Warren, Elizabeth

Latest story

100 Shares99 Views

Democrats Question Semiconductor Program’s Ties to Wall St.

by

Two progressive lawmakers warned the Biden administration against creating a revolving door between industry and government as it prepares to hand out $39 billion in grants.Two Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday expressed concerns about ex-Wall Street financiers overseeing the Commerce Department’s distribution of $39 billion in grants to the semiconductor industry, saying the staffing raised questions about the creation and abuse of a revolving door between government and industry.In a letter to the Commerce Department, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington criticized the department’s decision to staff a new office overseeing grants to the chip industry with former employees of Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, KKR and McKinsey & Company.The lawmakers said the staffing decisions risked an outcome where staff members could favor past or future employers and spend taxpayer money “on industry wish-lists, and not in the public interest.”Commerce officials have rejected the characterization, describing the more than 200-person team they have built to review chip industry applications as coming from diverse backgrounds including investing, industry analysis, engineering and project management. In a statement, a Commerce Department representative said the agency had received the letter and would respond through appropriate channels.The criticism highlights the stakes for the Biden administration as it begins distributing billions of dollars to try to rebuild the country’s chip manufacturing capacity.More than 570 companies and organizations have expressed interest in obtaining some of the funding, and it is up to the Commerce Department to determine which of the projects deserve financing. Biden officials have said they will judge applications on their ability to enhance American manufacturing capacity and national security, as well as benefit local communities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

More stories

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Before Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the Fed Spotted Big Problems

