Treasury Department

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Fitch’s Debt Downgrade Is Unlikely to Deter Borrowing, Investors Say

    by

    Fitch’s credit-rating decision stemmed from concerns about America’s ability to govern itself, along with the nation’s growing debt load.The downgrade of the United States’ debt by a major ratings firm is a damning indictment of the country’s fractious politics and a blot on its financial record that is unlikely to be quickly erased. But many investors and analysts say it won’t affect the government’s ability to keep borrowing money.On Tuesday, Fitch Ratings lowered the credit rating of the United States one notch to AA+ from a pristine AAA. The firm, citing a “deterioration in governance” along with America’s mounting debt load, suggested that it could be a long time before that decision was reversed.“Our base case is that deficits will remain high and the debt burden will continue to rise,” said Richard Francis, co-head of the Americas sovereign group at Fitch and its primary analyst for the United States, in an interview on Wednesday. “I think it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful changes.”The move — like the drop to AA+ in 2011 by S&P Global, which has kept its U.S. rating there — followed partisan brinkmanship over America’s debt ceiling, which caps how much money the government can borrow. The United States came within days of defaulting on its debt this spring as Republican lawmakers refused to lift the cap unless President Biden made concessions on spending. The two sides ultimately reached an agreement on May 27, just days before the Treasury Department projected that the government could run out of cash.With both Fitch and S&P now carrying a lower assessment, the United States’ credit rating, at least for most investors, will no longer be considered among the top tier, which includes Germany, Australia and Singapore.While the move is something of a black eye, market watchers expect the practical impact to be small. Analysts at Wells Fargo noted that the early feedback from their clients was that their appetite to keep lending to the government wasn’t likely to change much.That’s because the U.S. Treasury market is the largest sovereign debt market in the world, underpinning borrowing costs across the globe, with Treasuries owned by investors of all stripes. The U.S. rating remains among the highest in the world, backed by a strong and diverse economy and aided by the central global role of the country’s currency.“This is largely a symbolic move,” said Peter Tchir, head of macro strategy at Academy Securities.Stock markets slumped on Wednesday, and the yield on Treasuries — which indicates how much investors are demanding to be paid in exchange for lending to the government — rose. But analysts suggested that had more to do with rising government borrowing forecasts, resulting in higher interest rates and pointing to increased costs for companies, too.Fitch downgraded America’s debt on the day that former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in an attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The attack showcased deep distrust in the government and the rule of law.Despite the suspension of the debt limit in June, future fiscal fights — including a possible government shutdown this fall — are looming. The lack of comity between the political parties means the cap is likely to remain a political tool, with no guarantee that a compromise will always be reached.That increased polarization was central to Fitch’s decision. Mr. Francis said intense partisanship had inhibited decisions on better budgeting and the debt ceiling, with both Democrats and Republicans unmovable on policies that could improve the country’s fiscal position. These include, he added, changes to taxes, military spending, and Social Security and Medicare, which are expected to face ballooning costs as more baby boomers retire.“There is no willingness on any side to really tackle the underlying challenges,” Mr. Francis said.The ratings agency also cited the Jan. 6 attack as a concern that fed into the downgrade.“There’s the debt ceiling standoff, there is this painful budgeting process, there is political polarization that is ongoing and probably deteriorating — and then there is the Jan. 6 insurrection, but that is one factor among many,” Mr. Francis said.The Federal Reserve’s rapid interest rate increases have compounded some of those factors by raising borrowing costs, forcing the government to borrow even more money to account for higher interest and other payments to bondholders.On Wednesday, the Treasury Department detailed its plans to borrow over $1 trillion for the third quarter, which runs from July through September. The estimate, announced on Monday, is $274 billion more than the Treasury had forecast in May. The United States current debt is $32.5 trillion.More borrowing means more debt for investors to digest. A larger supply of Treasuries while investor demand stays the same, or even shrinks, means higher borrowing costs for the government. The 10-year Treasury yield rose 0.07 percentage points on Wednesday to 4.09 percent, its highest level since November.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen continued to criticize the Fitch decision on Wednesday, describing it as “puzzling” and “entirely unwarranted.”“Its flawed assessment is based on outdated data and fails to reflect improvements across a range of indicators, including those related to governance, that we’ve seen over the past two and a half years,” Ms. Yellen said during an event in Virginia.Still, there does not seem to be any movement toward one solution that Fitch and many analysts have said would help the United States return to its higher rating: getting rid of the debt ceiling.Mr. Francis said it would “probably be helpful” to get rid of the debt limit if the United States ever wanted to regain a higher rating. Despite Mr. Biden’s desire to alter the process, there has been no indication that any changes are coming soon.Instead, Republicans and Democrats returned to the kind of partisan bickering that helped fuel the downgrade, with each side blaming the other for it.“The downgrade comes just months after Biden and congressional Democrats took the country to the brink of default and amid an increasingly unsteady economic path,” said Jake Schneider, director of rapid response for the Republican National Committee.The Democratic National Committee blamed the tax cuts and spending policies that were initiated by Republicans and Mr. Trump when he was president, saying the downgrade was “a direct result of Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ extreme and reckless agenda.” More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Credit Rating Is Downgraded by Fitch

