctions from prompting a default even if the Treasury Department was successfully paying creditors. Ms. Yellen said in both 2011 and 2013 that she was on board with plans to protect the financial system.“I expect that actions of this type might well prove unnecessary after the Treasury finally states that they do intend to pay principal and interest on time and we have finally issued our own set of policy statements,” Ms. Yellen said in 2011. “But if the stress nevertheless escalates, I’d support interventions to alleviate pressures on money market funds.”Ms. Yellen added that she was concerned about how vulnerable market infrastructure was in the event of a default and said officials should be thinking about ways to plan for a default in the future.Despite Ms. Yellen’s efforts to steer clear of the politics surrounding the debt limit, Republicans have been expressing doubts about her credibility. Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“Given that we could face a similar situation somewhere down the road, I think it’s important for us to think about lessons learned so that we and markets will be better prepared if we face such a situation again,” Ms. Yellen said.Eric Rosengren, who was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 2011, said in an interview that he expected that Ms. Yellen, who is known for being rigorously prepared, was busy considering contingency plans as she did at the Fed more than a decade ago.“It would be irrational not to do some planning,” said Mr. Rosengren, adding that Ms. Yellen’s background of dealing with financial stability matters makes her well placed to be as ready as possible for the fallout of a default. “The last thing you want is to be completely unprepared and have the worst outcome.”As the debt ceiling standoff has intensified, Ms. Yellen has not been as involved in negotiations with lawmakers as her some of her predecessors.Mr. Biden tapped Shalanda Young, his budget director, and Steven J. Ricchetti, White House counselor, to lead the negotiations with House Republicans. Ms. Yellen has not attended the Oval Office meetings between Mr. Biden and Republicans.“It doesn’t look from the outside like Yellen is playing an active role in the budget negotiations,” said David Wessel, a senior economic fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked with Ms. Yellen at Brookings. “That may be that it’s not her comparative advantage, it may be that the White House wants to do it themselves, and it may be that they want to protect the credibility of Treasury predicting the X-date.”Ms. Yellen has taken a more behind the scenes role, briefing the White House on the nation’s cash reserves, calling business leaders and asking them to urge Republicans to lift the debt limit and sending increasingly regular letters to Congress warning when the federal government will be unable to pay all its bills.A White House official pointed out that Ms. Yellen has been the Biden administration’s primary messenger on the debt limit on the Sunday morning talk shows, and that she is coordinating on a daily basis with Jeffrey D. Zients, the White House chief of staff, and Lael Brainard, the director of the National Economic Council, to plot the administration’s strategy. Other officials have participated in the Oval Office meetings because the White House continues to view them as budget negotiations, the official added.The Treasury secretary also cut short a recent trip to Japan for a meeting of the Group of 7 finance ministers so she could return to Washington to deal with the debt limit.Despite Ms. Yellen’s efforts to steer clear of the politics surrounding the debt limit, Republicans have been expressing doubts about her credibility.Members of the House Freedom Caucus wrote a letter to Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently urging Republican leaders to demand that Ms. Yellen “furnish a complete justification” of her earlier projection that the U.S. could run out of cash as soon as June 1. In the letter, they accused her of “manipulative timing” and suggested that her forecasts should not be trusted because she was wrong about how hot inflation would get.The letter that Ms. Yellen sent on Friday provided a specific deadline — June 5 — and listed the upcoming payments that the federal government is required to make and explained why the Treasury Department would be unable to cover its debts beyond that date.Representative Patrick T. McHenry, a North Carolina Republican helping to lead the negotiations, said on Friday that there have been doubts about the X-date because it has been offered as a range. That, he said, is not what Americans experience when they do not have money to pay their mortgage bills on the day that they are due.“There was some skepticism of a date range — that you can pick whatever you want,” he said. “That is not how this works.”Republicans have also been targeting some of Ms. Yellen’s most prized policy priorities in the negotiations, such as rolling back some of the $80 billion that the Internal Revenue Service received as part of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act.The White House appears prepared to return $10 billion of those funds, which are intended to bolster the agency’s ability to catch tax cheats, in exchange for preserving other programs.In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press this week, Ms. Yellen lamented that Republicans were targeting the money.“Something that greatly concerns me is that they have even been in favor of removing funding that’s been provided to the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on tax fraud,” she said.Whenever the debt limit standoff does subside, Democrats will most likely come under renewed pressure to overhaul the laws that govern the nation’s borrowing the next time they control the White House and Congress. Fearing that a fight over the debt limit would put her in the precarious position that she now faces, Ms. Yellen said in 2021 that she supported abolishing the borrowing cap.