Treasury Department

More stories

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Is Ready to Protect Smaller Banks if Necessary, Yellen Says

    by

    The Treasury secretary pledged that the Biden administration would take additional steps as needed to support the banking system.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said pressures on the nation’s banking system were “stabilizing” in remarks to the American Bankers Association.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesWASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen expressed confidence in the nation’s banks on Tuesday but said she was prepared to take additional action to safeguard smaller financial institutions as the Biden administration and federal regulators worked to contain fallout from fears over the stability of the banking system.Ms. Yellen, seeking to calm nerves as the U.S. financial system faces its worst turmoil in more than a decade, said the steps the administration and federal regulators had taken so far had helped restore confidence. But policymakers were focused on making sure that the broader banking system remained secure, she said.“Our intervention was necessary to protect the broader U.S. banking system,” Ms. Yellen said in remarks before the American Bankers Association, the industry’s leading lobbying group. “And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”She added: “The situation is stabilizing. And the U.S. banking system remains sound.”However, Ms. Yellen also underscored the gravity of the current situation. She said the stresses to the banking system, while not as dire as the 2008 financial meltdown, still constituted a “crisis” and pointed to the risk of bank runs spreading.“This is different than 2008; 2008 was a solvency crisis,” Ms. Yellen said. “Rather what we’re seeing are contagious bank runs.”In response to a question from Rob Nichols, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, Ms. Yellen said she did not want to “speculate” about what regulatory changes might be necessary to prevent a similar situation from recurring.“There’s time to evaluate whether some adjustments are necessary in supervision and regulation to address the root causes of the crisis,” she said. “What I’m focused on is stabilizing our system and restoring the confidence of depositors.”She spoke as government officials contemplated additional options to stem the flow of deposits out of small and medium-size banks, and as concerns grew that more would need to be done.Ms. Yellen said recent federal actions after the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this month were intended to show that the Biden administration was dedicated to protecting the integrity of the system and ensuring that deposits were secure.In the past 10 days, federal regulators have used an emergency measure to guarantee the deposits of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, initiated a new Federal Reserve program to make sure other banks can secure funds to meet the needs of their depositors and coordinated with 11 big banks that deposited $30 billion into First Republic, a wobbly regional bank..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“The situation demanded a swift response,” Ms. Yellen said. “In the days that followed, the federal government delivered just that: decisive and forceful actions to strengthen public confidence in the U.S. banking system and protect the American economy.”Despite those efforts, the Fed’s campaign to raise interest rates to tame inflation has exposed weaknesses in the balance sheets of regional banks, rattling investors and raising fears that deposits are not safe.Ms. Yellen said the financial system was far stronger than it was 15 years ago but also called for an examination of how the recent bank failures occurred.“In the coming weeks, it will be vital for us to get a full accounting of exactly what happened in these bank failures,” she said. “We will need to re-examine our current regulatory and supervisory regimes and consider whether they are appropriate for the risks that banks face today.”The Federal Reserve, which is the primary regulator for banks, is undertaking a review of what happened with Silicon Valley Bank as well as looking more broadly at supervision and regulation.The uncertainty about regional banks has also led to concerns that the industry will further consolidate among big banks.Ms. Yellen made clear on Tuesday that banks of all sizes are important, highlighting how smaller banks have close ties to communities and bring competition to the system.“Large banks play an important role in our economy, but so do small and midsized banks,” she said. “These banks are heavily engaged in traditional banking services that provide vital credit and financial support to families and small businesses.”The Treasury secretary added that the fortunes of the U.S. banking system and its economy were inextricably tied.“You should rest assured that we will remain vigilant,” she said. More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Washington Decided to Rescue Silicon Valley Bank