    by

    The ratings agency, which lowered the U.S. long-term rating from its top mark, said debt-limit standoffs had eroded confidence in the nation’s fiscal management.The long-term credit rating of the United States was downgraded on Tuesday by the Fitch Ratings agency, which said the nation’s high and growing debt burden and penchant for brinkmanship over America’s authority to borrow money had eroded confidence in its fiscal management.Fitch lowered the U.S. long-term rating to AA+ from its top mark of AAA. The downgrade — the second in America’s history — came two months after the United States narrowly avoided defaulting on its debt. Lawmakers spent weeks negotiating over whether the United States, which ran up against a cap on its ability to borrow money on Jan. 19, should be allowed to take on more debt to pay its bills. The standoff threatened to tip the United States into default until Congress reached a last-minute agreement in May to suspend the nation’s debt ceiling, which allowed the United States to keep borrowing money.Despite that agreement, the federal government now faces the prospect of a shutdown this fall, as lawmakers spar over how, where and what level of federal funds should be spent. The nonstop dueling over federal spending was a major factor in Fitch’s decision to downgrade America’s debt.“The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management,” Fitch said in a statement. “In addition, the government lacks a medium-term fiscal framework, unlike most peers, and has a complex budgeting process.”Fitch pointed to the growing levels of U.S. debt in recent years as lawmakers passed new tax cuts and spending initiatives. The firm noted that the U.S. had made only “limited progress” in tackling challenges related to the rising costs of programs such as Social Security and Medicare, whose costs are expected to soar as the U.S. population ages.Fitch is one of the three major credit ratings firms, along with Moody’s and S&P Global Ratings. In 2011, S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating amid a debt-limit standoff — the first time the United States was removed from a list of risk-free borrowers.By one common measure, Fitch’s move downgrades America’s credit rating not only under the rating agency’s own assessment, but also for the blended rating of the three largest agencies.At the margin, the move by Fitch could limit the number of investors able to buy U.S. government debt, analysts have warned. Some investors are bound by constraints on the quality of the debt they can buy, and those that require a pristine credit rating across the three major agencies will now need to look elsewhere to fulfill investment mandates.That could nudge up the cost of the government’s borrowing at a time when interest rates are already at a 22-year high. Most analysts, however, doubt that the impact will be severe given the sheer size of the Treasury market and the ongoing demand from investors for U.S. Treasury securities.Still, the downgrade is a blemish on the nation’s record of fiscal management. The Biden administration on Tuesday offered a forceful rebuttal of the Fitch decision — criticizing its methodology and arguing that the downgrade did not reflect the health of the U.S. economy.“Fitch’s decision does not change what Americans, investors, and people all around the world already know: that Treasury securities remain the world’s pre-eminent safe and liquid asset, and that the American economy is fundamentally strong,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement.Ms. Yellen described the change as “arbitrary” and noted that Fitch’s ratings model showed U.S. governance deteriorating from 2018 to 2020 but that it did not make changes to the U.S. rating until now.Biden administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that they had been briefed by Fitch ahead of the downgrade and made their disagreements known. They noted that Fitch representatives repeatedly brought up the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection as an area of concern about U.S. governance.The downgrade came on the same day that former President Donald J. Trump was indicted in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which fueled the Jan. 6 riot.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said the Fitch downgrade was the fault of Republicans, who refused to raise America’s borrowing cap without steep concessions. He urged them to stop using the debt limit for political leverage.“The downgrade by Fitch shows that House Republicans’ reckless brinkmanship and flirtation with default has negative consequences for the country,” Mr. Schumer said.The debt limit agreement reached in June cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, in part by freezing some funding that was projected to increase next year and capping spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.Lawmakers and the White House avoided making big cuts to politically sensitive — and expensive — initiatives, including retirement programs. Even with the spending curbs the national debt — which is over $32 trillion — is poised to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade.It is unlikely that the downgrade by Fitch will convince lawmakers to drastically change the fiscal trajectory of the United States.“Instead of effectuating change, or fiscal discipline, our base case expectation is that Fitch will be pilloried by most members of Congress,” said Henrietta Treyz, director of macroeconomic policy research at Veda Partners. “It will not yield either deficit reduction, tax increases, reductions in military spending, entitlement reform or a change to the 12 appropriations bills that have already moved with substantial bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate.” More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen’s China Visit Aims to Ease Tensions Amid Deep Divisions