“I believe when Congress legislates expenditures and puts in place tax policy that determines taxes, those are the crucial decisions Congress is making,” Ms. Yellen said at a House Financial Services Committee hearing. “And if to finance those spending and tax decisions it is necessary to issue additional debt, I believe it is very destructive to put the president and myself, as Treasury secretary, in a situation where we might be unable to pay the bills that result from those past decisions.” More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Billionaires Worth More Than the United States’ Cash Balance

    by

    The cash balance at the Treasury Department is now lower than the net worth of some of the world’s richest people.The Treasury Department said its cash balance fell to $38.8 billion as of Thursday, as the United States inched toward running out of cash to pay its bills.That was significantly lower than the $316 billion the department had in operating cash, which is held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, at the start of the month.Just how empty is the Treasury cash coffer? For comparison, $38.8 billion is on par with the gross domestic product of Bahrain and Paraguay and lower than the net worth of more than two dozen of the wealthiest people in the world. Of course, much of the assets of those billionaires are tied up in stocks, rather than liquid assets.Here is a list of people with higher net worths than the U.S. cash reserves, according to Bloomberg News’s Billionaire Index as of Thursday. (Under the news agency’s editorial policy, its billionaire owner, Michael Bloomberg, is not considered for the index. Forbes, though, estimates his net worth at $94.5 billion.)Bernard Arnault, chief executive of the luxury group LVMH: $189 billionElon Musk, chief executive of SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter: $179 billionJeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon: $139 billionBill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: $125 billionLarry Ellison, co-founder and executive chairman of Oracle: $116 billionSteve Ballmer, investor and former chief executive of Microsoft: $113 billionLarry Page, co-founder of Google: $112 billionWarren Buffett, investor: $111 billionSergey Brin, co-founder of Google: $106 billionMark Zuckerberg, co-founder and chief executive of Facebook: $92.3 billionCarlos Slim, investor: $90.3 billionFrançoise Bettencourt Meyers, heir to the L’Oréal fortune and company board member: $87.2 billionMukesh Ambani, chairman of the energy group Reliance Industries: $83.7 billionAmancio Ortega, founder of the Inditex fashion group: $67.1 billionJim Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $66.6 billionRob Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $64.9 billionAlice Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune: $63.8 billionGautam Adani, founder and chairman of the Adani Group conglomerate: $63.4 billionJacqueline Mars, heir to and co-owner of the candy maker Mars: $61.7 billionJohn Mars, heir to and chairman of Mars: $61.7 billionZhong Shanshan, founder and chairman of the bottled-water company Nongfu Spring: $61.6 billionJulia Flesher Koch and family, heirs of the businessman David Koch: $60.6 billionCharles Koch, chief executive of the industrial conglomerate Koch Industries: $60.4 billionMichael Dell, chief executive and chairman of Dell Technologies: $53.4 billionAlain Wertheimer, co-owner and chairman of Chanel: $45.9 billionGérard Wertheimer, co-owner of Chanel: $45.9 billionGiovanni Ferrero, executive chairman of the chocolate and confectionery company Ferrero Group, and family: $43.6 billionZhang Yiming, founder and chief executive of the technology company ByteDance: $42.3 billionPhil Knight, co-founder of Nike, and family: $41.5 billionKlaus-Michael Kühne, honorary chairman and majority owner of the transport company Kuehne+Nagel: $40.9 billionFrançois Pinault, founder of the luxury group Kering: $39.6 billion More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Time Is Running Out for Congress to Raise the Debt Ceiling

    by

    With a June 5 deadline looming, there is much to be done to prevent the default that leaders of both parties said would never happen.Senator Mitch McConnell had a message for Americans growing increasingly worried that the economy is going to crash if the federal debt ceiling is not raised: Just chill.“Look, I think everybody needs to relax,” Mr. McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader with deep experience in debt limit showdowns, told reporters back home earlier this week. “Regardless of what may be said about the talks on a day-to-day basis, the president and the speaker will reach an agreement. It will ultimately pass on a bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate. The country will not default.”That may be a case of easier said than done. While Mr. McConnell, President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy have repeatedly assured Americans that there will be no default, that guarantee is looking a little shakier with little more than a week to go before the U.S. Treasury is projected to run out of cash to pay its obligations.Even if negotiators agree to a deal soon — an outcome that appeared within reach but still had not materialized as talks continued on Friday — there is still much to be done, not the least of which is winning approval in the House and Senate. That outcome is nowhere near certain