    by

    Officials were initially unsure about the need for the measures they eventually announced to shore up the financial system, but changed their minds quickly.WASHINGTON — On Friday afternoon, the deputy Treasury secretary, Wally Adeyemo, met with Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Company, at Mr. Dimon’s office in New York.The Biden administration and the Federal Reserve were considering what would be the most aggressive emergency intervention in the banking system since the 2008 financial crisis, and the question the two men debated was at the heart of that decision.Could the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the mega start-up lender that had just collapsed, spread to other banks and create a systemic risk to the financial system?“There’s potential,” Mr. Dimon said, according to people familiar with the conversation.Mr. Adeyemo was one of many administration officials who entered last weekend unsure of whether the federal government needed to explicitly rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors before markets opened on Monday morning.In the White House and the Treasury, some officials initially saw the bank’s swift plunge to insolvency as unlikely to spark an economic crisis — particularly if the government could facilitate a sale of the bank to another financial institution.They quickly changed their minds after signs of nascent bank runs across the country — and direct appeals from small businesses and lawmakers from both parties — convinced them the bank’s problems could imperil the entire financial system, not just rich investors in Silicon Valley.On Friday morning, aides met with President Biden in the Oval Office, where they warned that the panic engulfing Silicon Valley Bank could spread to other financial institutions, according to a White House official. Mr. Biden told them to keep him updated on developments.By Friday afternoon, before financial markets had even closed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had stepped in and shut down the bank.Still, the kind of rescue that the United States ultimately engineered would not materialize publicly until Sunday, after intense deliberations across the government.This account is based on interviews with current and former officials in the White House, Treasury and the Fed; financial services executives; members of Congress; and others. All were involved or close to the discussions that dominated Washington over a frenzied process that began Thursday evening and ended 72 hours later with an extraordinary announcement timed to beat the opening of financial markets in Asia.The episode was a test for the president — who risked criticism from the left and the right by greenlighting what critics called a bailout for banks. It also confronted Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen with the prospect of a banking crisis at a moment when she had become more optimistic that a recession could be avoided. And it was the starkest demonstration to date of the impact that the Fed’s aggressive interest rate increases were having on the economy.Wally Adeyemo, deputy Treasury secretary, was initially unsure whether the government would need to intervene to rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors. Andrew Harnik/Associated PressSilicon Valley Bank failed because it had put a large share of customer deposits into long-dated Treasury bonds and mortgage bonds that promised modest, steady returns when interest rates were low. As inflation jumped and the Fed lifted interest rates from near zero to above 4.5 percent to fight it over the last year, the value of those assets eroded. The bank essentially ran out of money to make good on what it owed to its depositors.By Thursday, concern was growing at the Federal Reserve. The bank had turned to the Fed to borrow money through the central bank’s “discount window” that day, but it soon became clear that was not going to be enough to forestall a collapse.Officials including Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Fed, and Michael S. Barr, its vice chair for supervision, worked through Thursday night and into Friday morning to try to find a solution to the bank’s unraveling. By Friday, Fed officials feared the bank’s failure could pose sweeping risks to the financial system.Compounding the worry: The prospects of arranging a quick sale to another bank in order to keep depositors whole dimmed through the weekend. A range of firms nibbled around the idea of purchasing it — including some of the largest and most systemically important.One large regional bank, PNC, tiptoed toward making an acceptable offer. But that deal fell through as the bank scrambled to scrub Silicon Valley Bank’s books and failed to get enough assurances from the government that it would be protected from risks, according to a person briefed on the matter.A dramatic government intervention seemed unlikely on Thursday evening, when Peter Orszag, former President Barack Obama’s first budget director and now chief executive of financial advisory at the bank Lazard, hosted a previously scheduled dinner at the bank’s offices in New York City’s Rockefeller Center..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Among those in attendance were Mr. Adeyemo and a pair of influential senators: Michael D. Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. Both were sponsors of a 2018 law that rolled back regulation on smaller banks that critics now say left Silicon Valley Bank vulnerable.Blair Effron, a large Democratic donor who had just been hired by Silicon Valley Bank to advise it on its liquidity crunch, was also there. Earlier that day, the bank had attempted to raise money to stave off collapse with the help of Goldman Sachs — an effort that, by Thursday evening, had clearly failed.The Federal Reserve ultimately opened a lending program to help keep money flowing through the banking system.Al Drago for The New York TimesMr. Effron and Mr. Adeyemo spoke as it became evident that Silicon Valley Bank was running out of options and that a sale — or some bigger intervention — might be necessary. Jeffrey Zients, Mr. Biden’s new chief of staff, and Lael Brainard, the new director of his National Economic Council, were also being pelted by warnings about the bank’s threat to the economy. As Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors raced to withdraw their money on Thursday, sending its stock into free fall, both Ms. Brainard and Mr. Zients began receiving a flurry of calls and texts from worried leaders in the start-up community that the bank heavily served.Ms. Brainard, who had experienced financial crises in other countries while serving in Mr. Obama’s Treasury Department and as a Federal Reserve Board member, had begun to worry about a new crisis emanating from SVB’s failure. She and Mr. Zients raised that possibility with Mr. Biden when they briefed him in the Oval Office on Friday morning.Other officials across the administration were more skeptical, worrying that the lobbying blitz Ms. Brainard and others were receiving was purely a sign of wealthy investors trying to force the government to backstop their losses. And there were concerns that any kind of government action could be seen as bailing out a bank that had mismanaged its risk, potentially encouraging risky behavior by other banks in the future.Ms. Brainard started fielding anxious calls again on Saturday morning and did not stop until late in the evening. She and Mr. Zients briefed Mr. Biden that afternoon — virtually this time, because the president was spending the weekend in his home state of Delaware.Mr. Biden also spoke Saturday with Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who was pushing aggressively for government intervention in fear that a wide range of companies in his state would otherwise not be able to pay employees or other operational costs on Monday morning.Concerns mounted that day as regulators reviewed data that showed deposit outflows increasing at regional banks nationwide — a likely sign of systemic risk. They began pursuing two possible sets of policy actions, ideally a buyer for the bank. Without that option, they would need to seek a “systemic risk exception” to allow the F.D.I.C. to insure all of the bank’s deposits. To calm jittery investors, they surmised that a Fed lending facility would also be needed to buttress regional banks more broadly.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” President Biden said on Monday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Yellen on Saturday convened top officials — Mr. Powell, Mr. Barr and Martin J. Gruenberg, the chairman of the F.D.I.C.’s board of directors — to figure out what to do. The Treasury secretary was fielding back-to-back calls on Zoom from officials and executives and at one point described what she was hearing about the banking sector as hair-raising.F.D.I.C. officials initially conveyed reservations about their authority to back deposits that were not insured, raising concerns among those who were briefed by the F.D.I.C. that a rescue could come too late.By Saturday night, anxiety that the Biden administration was dragging its feet was bubbling over among California lawmakers.At the glitzy Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cornered Steve Ricchetti, a top White House aide and close adviser to the president, and urged Mr. Biden and his team to be decisive. He warned that many of Mr. Biden’s major achievements would be washed away if the banking system melted down.“I said, Steve, this is a massive issue not just for Silicon Valley, but for regional banks around America,” Mr. Khanna said, adding that Mr. Ricchetti replied: “I get it.”Privately, it was becoming clear to Mr. Biden’s economic team that banking customers were getting spooked. On Saturday evening, officials from the Treasury, the White House and the Fed tentatively agreed to two bold moves they finalized and announced late on Sunday afternoon: The government would ensure that all depositors would be repaid in full, and the Fed would offer a program providing attractive loans to other financial institutions in hopes of avoid a cascading series of bank failures.But administration officials wanted to ensure the rescue had limits. The focus, according to a person familiar with the conversation, was ensuring that businesses around the country would be able to pay their employees on Monday and that no taxpayer money would be used by tapping the F.D.I.C.’s Deposit Insurance Fund.It was a priority that the rescue not be viewed as a bailout, which had become a toxic word in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The depositors would be protected, but the bank’s management and its investors would not.By Sunday morning, regulators were putting the finishing touches on the rescue package and preparing to brief Congress. Ms. Yellen, in consultation with the president, approved the “systemic risk exception” that would protect all of the bank’s deposits. The bipartisan members of the Federal Reserve and the F.D.I.C. voted unanimously to approve the decision.That evening, they announced a plan to make sure all depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and another large failed financial institution, Signature Bank, were repaid in full. The Fed also said it would offer banks loans against their Treasury and many other asset holdings, whose values had eroded.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks at the White House.By Tuesday afternoon the intervention was showing signs of working. Regional bank stocks, which had fallen on Monday, had partially rebounded. The outflow of deposits from regional banks had slowed. And banks were pledging collateral at the Fed’s new loan program, which would put them in a position to use it if they decided that doing so was necessary.The financial system appeared to have stabilized, at least for the moment. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Was This a Bailout? Skeptics Descend on Silicon Valley Bank Response.