    by

    The bank was using an incorrect model as it assessed its own risks amid rising interest rates, and spent much of 2022 under a supervisory review.WASHINGTON — Silicon Valley Bank’s risky practices were on the Federal Reserve’s radar for more than a year — an awareness that proved insufficient to stop the bank’s demise.The Fed repeatedly warned the bank that it had problems, according to a person familiar with the matter.In 2021, a Fed review of the growing bank found serious weaknesses in how it was handling key risks. Supervisors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw Silicon Valley Bank, issued six citations. Those warnings, known as “matters requiring attention” and “matters requiring immediate attention,” flagged that the firm was doing a bad job of ensuring that it would have enough easy-to-tap cash on hand in the event of trouble.But the bank did not fix its vulnerabilities. By July 2022, Silicon Valley Bank was in a full supervisory review — getting a more careful look — and was ultimately rated deficient for governance and controls. It was placed under a set of restrictions that prevented it from growing through acquisitions. Last autumn, staff members from the San Francisco Fed met with senior leaders at the firm to talk about their ability to gain access to enough cash in a crisis and possible exposure to losses as interest rates rose.It became clear to the Fed that the firm was using bad models to determine how its business would fare as the central bank raised rates: Its leaders were assuming that higher interest revenue would substantially help their financial situation as rates went up, but that was out of step with reality.By early 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was in what the Fed calls a “horizontal review,” an assessment meant to gauge the strength of risk management. That checkup identified additional deficiencies — but at that point, the bank’s days were numbered. In early March, it faced a run and failed, sending shock-waves across the broader American banking system that ultimately led to a sweeping government intervention meant to prevent panic from spreading. On Sunday, Credit Suisse, which was caught up in the panic that followed Silicon Valley Bank’s demise, was taken over by UBS in a hastily arranged deal put together by the Swiss government.Major questions have been raised about why regulators failed to spot problems and take action early enough to prevent Silicon Valley Bank’s March 10 downfall. Many of the issues that contributed to its collapse seem obvious in hindsight: Measuring by value, about 97 percent of its deposits were uninsured by the federal government, which made customers more likely to run at the first sign of trouble. Many of the bank’s depositors were in the technology sector, which has recently hit tough times as higher interest rates have weighed on business.And Silicon Valley Bank also held a lot of long-term debt that had declined in market value as the Fed raised interest rates to fight inflation. As a result, it faced huge losses when it had to sell those securities to raise cash to meet a wave of withdrawals from customers.The Fed has initiated an investigation into what went wrong with the bank’s oversight, headed by Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision. The inquiry’s results are expected to be publicly released by May 1. Lawmakers are also digging into what went awry. The House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on recent bank collapses for March 29.Michael S. Barr’s review of the Silicon Valley Bank problems will focus on a few key questions.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressThe picture that is emerging is one of a bank whose leaders failed to plan for a realistic future and neglected looming financial and operational problems, even as they were raised by Fed supervisors. For instance, according to a person familiar with the matter, executives at the firm were told of cybersecurity problems both by internal employees and by the Fed — but ignored the concerns.The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which has taken control of the firm, did not comment on its behalf.Still, the extent of known issues at the bank raises questions about whether Fed bank examiners or the Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington could have done more to force the institution to address weaknesses. Whatever intervention was staged was too little to save the bank, but why remains to be seen.“It’s a failure of supervision,” said Peter Conti-Brown, an expert in financial regulation and a Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania. “The thing we don’t know is if it was a failure of supervisors.”Mr. Barr’s review of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse will focus on a few key questions, including why the problems identified by the Fed did not stop after the central bank issued its first set of matters requiring attention. The existence of those initial warnings was reported earlier by Bloomberg. It will also look at whether supervisors believed they had authority to escalate the issue, and if they raised the problems to the level of the Federal Reserve Board.The Fed’s report is expected to disclose information about Silicon Valley Bank that is usually kept private as part of the confidential bank oversight process. It will also include any recommendations for regulatory and supervisory fixes.The bank’s downfall and the chain reaction it set off is also likely to result in a broader push for stricter bank oversight. Mr. Barr was already performing a “holistic review” of Fed regulation, and the fact that a bank that was large but not enormous could create so many problems in the financial system is likely to inform the results.Typically, banks with fewer than $250 billion in assets are excluded from the most onerous parts of bank oversight — and that has been even more true since a “tailoring” law that passed in 2018 during the Trump administration and was put in place by the Fed in 2019. Those changes left smaller banks with less stringent rules.Silicon Valley Bank was still below that threshold, and its collapse underlined that even banks that are not large enough to be deemed globally systemic can cause sweeping problems in the American banking system.As a result, Fed officials could consider tighter rules for those big, but not huge, banks. Among them: Officials could ask whether banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets should have to hold more capital when the market price of their bond holdings drops — an “unrealized loss.” Such a tweak would most likely require a phase-in period, since it would be a substantial change.But as the Fed works to complete its review of what went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank and come up with next steps, it is facing intense political blowback for failing to arrest the problems.Supervisors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw Silicon Valley Bank, issued six citations in 2021.Aaron Wojack for The New York TimesSome of the concerns center on the fact that the bank’s chief executive, Greg Becker, sat on the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s board of directors until March 10. While board members do not play a role in bank supervision, the optics of the situation are bad.“One of the most absurd aspects of the Silicon Valley bank failure is that its CEO was a director of the same body in charge of regulating it,” Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, wrote on Twitter on Saturday, announcing that he would be “introducing a bill to end this conflict of interest by banning big bank CEOs from serving on Fed boards.”Other worries center on whether Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, allowed too much deregulation during the Trump administration. Randal K. Quarles, who was the Fed’s vice chair for supervision from 2017 to 2021, carried out a 2018 regulatory rollback law in an expansive way that some onlookers at the time warned would weaken the banking system.Mr. Powell typically defers to the Fed’s supervisory vice chair on regulatory matters, and he did not vote against those changes. Lael Brainard, then a Fed governor and now a top White House economic adviser, did vote against some of the tweaks — and flagged them as potentially dangerous in dissenting statements.“The crisis demonstrated clearly that the distress of even noncomplex large banking organizations generally manifests first in liquidity stress and quickly transmits contagion through the financial system,” she warned.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has asked for an independent review of what happened at Silicon Valley Bank and has urged that Mr. Powell not be involved in that effort.  He “bears direct responsibility for — and has a long record of failure involving” bank regulation, she wrote in a letter on Sunday.Maureen Farrell More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Here’s What the Fed Chair Said This Week, and Why It Matters