    by

    Mutual skepticism between the United States and China over a wide range of economic and security issues has festered in recent years.The last time a U.S. Treasury secretary visited China, Washington and Beijing were locked in a trade war, the Trump administration was preparing to label China a currency manipulator, and fraying relations between the two countries were roiling global markets.Four years later, as Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen prepares to arrive in Beijing, many of the economic policy concerns that have been festering between the United States and China remain — or have even intensified — despite the Biden administration’s less antagonistic tone.The tariffs that President Donald J. Trump imposed on Chinese goods are still in effect. President Biden has been working to restrict China’s access to critical technology such as semiconductors. And new restrictions curbing American investment in China are looming.Treasury Department officials have downplayed expectations for major breakthroughs on Ms. Yellen’s four-day trip, which begins when she arrives in Beijing on Thursday. They suggest instead that her meetings with senior Chinese officials are intended to improve communication between the world’s two largest economies. But tensions between United States and China remain high, and conversations between Ms. Yellen and her counterparts are likely to be difficult. She met in Washington with Xie Feng, China’s ambassador, on Monday, and the two officials had a “frank and productive discussion,” according to the Treasury.Here are some of the most contentious issues that have sown divisions between the United States and China.Technology and trade controlsChinese officials are still smarting at the Biden administration’s 2022 decision to place significant limitations on the kinds of advanced semiconductors and chip-making machinery that can be sent to China. Those limits have hampered China’s efforts to develop artificial intelligence and other kinds of advanced computing that are expected to help power each country’s economy and military going forward.The government of the Netherlands, which is home to semiconductor machinery maker ASML, on Friday announced new restrictions on machinery exports to China. On Monday, China placed restrictions on exports of germanium and gallium, two metals used to make chips.The Biden administration is mulling further controls on advanced chips and on American investment into cutting-edge Chinese technology.Semiconductors have always been one of the biggest and most valuable categories of U.S. exports to China, and while the Chinese government is investing heavily in its domestic capacity, it remains many years behind the United States.The Biden administration’s subsidy program to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor industry has also rankled Chinese officials, especially since it includes restrictions on investing in China. Companies that accept U.S. government money to build new chip facilities in the United States are forbidden to make new, high-tech investments in China. And while Chinese officials — and some American manufacturers — were hopeful that the Biden administration would lift tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports, that does not seem to be in the offing. While Ms. Yellen has questioned the efficacy of tariffs, other top officials within the administration see the levies as helpful for encouraging supply chains to move out of China.The administration is employing both carrots and sticks to carry out a policy of “de-risking” or “friend-shoring” — that is, enticing supply chains for crucial products like electric vehicle batteries, semiconductors and solar panels out of China.President Biden during a visit to a Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company plant under construction in Phoenix. The Biden administration’s efforts to assist the U.S. semiconductor industry has rankled Chinese officials.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesDeteriorating business environmentsCompanies doing business in China are increasingly worried about attracting negative attention from the government. The most recent target was Micron Technology, a U.S. memory chip maker that failed a Chinese security review in May. The move could cut Micron off from selling to Chinese companies that operate key infrastructure, putting roughly an eighth of the company’s global revenue at risk. In recent months, consulting and advisory firms in China with foreign ties have faced a crackdown.American officials are growing more concerned with the Chinese government’s use of economic coercion against countries like Lithuania and Australia, and they are working with European officials and other governments to coordinate their responses.Businesses are also alarmed by China’s ever-tightening national security laws, which include a stringent counterespionage law that took effect on Saturday. Foreign businesses in China are reassessing their activities and the market information they gather