    by

    The government took drastic action to shore up the banking system and make depositors of two failed banks whole. It quickly drew blowback.WASHINGTON — A sweeping package aimed at containing damage to the financial system in the wake of high-profile failures has prompted questions about whether the federal government is again bailing out Wall Street.And while many economists and analysts agreed that the government’s response should not be considered a “bailout” in key ways — investors in the banks’ stock will lose their money, and the banks have been closed — many said it should lead to scrutiny of how the banking system is regulated and supervised.The reckoning came after the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced Sunday that they would make sure that all depositors in two large failed banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, were repaid in full. The Fed also announced that it would offer banks loans against their Treasuries and many other asset holdings, treating the securities as though they were worth their original value — even though higher interest rates have eroded the market price of such bonds.The actions were meant to send a message to America: There is no reason to pull your money out of the banking system, because your deposits are safe and funding is plentiful. The point was to avert a bank run that could tank the financial system and broader economy.It was unclear on Monday whether the plan would succeed. Regional bank stocks tumbled, and nervous investors snapped up safe assets. But even before the verdict was in, lawmakers, policy researchers and academics had begun debating whether the government had made the correct move, whether it would encourage future risk-taking in the financial system and why it was necessary in the first place.“The Fed has basically just written insurance on interest-rate risk for the whole banking system,” said Steven Kelly, senior research associate at Yale’s program on financial stability. And that, he said, could stoke future risk-taking by implying that the Fed will step in if things go awry.“I’ll call it a bailout of the system,” Mr. Kelly said. “It lowers the threshold for the expectation of where emergency steps kick in.”While the definition of “bailout” is ill defined, it is typically applied when an institution or investor is saved by government intervention from the consequences of reckless risk-taking. The term became a swear word in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, after the government engineered a rescue of big banks and other financial firms using taxpayer money, with little to no consequences for the executives who made bad bets that brought the financial system close to the abyss.President Biden, speaking from the White House on Monday, tried to make clear that he did not consider what the government was doing to be a bailout in the traditional sense, given that investors would lose their money and taxpayers would not be on the hook for any losses.“Investors in the banks will not be protected,” Mr. Biden said. “They knowingly took a risk, and when the risk didn’t pay off, investors lose their money. That’s how capitalism works.”The Downfall of Silicon Valley BankOne of the most prominent lenders in the world of technology start-ups collapsed on March 10, forcing the U.S. government to step in.A Rapid Fall: The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the biggest U.S. bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, was caused by a run on the bank. But will the turmoil prove to be fleeting — or turn into a true crisis?The Fallout: The bank’s implosion rattled a start-up industry already on edge, and some of the worst casualties of the collapse were companies developing solutions for the climate crisis.Signature Bank: The New York financial institution closed its doors abruptly after regulators said it could threaten the entire financial system. To some extent, it is a victim of the panic around Silicon Valley Bank.The Fed’s Next Move: The Federal Reserve has been rapidly raising interest rates to fight inflation, but making big moves could be trickier after Silicon Valley Bank’s blowup.He added, “No losses will be borne by the taxpayers. Let me repeat that: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.”But some Republican lawmakers were unconvinced.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Monday that he was introducing legislation to protect customers and community banks from new “special assessment fees” that the Fed said would be imposed to cover any losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Deposit Insurance Fund, which is being used to protect depositors from losses.“What’s basically happened with these ‘special assessments’ to cover SVB is the Biden administration has found a way to make taxpayers pay for a bailout without taking a vote,” Mr. Hawley said in a statement.President Biden said Monday that he would ask Congress and banking regulators to consider rule changes “to make it less likely that this kind of bank failure would happen again.”Doug Mills/The New York TimesMonday’s action by the government was a clear rescue of a range of financial players. Banks that took on interest-rate risk, and potentially their big depositors, were being protected against losses — which some observers said constituted a bailout.“It’s hard to say that isn’t a bailout,” said Dennis Kelleher, a co-founder of Better Markets, a prominent financial reform advocacy group. “Merely because taxpayers aren’t on the hook so far doesn’t mean something isn’t a bailout.”But many academics agreed that the plan was more about preventing a broad and destabilizing bank run than saving any one business or group of depositors.“Big picture, this was the right thing to do,” said Christina Parajon Skinner, an expert on central banking and financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania. But she added that it could still encourage financial betting by reinforcing the idea that the government would step in to clean up the mess if the financial system faced trouble.“There are questions about moral hazard,” she said.One of the signals the rescue sent was to depositors: If you hold a large bank account, the moves suggested that the government would step in to protect you in a crisis. That might be desirable — several experts on Monday said it might be smart to revise deposit insurance to cover accounts bigger than $250,000.But it could give big depositors less incentive to pull their money out if their banks take big risks, which could in turn give the financial institutions a green light to be less careful.That could merit new safeguards to guard against future danger, said William English, a former director of the monetary affairs division at the Fed who is now at Yale. He thinks that bank runs in 2008 and recent days have illustrated that a system of partial deposit insurance doesn’t really work, he said.An official with the F.D.I.C., center, explained to clients of Silicon Valley Bank in Santa Clara, Calif., the procedure for entering the bank and making transactions.Jim Wilson/The New York Times“Market discipline doesn’t really happen until it’s too late, and then it’s too sharp,” he said. “But if you don’t have that, what is limiting the risk-tanking of banks?”It wasn’t just the side effects of the rescue stoking concern on Monday: Many onlookers suggested that the failure of the banks, and particularly of Silicon Valley Bank, indicated that bank supervisors might not have been monitoring vulnerabilities closely enough. The bank had grown very quickly. It had a lot of clients in one volatile industry — technology — and did not appear to have managed its exposure to rising interest rates carefully.“The Silicon Valley Bank situation is a massive failure of regulation and supervision,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The Fed responded to that concern on Monday, announcing that it would conduct a review of Silicon Valley Bank’s oversight. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was responsible for supervising the failed bank. The results will be released publicly on May 1, the central bank said.“The events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent and swift review,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said in a statement.Mr. Kelleher said the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission should be looking into potential wrongdoing by Silicon Valley Bank’s executives.“Crises don’t just happen — they’re not like the Immaculate Conception,” Mr. Kelleher said. “People take actions that range from stupid to reckless to illegal to criminal that cause banks to fail and cause financial crises, and they should be held accountable whether they are bank executives, board directors, venture capitalists or anyone else.”One big looming question is whether the federal government will prevent bank executives from getting big compensation packages, often known as “golden parachutes,” which tend to be written into contracts.Treasury and the F.D.I.C. had no comment on whether those payouts would be restricted.Uninsured depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, who had accounts exceeding $250,000, will be paid back.David Dee Delgado/ReutersMany experts said the reality that problems at Silicon Valley Bank could imperil the financial system — and require such a big response — suggested a need for more stringent regulation.While the regional banks that are now struggling are not large enough to face the most intense level of regulatory scrutiny, they were deemed important enough to the financial system to warrant an aggressive government intervention.“At the end of the day, what has been shown is that the explicit guarantee extended to the globally systemic banks is now extended to everyone,” said Renita Marcellin, legislative and advocacy director at Americans for Financial Reform. “We have this implicit guarantee for everyone, but not the rules and regulations that should be paired with these guarantees.”Daniel Tarullo, a former Fed governor who was instrumental in setting up and carrying out financial regulation after the 2008 crisis, said the situation meant that “concerns about moral hazard, and concerns about who the system is protecting, are front and center again.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    SVB Collapse Upsets Expectations for Federal Reserve’s Rate Decision

    by

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

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Rules to Curb Illicit Dollar Flows Create Hardships for Iraqis