given rising uneasiness — and some outright opposition — on both the right and left. At this point, no one can be absolutely certain that the United States won’t tumble over the default cliff, even if no one involved wants that to happen. Time is short.President Biden said last weekend there was a chance a default could happen. “I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” he told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Doug Mills/The New York Times“No one can guarantee there won’t be a default, if for no other reason than the clock is ticking down here pretty quickly,” said G. William Hoagland, a longtime Republican budget guru on Capitol Hill who is now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “We are on thin ice in a big way.”Negotiators got some breathing room Friday afternoon with the Treasury secretary’s announcement that the default deadline had moved four days later, to June 5. But Congress will still be hard-pressed to act by then, and the brief extension might even be counterproductive, sapping some urgency to seal a deal.“We’re within the window of being able to perform this, and we have to come to some really tough terms in these closing hours,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry, Republican of North Carolina and a lead negotiator for Mr. McCarthy. “We’re going back on final, important matters, and it’s just not resolved.”Since the beginning of the impasse, Mr. Biden and congressional leaders have sought to tamp down concern that a default would occur, essentially saying that it was unthinkable because Congress has narrowly avoided default before. After one of the high-level meetings at the White House, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, cheered the fact that all four leaders had said default was off the table.Part of their motivation in offering these constant reassurances was to bolster their own forces, calm the public and keep the financial markets from cratering as the talks wore on.But President Biden changed his tune slightly during his visit to Japan last weekend, saying for the first time that if Republicans insisted on pushing the issue to the hilt, maybe default was an option after all.“I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” Mr. Biden told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House, suggested some Republicans might want a default if they could benefit from it politically.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesRepresentative Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic of New York and the minority leader, expressed a similar sentiment when asked this week if he could still be certain the government would not default.“Not with this group,” he said, referring to Republicans, some of whom he suspects would not mind the financial chaos resulting from a default if they thought it could help them politically in 2024.Mr. McCarthy, the House leader and a California Republican, has also stated repeatedly that there would be no default and on Friday emphasized that he believed that a positive outcome would be the result.“I’m a total optimist,” he told reporters as negotiations continued with no apparent breakthrough.One way Mr. McCarthy has said a default could be avoided is for the Senate to pass and the president to sign the measure Republicans passed in the House raising the debt limit while making steep budget cuts and rolling back other Biden administration initiatives. But that is unlikely to happen even if the Treasury runs out of money. Mr. McCarthy has also ruled out an emergency short-term suspension of the debt ceiling.Representatives Garret Graves, left, and Patrick McHenry are two of the negotiators for the Republicans.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesEven an agreement between House Republicans and Mr. Biden would not end the drama; in some respects, it would be just the beginning.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, a timeline that pushes the showdown ever closer to the Treasury’s early June deadline.Plus, with hard-right elements of the Republican conference joining progressive Democrats in expressing reservations about the deal taking shape, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Jeffries may have to thread the needle to produce the necessary votes from both sides to win approval of the deal.Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team will have to assess extremely accurately the number of Republicans committed to voting for any final budget deal with a debt limit increase attached. Then they will need to let Mr. Jeffries know the number of votes Democrats need to produce to make sure at least 218 lawmakers will support the package.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, which makes the deadline to tight.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMiscalculation could mean disaster. With the nation in a dire financial crisis in September 2008, the House stunned the Bush administration by failing to pass its bank bailout program. In a chaotic turn of events on the House floor, the measure failed as many Republicans refused to back it despite presidential pleas and some Democrats balked as well. The stock market tumbled in real time as the vote unfolded. Four days later, rattled House members came back and approved the proposal with a few changes.Some believe that it might require a similar scenario now to push the debt limit plan through Congress — a failed vote and market drop that underscores the economic consequences of a default and motivates lawmakers to act. Others would prefer it not come to that given the potentially severe ramifications of even a brief default.“I have been of the optimistic view that it wouldn’t happen, but the longer it goes on, the more likely it seems to me,” said Mr. Hoagland, the budget expert. “Time has run out for getting this done, but I am just praying a default doesn’t happen.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Ceiling Crisis: How a Default Could Unfold