    by

    Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, opened the door to a more aggressive policy path — but emphasized that it depended on incoming data.Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, used his testimony before lawmakers this week to lay out a more aggressive path ahead for American monetary policy as the central bank tries to combat stubbornly rapid inflation.Mr. Powell, who spoke before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, explained that the economy had been more resilient — and inflation had shown more staying power — than expected.He signaled that he and his colleagues were prepared to respond by raising rates, and doing so more quickly if needed, though he emphasized on Wednesday that no decision had been made ahead of the central bank’s meeting on March 22. Mr. Powell made clear the next move would hinge on a series of job market and inflation data points set for release over the next week.Stocks initially swooned and a common recession indicator flashed red on Tuesday as investors marked up their expectations for how high Fed rates would rise in 2023 and increasingly bet on a larger March move. But they recovered on Wednesday, with the S&P 500 ending the day slightly up.Here are the key points that emerged over the two-day testimony.Rates may climb faster.Mr. Powell surprised many investors when he suggested that the pace of rate increases could pick back up.“If the totality of the data were to indicate that faster tightening is warranted, we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes,” Mr. Powell told lawmakers in both chambers. He was careful on Wednesday to underscore that “no decision has been made on this.”While Mr. Powell avoided promising anything, his comments suggested that the Fed could lift rates by a half-point in March if data reports over the coming days remained hot — which would signify a reversal.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Will Interest Rate Increases Impact Inflation?

    by

    The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to fight inflation. Some economists want more; some politicians want less. What’s the logic?The Federal Reserve is expected to announce its fourth interest rate increase of 2022 on Wednesday as it races to tamp down rapid inflation. The moves have a lot of people wondering why rate increases — which raise the cost of borrowing money — are America’s main tool for cooling down prices.Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday arguing that the Fed’s demand-crushing rate increases are not the right policy to fight today’s inflation as fuel costs and supply chain turmoil push up prices. The policies will hurt workers, she said, and “it doesn’t have to be this way.”Others have argued that the Fed should continue to be forceful. Lawrence H. Summers, the former Democratic Treasury secretary, argued during an interview on CNN this week that the Fed needed to take “strong action” to control inflation and that allowing inflation to gallop out of control would be the “bigger mistake” than causing a recession.Onlookers could be excused for struggling to make sense of the debate. Fed officials themselves acknowledge that their tools are blunt, that they cannot fix broken supply chains and that it will be difficult to slow the economy enough without causing an economic downturn. So why is the Fed doing this?America’s central bank has for decades been what Paul Volcker, its chair in the 1980s, called “the only game in town” when it comes to fighting inflation. While there are things that elected leaders can do to combat rising prices — raising taxes to curb consumption, spending more on education and infrastructure to improve productivity, helping flailing industries — those targeted policies tend to take time. The things that elected policymakers can do quickly generally help mainly around the edges.But time is of the essence when it comes to controlling inflation. If price increases run fast for months or years on end, people begin to adjust their lives accordingly. Workers might ask for higher wages, pushing up labor costs and prompting businesses to charge more. Companies might begin to believe that consumers will accept price increases, making them less vigilant about avoiding them.By making money more expensive to borrow, the Fed’s rate moves work relatively quickly to temper demand. As buying a house or a car or expanding a business becomes pricier, people pull back from doing those things. With fewer consumers and companies competing for the available supply of goods and services, price gains are able to moderate.Unfortunately, that process could come at a hefty cost at a moment like this one. Bringing the economy into balance when supply is constrained — cars are hard to find because of semiconductor shortages, furniture is on back order, and jobs are more plentiful than laborers — could require a big decline in demand. Slowing the economy down that meaningfully could tip off a recession, leaving workers unemployed and families with lower incomes.Economists at Goldman Sachs, for example, estimate that the probability of a recession over the next two years is 50 percent. Already, signs abound that the economy is slowing as the Fed begins to push rates higher, with overall growth data, housing market trackers and some metrics of consumer spending showing a pullback.But central bankers believe that even if the risks are difficult to bear, they are necessary. A downturn that pushes unemployment higher would undoubtedly be painful, but inflation is also a major impediment for many families today. Getting it under control is critical to putting the economy back on a sustainable path, officials argue.“It is essential that we bring inflation down if we are to have a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at his news conference last month. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Fed nominees commit to not taking part in finance’s revolving door.