    by

    The regulations were meant to prevent dollar transfers to those targeted by U.S. sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia. But they have ended up harming ordinary Iraqis who need U.S. currency for business or travel.BAGHDAD — When the United States and Iraq put tough new currency rules into effect recently, the intent was to stem the illicit flow of dollars to those targeted by U.S. sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, as well as to terrorist organizations and money launderers.But in a country with a primarily cash economy, the changes created unintended hardships for ordinary Iraqis who need dollars for legitimate business purposes or travel abroad. Dollars have run short, and the cost in Iraqi dinars at some local currency traders has surged.Long lines are forming early in the day outside money changers’ shops, where Iraqis planning to travel outside the country often turn up grasping plastic bags stuffed with dinars, which banks outside the country do not accept. These days, it’s not easy to find a money changer who still has dollars. And those who do run out early.“I don’t have any dollars left,” one currency trader, Abu Ali, said last week at his shop in Baghdad’s Karrada neighborhood.The new currency rules, worked out in an agreement between the United States and Iraq, require greater transparency surrounding the transfers of dollars held as foreign currency reserves for Iraq in an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They went into effect late last year.The agreement was part of a long-delayed modernization of Iraq’s financial system as it begins to conform to the rules that most countries follow and adapts to requirements for more transparency in international financial transactions.U.S. dollars being counted at an authorized currency dealer in Baghdad.Joao Silva/The New York TimesEvery day, the Central Bank of Iraq facilitates the withdrawal of a large sum of dollars from its account at the New York Fed. The transfers are critical because, in Iraq’s largely cash economy, only a few businesses accept credit cards and almost no ordinary Iraqis have one. Even bank accounts are a rarity.Some of the money is wired on behalf of Iraqi businesses to pay for goods from outside Iraq. Some of it is designated for currency exchanges and banks to distribute to Iraqis traveling abroad.But there has been little in the way of electronic footprints to help U.S. officials trace whether some of the transfers were ending up in the hands of parties targeted by U.S. sanctions.A dollar shortage affecting ordinary Iraqis is one of the unintended consequences of new and tougher rules worked out by Iraq’s central bank in concert with the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Joao Silva/The New York TimesThe concerns date back to soon after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.At that time, American authorities tried unsuccessfully to document the chain of custody for billions of dollars transported to the country in cash over a period of years. In one instance, $1.2 billion from Iraq was found in a Lebanese bunker with no record of how it got there, according to a New York Times investigation in 2014.The U.S. Treasury wanted to ensure that dollars were not being sent in violation of U.S. law to fronts or agents for parties under sanctions or terrorist entities. In congressional testimony in 2016, for example, a top Treasury official noted three groups targeted by sanctions that were known to be active in Iraq: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah.With the Islamic State’s takeover of northern Iraq in 2014, it seized of a branch of Iraq’s central bank and those worries became more urgent.The situation underscored the need for more transparency in dollar transfers to Iraq, according to a U.S. Treasury official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak with reporters.An authorized currency exchange. Joao Silva/The New York TimesAfter the Iraqis finally defeated the Islamic State in 2018, Iraqi and U.S. bankers and the Treasury began to discuss a new system for money transfers.Under the new regulations, both individuals and companies requesting wire transfers of dollars must disclose their own identity, and the identity of whoever is ultimately getting the money. That information is then reviewed by an electronic system as well as by experts at Iraq’s central bank and the New York Fed, before payment is made.The new system allows banks around the world to conduct automatic checks on transfers of money from Iraq to other countries, said Ahmed Tabaqchali, the chief strategist for Asia Frontier Capital’s Iraq fund.“In short, the system heightens the visibility of red flags,” he said.Waiting at a currency exchange in Baghdad.Joao Silva/The New York TimesNow, many requests are being rejected, said Mudher Salih, a former deputy head of Iraq’s central bank and now a financial policy adviser to Iraq’s new prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. Sometimes, he said, that is because of suspect identities but other times it is because many Iraqi businesses do not have the requisite licenses to import goods or are not properly registered as commercial entities and therefore are in violation of Iraqi law.The rejections have created a shortage of dollars, which has sharply increased their cost for Iraqis with legitimate needs, he added.Since 2003, there have been two Iraqi dinar rates for buying dollars; an official rate established by Iraq’s central bank and an unofficial street rate, which is higher. And when dollars are scarce, the street price goes up.The difference between the two is creating hardships for Iraqis like Janna, a mother of four. She said she had been saving up to buy a refrigerator and had her eye on a German model that cost about $250. In October, that was the equivalent of 320,000 dinars. Today, because of the scarcity of dollars, the refrigerator would cost 375,000 dinars.“It’s more than I can afford,” she said.Shoppers in Baghdad’s busy Karrada neighborhood.Joao Silva/The New York TimesAfter the new currency rules took effect, the quantity of dollars flowing daily into Iraq fell sharply — on some days down by nearly 65 percent from $180 million to $67 million — compared with the period before the rules were implemented, according to daily cash flow numbers released by Iraq’s central bank.The influx of dollars has since picked up, but it is still often less than half of what it was before the new system was put in place.It is not clear exactly how much of the drop in dollars reflects illicit recipients who have now either stopped requesting money because they do not want to make the disclosures required by the new rules or because the Iraqi central bank or the New York Fed rejected their requests.“I would not put down to fraud the almost 90 percent drop,” said Douglas Silliman, president of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington and a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “Maybe it’s 45 percent fraud and 45 percent incompetence or just not knowing how to deal with the new regulations.”Iraq’s financial system is going through a long-delayed modernization as it begins to conform to the rules followed in many other countries.Joao Silva/The New York TimesYasmine Mosimann More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    War in Ukraine Deepens Divide Among Major Economies at G20 Gathering