    by

    Here’s a look at what markets are expecting and planning for, and how a default might happen.The United States is inching closer to calamity, as lawmakers continue to spar over what it will take to raise the country’s $31.4 trillion debt limit.That has raised questions about what will happen if the United States does not raise its borrowing cap in time to avoid defaulting on its debt, along with how key players are preparing for that scenario and what would actually happen should the Treasury Department fail to repay its lenders.Such a situation would be unprecedented, so it’s difficult to say with certainty how it would play out. But it’s not the first time investors and policymakers have had to contemplate “what if?” and they’ve been busy updating their plans for how they think things may play out this time.While negotiators appear to be moving toward an agreement, time is short. There is no certainty that the debt limit will be lifted before June 5, when the Treasury now estimates the government will run out of cash to pay all of its bills on time, a moment known as the “X-date.”“We’ve got to be in the closing hours because of the timeline,” said Representative Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who is involved in the talks. “I don’t know if it’s in the next day or two or three, but it’s got to come together.”Big questions remain, including what could happen in the markets, how the government is planning for default and what happens if the United States runs out of cash. Here’s a look at how things could unfold.Before the X-DateFinancial markets have become more jittery as the United States moves closer to the X-date. While exuberance over the profit-boosting expectations of artificial intelligence has helped the stock market recover, fears about the debt limit persist. On Friday, the S&P 500 rose 1.3 percent, a modest gain of 0.3 percent for the week.This week, Fitch Ratings said it was placing the nation’s top AAA credit rating on review for a possible downgrade. DBRS Morningstar, another rating firm, did the same on Thursday.For now, the Treasury is still selling debt and making payments to its lenders.That has helped mollify some concerns that the Treasury won’t be able to repay debt coming due in full, as opposed to just an interest payment. That’s because the government has a regular schedule of new Treasury auctions where it sells bonds to raise fresh cash. The auctions are scheduled in a way so that the Treasury receives its new borrowed cash at the same time that it pays off its old debts.That allows the Treasury to avoid adding much to its outstanding $31.4 trillion debt load — something it can’t do right now since it enacted extraordinary measures after coming within a whisker of the debt limit on Jan. 19. And it should give the Treasury the cash it needs to avoid any disruption to payments, at least for now.This week, for example, the government sold two-year, five-year and seven-year bonds. However, that debt doesn’t “settle” — meaning the cash is delivered to the Treasury and the securities delivered to the buyers at the auction — until May 31, coinciding with three other securities coming due.More precisely, the new cash being borrowed is slightly larger than the amount coming due, with the tricky act of balancing all of the money coming in and out pointing to the Treasury’s challenge in the days and weeks ahead.When all the payments are tallied, the government ends up with a little over $20 billion of extra cash, according TD Securities.Some of that could go to the $12 billion of interest payments that the Treasury also has to pay that day. But as time goes on, and the debt limit becomes harder to avoid, the Treasury may have to postpone any incremental fund-raising, as it did during the debt limit standoff in 2015.After the X-Date, Before DefaultThe U.S. Treasury pays its debts through a federal payments system called Fedwire. Big banks hold accounts at Fedwire, and the Treasury credits those accounts with payments on its debt. These banks then pass the payments through the market’s plumbing and via clearing houses, like the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, with the cash eventually landing in the accounts of holders from domestic retirees to foreign central banks.The Treasury could try to push off default by extending the maturity of debt coming due. Because of the way Fedwire is set up, in the unlikely event that the Treasury chooses to push out the maturity of its debt it will need to do so before 10 p.m. at the latest on the day before the debt matures, according to contingency plans laid out by the trade group Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, or SIFMA. The group expects that if this is done, the maturity will be extended for only one day at a time.Investors are more nervous that should the government exhaust its available cash, it could miss an interest payment on its other debt. The first big test of that will come on June 15, when interest payments on notes and bonds with an original maturity of more than a year come due.Moody’s, the rating agency, has said it is most concerned about June 15 as the possible day the government could default. However, it may be helped by corporate taxes flowing into its coffers next month.The Treasury can’t delay an interest payment without default, according to SIFMA, but it could notify Fedwire by 7:30 a.m. that the payment will not be ready for the morning. It would then have until 4:30 p.m. to make the payment and avoid default.If a default is feared, SIFMA — alongside representatives from Fedwire, the banks and other industry players — has plans in place to convene up to two calls the day before a default could occur and three further calls on the day a payment is due, with each call following a similar script to update, assess and plan for what could unfold.