because the law is vague about what is prohibited. “We think this is very ill advised, and we’ve made that point to several members of the government here,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to China, in an interview in Beijing.In the United States, companies with ties to China, like the social media app TikTok, the shopping app Temu and the clothing retailer Shein, are facing increasing scrutiny over their labor practices, their use of American customer data and the ways they import products into the United States.CurrencyChina’s currency, the renminbi, has often been a source of concern for American officials, who have at times accused Beijing of artificially weakening its currency to make its products cheaper to sell abroad.The renminbi’s recent weakness may pose the most difficult issue for Ms. Yellen. The currency is down more than 7 percent against the dollar in the past 12 months and down nearly 13 percent against the euro. That decline makes China’s exports more competitive in the United States. China’s trade surplus in manufactured goods already represents a tenth of the entire economy’s output.The renminbi is not alone in falling against the dollar lately — the Japanese yen has tumbled for various reasons, including rising interest rates in the United States as the Federal Reserve tries to tamp down inflation.Chinese economists have blamed that factor for the renminbi’s weakness as well. Zhan Yubo, a senior economist at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said the decline in the renminbi was the direct result of the Fed’s recent increases in interest rates.At the same time, China has been cutting interest rates to help its flagging economy. The interest rate that banks charge one another for overnight loans — a benchmark that tends to influence all other interest rates — is now a little over 5 percent in New York and barely 1 percent in Shanghai. That reverses a longstanding pattern in which interest rates were usually higher in China.The Fed’s rate increases have made it more attractive for companies and households to send money out of China and invest it in the United States, in defiance of Beijing’s stringent limits on overseas money movements.China pledged as part of the Phase 1 trade agreement with the United States three years ago not to seek an advantage in trade by pushing down the value of its currency. But the Biden administration’s options may be limited if China lets its currency weaken anyway.Global debtChina has provided more than $500 billion to developing countries through its lending program, making it one of the world’s largest creditors. Many of those borrowers, including several African nations, have struggled economically since the pandemic and face the possibility of defaulting on their debt payments.The United States, along with other Western nations, has been pressing China to allow some of those countries to restructure their debt and reduce the amount that they owe. But for more than two years, China has insisted that other creditors and multilateral lenders absorb financial losses as part of any restructuring, bogging down the loan relief process and threatening to push millions of people in developing countries deeper into poverty.In June, international creditors including China agreed to a debt relief plan with Zambia that would provide a grace period on its interest payments and extend the dates when its loans are due. The arrangement did not require that the World Bank or International Monetary Fund write off any debts, offering global policymakers like Ms. Yellen hope for similar debt restructuring in poorer countries.Human rights and national security issuesTensions over national security and human rights have created an atmosphere of mutual distrust and spilled over into economic relations. The flight of a Chinese surveillance balloon across the United States this year deeply unsettled the American public, and members of Congress have been pressing the administration to reveal more of what it knows about the balloon. Mr. Biden’s recent labeling of China’s leader, Xi Jinping, as a “dictator” also rankled Chinese officials and state-run media.American officials continue to be concerned about China’s human rights violations, including the suppression of the democracy movement in Hong Kong and the detention of mainly Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. A senior Treasury Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before Ms. Yellen’s trip, said the United States had no intention of shying away from its views on human rights during the meetings in China.Chinese officials continue to protest the various sanctions that the United States has issued against Chinese companies, organizations and individuals for national security threats and human rights violations — including sanctions against Li Shangfu, China’s defense minister. The Chinese government has cited those sanctions as a reason for its rejection of high-level military dialogues. More

  • 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