    by

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen urged her counterparts at a summit in India to condemn Russia’s actions, and she defended the cost of supplying aid to Kyiv.A year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war is deepening the division among the world’s major economies, threatening fragile recoveries by disrupting food and energy supply chains and distracting from plans to combat poverty and restructure debt in poor countries.Those fissures were evident this past week as top economic policymakers from the Group of 20 nations gathered for two days at a resort in Bengaluru, a city in southern India, where efforts to demonstrate unity were overshadowed by flaring tensions over Russia. During the summit, Western nations imposed a barrage of new sanctions on Moscow and unveiled more economic support for Ukraine, while developing countries like India, which have been reaping the benefits of cheap Russian oil, resisted expressing criticism.The differing views left officials struggling to cobble together the traditional joint statement, or communiqué, on Saturday, forcing senior representatives from the Group of 7 nations, the world’s most advanced economies, to try to convince reluctant counterparts that defending Ukraine was worth the cost.“Ukraine is fighting not only for their country, but for the preservation of democracy and peaceful conditions in Europe,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Saturday in an interview, explaining the case that she had made to the more reluctant countries. “It’s an assault on democracy and on territorial integrity that should concern all of us,” she added.The summit took place at a pivotal moment for the global economy. The International Monetary Fund last month upgraded its global output projections but warned that Russia’s war in Ukraine continued to cast a cloud of uncertainty. The fund also noted that increasing “fragmentation” in the world could be a drag on growth in the future.Ms. Yellen was among the most forceful critics of Russia during the two-day meeting. At one point, she directly confronted senior Russian officials in a private session and called them “complicit” in the Kremlin’s atrocities.The grappling over how to characterize Russia’s actions led Bruno Le Maire, the French finance minister, to publicly vent his frustration with some countries that would not assail Russia in writing. He noted that when the leaders of the Group of 20 nations met in November, in Bali, Indonesia, their statement had asserted that most members strongly condemned the war, and he said on Friday that he was opposed to watering down that sentiment.“I want to make it very clear that we will oppose any step back from the statement of the leaders in Bali on this question of the war in Ukraine,” Mr. Le Maire, who declined to name the holdouts, said at a news conference. “We strongly condemn this illegal and brutal attack against Ukraine.”India’s close economic ties with Russia have made its role as the host of the Group of 20 this year especially challenging. Moscow is a major supplier of energy and military equipment to India, while the United States is India’s largest trading partner.To remain neutral, India has tried to avoid describing the conflict as a “war” and instead focused on other issues. In an opening address to the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid out the threats facing the global economy, but he made no mention of Russia, pointing instead to “rising geopolitical tensions in many parts of the world.”Some of the resistance to condemning Russia is because of concern about the United States’ use of its economic might to isolate a member of the Group of 20.“The fact that the U.S. clearly has so much power to take action against a geopolitical rival is a significant concern,” said Eswar Prasad, a trade policy professor at Cornell University who speaks to both American and Indian officials. “There’s clearly been a splintering of the G20.”Mr. Prasad added that the aggressive use of sanctions by the United States had raised anxiety among other nations — even if they disagreed with Russia’s actions — that they could someday be exposed to Washington’s wrath.That use of economic warfare was on display on Friday, when the United States imposed sanctions on more than 200 individuals and entities in Russia and other countries that are helping to financially support Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions were also placed on Russia’s metals and mining sector and on energy companies.The war in Ukraine was not the only matter this past week that consumed finance ministers in India.The United States and Europe continued to hash out differences over American subsidies for electric vehicles that European countries believe will harm their economies. A global tax agreement that was struck in 2021 continues to flounder, raising the prospect that it could unravel. And talks over restructuring debt burdens facing poor countries to avoid a cascade of defaults failed to bear fruit, largely because of resistance from China.“There hasn’t been a significant change that I see,” said Ms. Yellen, who expressed frustration at China’s role as a roadblock this past week.But it is the war in Ukraine that has left the world’s economic leaders most divided. In many cases, resistance to supporting Ukraine and confronting Russia is the result of complicated domestic politics in many countries, and the United States is no exception.A growing number of Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, have been arguing in recent weeks that the United States cannot afford to endlessly support Kyiv. They contend that at a time when the United States is burdened by record levels of debt and a weakening economy, that money would be better spent on domestic problems.In the past year, the United States has directed more than $100 billion dollars of humanitarian, financial and military aid to Ukraine. The Congressional Budget Office projected last week that the United States was on track to add nearly $19 trillion to its national debt over the next decade, $3 trillion more than previously forecast.For the Biden administration, scaling back aid to Ukraine does not appear to be an option.In the interview, Ms. Yellen argued that the United States can afford to bear the costs and that supporting Ukraine was a priority for national security and economic reasons.“The war is having an adverse effect on the entire global economy,” Ms. Yellen said, “and providing the support that’s necessary for Ukraine to win this and bring it to an end is certainly something that we really can’t afford not to do.” More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Could Default on Debt as Early as Summer, New Estimate Says