“On the settlement, infrastructure and plumbing, I think we have a good idea of what could happen,” said Rob Toomey, head of capital markets at SIFMA. “It’s about the best we can do. When it comes to the long-term consequences, we don’t know. What we are trying to do is minimize disruption in what will be a disruptive situation.”Default and BeyondOne big question is how the United States will determine if it has actually defaulted on its debt.There are two main ways the Treasury could default: missing an interest payment on its debt, or not repaying its borrowings when the full amount becomes due.That has prompted speculation that the Treasury Department could prioritize payments to bondholders ahead of other bills. If bondholders are paid but others are not, ratings agencies are likely to rule that the United States has dodged default.But Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has suggested that any missed payment will essentially amount to a default.Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said an early warning sign that a default was coming could arrive in the form of a failed Treasury auction. The Treasury Department will also be closely tracking its expenditures and incoming tax revenue to forecast when a missed payment could happen.At that point, Mr. Akabas said, Ms. Yellen is likely to issue a warning with the specific timing of when she predicts the United States will not be able to make all of its payments on time and announce the contingency plans she intends to pursue.For investors, they will also receive updates through industry groups tracking the key deadlines for the Treasury to notify Fedwire that it will not make a scheduled payment.A default would then set off a cascade of potential problems.Rating firms have said a missed payment would merit a downgrade of America’s debt — and Moody’s has said it will not restore its Aaa rating until the debt ceiling was no longer subject to political brinkmanship.International leaders have questioned whether the world should continue to tolerate repeated debt-ceiling crises given the integral role the United States plays in the global economy. Central bankers, politicians and economists have warned that a default would most likely tip America into a recession, leading to waves of second order effects from corporate bankruptcies to rising unemployment.But those are just some of the risks known to be lurking.“All of this is uncharted waters,” Mr. Akabas said. “There’s no playbook to go by.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Warns of Missed Payments if Debt Limit Is Not Lifted

    by

    The Treasury secretary said the Biden administration would face “very tough choices” if Congress did not act.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Wednesday that it was “almost certain” that the United States would not have enough cash to continue to pay all of its bills on time beyond early June and that she would soon provide Congress with a more precise update about when the nation could default if the debt limit was not raised.The comments, made at a WSJ CEO Council event, came as negotiators for the White House and House Republicans raced to reach a deal to raise the debt limit and reduce government spending that Congress can pass before June 1. The Treasury secretary reiterated her warning that a default would inflict severe damage on the U.S. economy and made the case that she would be left with no good options to contain the fallout.“Treasury and President Biden will face very tough choices if Congress doesn’t act to raise the debt ceiling and if we hit the so-called X-date without that occurring,” Ms. Yellen said. “There will be some obligations that we will be unable to pay.”Ms. Yellen declined to elaborate on how exactly she would proceed if the debt limit was not lifted, but she dismissed the idea that “prioritizing” certain payments that the government was required to make would be an easy solution. She noted that government payment systems were devised to pay bills on time, not to decide which ones to pay.“Prioritization is not really something that is operationally feasible,” she said.This week, Ms. Yellen notified Congress that the federal government could run out of cash as soon as June 1. Her projections have been met with skepticism by some House Republicans, who have been calling on her to produce an analysis that details the Treasury Department’s cash reserves to prove that the deadline is real.Ms. Yellen said on Wednesday that there was considerable uncertainty associated with tracking government payments and receipts but that she planned to provide as much clarity as possible in her next update.The Treasury secretary said she was already seeing “the beginnings” of stress in financial markets due to the brinkmanship. However, she said she had not been engaging with investors about what would happen if the debt limit was not lifted.“We are committed to not having missed payments and raising the debt ceiling,” Ms. Yellen said. “We are not involved in planning for what happens if there is a default.”Despite her concerns, she said that she was hopeful the negotiations would be successful and that the Biden administration had been committed to policies that would reduce deficits.“I think a deal is possible,” Ms. Yellen said. “They’re working toward an agreement that could command bipartisan support.” More