    by

    The Bipartisan Policy Center said the nation could run out of cash this summer or early fall if Congress did not raise the debt limit.WASHINGTON — The United States faces a default sometime this summer or early fall if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt ceiling, a Washington think tank warned on Wednesday.The projection from the Bipartisan Policy Center is the latest estimate of when the government could run out of cash to pay its bills. The nation, which borrows huge sums to help pay for everything from military salaries to Social Security benefits, hit its $31.4 trillion borrowing cap on Jan. 19. Since then, the Treasury Department has been employing what are known as extraordinary measures to ensure that the government has enough to pay what it owes, including payments to bondholders.“We anticipate that those emergency measures, as well as the cash that Treasury has on hand, will most likely be exhausted at some point during the summer or early fall,” Shai Akabas, the center’s director of economic policy, said during a briefing on Wednesday morning.Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the department’s ability to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt could be exhausted between July and September. That estimate was slightly more favorable than what Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen suggested when she told Congress last month that her department’s ability to keep financing the country’s obligations could be exhausted in June.The day when the United States runs out of cash — known as the X date — depends largely on how much the Treasury Department collects in 2022 tax revenue, the Bipartisan Policy Center said. The group warned that moment could be “too close for comfort” given the vagaries around tax receipts.“There is a possibility that the cash balance in early to mid-June will be so low that it will necessitate action,” Mr. Akabas said. He added that given “the considerable uncertainty in our nation’s current economic outlook,” it was impossible to know for certain when the X date might happen.“Policymakers have an opportunity now to inject certainty into the U.S. and global economy by beginning, in earnest, bipartisan negotiations around our nation’s fiscal health and taking action to uphold the full faith and credit of the United States well before the X date,” he said.Ms. Yellen’s extraordinary measures to keep the government running have included redeeming some existing investments and suspending new investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund. Once those measures are exhausted, the United States will need to borrow more money or face default. She has urged Congress to raise or suspend the debt limit.It remains unclear how quick or easy it would be to do that. Republican lawmakers have insisted that President Biden agree to undefined spending cuts to win their votes to raise the cap, arguing that the borrowing binge is putting the United States on a path to fiscal disaster. Mr. Biden has insisted that he will not negotiate spending cuts as part of any debt limit legislation, saying that the cap has to be raised to fund obligations that Congress — including Republicans — have already approved. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    China’s Economic Support for Russia Could Elicit More Sanctions

    by

    U.S. officials pledged to crack down on shipments to Russia that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, but that has proved hard to police.WASHINGTON — President Biden and his top officials vowed this week to introduce additional sanctions aimed at impeding Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine. But the administration’s focus is increasingly shifting to the role that China has played in supplying Russia with goods that have both civilian and military uses.As one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of products like electronics, drones and vehicle parts, China has proved to be a particularly crucial economic partner for Russia.Beijing has remained officially unaligned in the war. Yet China, along with countries like Turkey and some former Soviet republics, has stepped in to supply Russia with large volumes of products that either civilians or armed forces could use, including raw materials, smartphones, vehicles and computer chips, trade data shows.Administration officials are now expressing concern that China could further aid Russia’s incursion by providing Moscow with lethal weapons. While there is no clear evidence that China has given weapons and ammunition to Russia, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken warned in recent days that China may be preparing to do so.President Biden, speaking in Kyiv on Monday, said the United States and its partners would announce new measures targeting sanctions evasion this week. He did not specify whether those actions would be directed at Moscow or its trading partners.“Together we have made sure that Russia is paying the price for its abuses,” he said the next day in Warsaw.And in a speech on Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations, Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said the United States would be working “to identify and shut down the specific channels through which Russia attempts to equip and fund its military.”“Our counterevasion efforts will deny Russia access to the dual-use goods being used for the war and cut off these repurposed manufacturing facilities from the inputs needed to fill Russia’s production gaps,” he said.The comments came on the same day that Wang Yi, China’s top diplomat, visited Moscow.The actions that the United States has taken against Russia in partnership with more than 30 countries constitute the broadest set of sanctions and export controls ever imposed against a major economy. But this regime still has its limits.One year into the war, the Russian economy is stagnant, but not crippled. The country has lost direct access to coveted Western consumer brands and imports of the most advanced technology, like semiconductors. But individuals and companies around the world have stepped in to provide Russia with black market versions of these same products, or cheaper alternatives made in China or other countries.Russia is unable to produce precision missiles today because the country no longer has access to leading-edge semiconductors, a U.S. official said.Maxim Shipenkov/EPA, via ShutterstockIn particular, the United States and its allies appear to have had limited success in stopping the trade of so-called dual-use technologies that can be used in both military equipment and consumer goods.The United States included many types of dual-use goods in the export controls it issued against Russia last February, because the goods can be repurposed for military uses. Aircraft parts that civilian airlines can use, for example, may be repurposed by the Russian Air Force, while semiconductors in washing machines and electronics might be used for tanks or other weaponry.The Chinese Spy Balloon ShowdownThe discovery of a Chinese surveillance balloon floating over the United States has added to the rising tensions between the two superpowers.Tensions Rise: In the aftermath of the U.S. downing of a Chinese spy balloon on Feb. 4 and three unidentified flying objects a week later, the nations have traded accusations over their spying programs.U.S.-China Meeting: Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a confrontational meeting with his Chinese counterpart on Feb. 18 in Munich, resuming diplomatic contact between Washington and Beijing.A ‘Military-Civil Fusion’: The international fracas over China’s spy balloon program has thrown a light on Beijing’s efforts to recruit commercial businesses to help strengthen the Chinese military.Unidentified Objects: As more objects were shot down after the balloon incident, experts warned that there was an “endless” array of potential targets crowding America’s skies. Here’s a look at some of them.Top U.S. officials warned their Chinese counterparts against supporting Russia’s war effort after the invasion of Ukraine last year, saying there would be firm consequences. While China has been careful not to cross that line, it has provided support for Russia in other ways, including through active trade in certain goods..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The United States has cracked down on some of the companies and organizations providing goods and services to Russia. In January, it imposed sanctions on a Chinese company that had provided satellite imagery to the Wagner mercenary group, which has played a large role in the battle for eastern Ukraine. In December, it added two Chinese research institutes to a list of entities that supply the Russian military, which will restrict their access to U.S. technology.But tracking by research firms shows that trade in goods that the Russian military effort can use has flourished. According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, an online data platform, shipments from China to Russia of aluminum oxide, a metal that can be used in armored vehicles, personal protective equipment and ballistic shields, soared by more than 25 times from 2021 to 2022.Shipments of minerals and chemicals used in the production of missile casings, bullets, explosives and propellants have also increased, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. And China shipped $23 million worth of drones and $33 million worth of certain aircraft and spacecraft parts to Russia last year, up from zero the prior year, according to the group’s data.Data from Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington nonprofit, shows that Russian imports of integrated circuits, or chips, which are crucial in rebuilding tanks, aircraft, communications devices and weaponry, plummeted immediately after the invasion but crept up over the past year.In December, Russia’s imports of chips had recovered to more than two-thirds of their value last February, just before the war began, according to Silverado. China and Hong Kong, in particular, together accounted for nearly 90 percent of global chip exports to Russia by value from March to December.Shipments from China to Russia of smart cards, light-emitting diodes, polysilicon, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and other goods have also risen, the firm said.Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said he had shared concerns with Wang Yi, China’s top diplomat, that Beijing was considering providing weapons and ammunition to aid Russia’s campaign in Ukraine.Pool photo by Stefani ReynoldsRelations between the United States and China have soured in recent weeks after the flight of a Chinese surveillance balloon across the United States early this month. But divisions over Russia are further straining geopolitical ties. A meeting between Mr. Blinken and Mr. Wang, his Chinese counterpart, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Saturday night was particularly tense.U.S. officials have been sharing information on China’s activities with allies and partners in their meetings in Munich, a person familiar with the matter said.On “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Mr. Blinken said he had shared concerns with Mr. Wang that China was considering providing weapons and ammunition to aid Russia’s campaign in Ukraine, and that such an action would have “serious consequences” for the U.S.-Chinese relationship.“To date, we have seen Chinese companies — and, of course, in China, there’s really no distinction between private companies and the state — we have seen them provide nonlethal support to Russia for use in Ukraine,” Mr. Blinken said.“The concern that we have now is, based on information we have, that they’re considering providing lethal support,” he added. “And we’ve made very clear to them that that would cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship.”U.S. officials have emphasized that China by itself is limited in its ability to supply Russia with all the goods it needs. China does not produce the most advanced types of semiconductors, for example, and restrictions imposed by the United States in October will prevent Beijing from buying some of the most advanced types of chips, and the equipment used to make them, from other parts of the world.Russia is unable to produce precision missiles today because the country no longer has access to leading-edge semiconductors made by the United States, Taiwan, South Korea and other allied sources, a senior administration official said on Monday.“While we are concerned about Russia’s deepening ties with them, Beijing cannot give the Kremlin what it does not have, because China does not produce the advanced semiconductors Russia needs,” Mr. Adeyemo said during his remarks. “And nearly 40 percent of the less advanced microchips Russia is receiving from China are defective.”But Ivan Kanapathy, a former China director for the National Security Council, said that most of what Russia needed for its weapons were less advanced chips, which are manufactured in plenty in China.“The U.S. government is very well aware that our export control system is designed in a way that really relies on a cooperative host government, which we don’t have in this case,” Mr. Kanapathy said.He added that it was “quite easy” for parties to circumvent export control through the use of front companies, or by altering the names and addresses of entities. “China is quite adept at that.” More