    by

    Three of President Biden’s nominees to the Federal Reserve committed to lawmakers that, if confirmed to their posts, they would not work in financial services for four years after leaving the Fed.The pledge comes amid growing concern about the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.The three potential Fed governors in question — the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson and a longtime government official and lawyer, Sarah Bloom Raskin — said they would “commit not to seek employment or compensation” from any financial services company after leaving the board, which oversees the largest banks.Their promises came at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who has criticized the so-called revolving door between government and finance. Fed officials regularly go to work for Wall Street after leaving the institution, making the commitment notable.“These are the strongest ethics standards ever agreed to by Federal Reserve Board nominees,” Ms. Warren said in a statement on Wednesday. “U.S. Senators and the American people can be confident that these public servants will make sound economic policy decisions in the public’s best interest.”Republicans have been questioning Ms. Raskin’s nomination by highlighting her stint on the board of directors for a financial technology company, Reserve Trust.The company got a critical account with the Fed — known as a master account — while Ms. Raskin was on the company’s board. The account provided the firm with advertisable benefits, like access to the Fed’s payments system.During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs last week, senators questioned whether she had used her previous positions at the Fed and Treasury to help secure the account. Ms. Raskin did not confirm or deny whether she had been in touch with the company’s local Fed bank while she sat on its board.The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, which approved the master account, has said that it “did not deviate from its review process in evaluating this request.”Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked Ms. Raskin to respond in writing by Wednesday about the Reserve Trust situation.Ms. Raskin, in her response, said she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account. Had I done so, I would have abided by all applicable ethics rules in such communications.”Amanda Thompson, the communications director for Republicans on the Banking Committee, called those responses a “case of selective amnesia.”The White House has continued to stand behind its nominees. Christopher Meagher, a spokesman for the White House, called the Republican questioning “smears” and said that they “continue to fall flat in the face of scrutiny and facts.”Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who Mr. Biden renominated to be Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and the chairman of the Banking Committee, said last week that all five candidates would face a key committee vote on Feb. 15. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Senator Elizabeth Warren Presses Fed for More Information on Officials' Trades

    by

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, pressed the central bank to provide more information by next Monday.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, asked the Federal Reserve in a letter sent Monday to release more information about a series of financial trades that several top officials made in 2020, when the Fed was actively propping up markets.The Fed has become embroiled in a scandal over the transactions, which occurred in the months around its no-holds-barred market rescue at the outset of the pandemic, raising the possibility that policymakers could have financially benefited from the information they held and the decisions they were making. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has acknowledged that the trades were a problem and acted quickly to overhaul the central bank’s ethics rules.But that has not stemmed the fallout. Mr. Powell, who was nominated for a second term as chair by President Biden, will almost surely face questions about the Fed’s ethics dilemma at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. Ms. Warren, who sits on that committee, is pushing for more details about Fed trading activity and new ethics rules, according to the new letter, which she sent to Mr. Powell. Ms. Warren, who previously requested that the Fed turn over information and documents surrounding the trades, is asking the Fed to “release all available information about the trades” by next Monday.Ms. Warren said in her letter that the central bank had failed to fully respond to her previous requests for information.Ms. Warren, who has criticized Mr. Powell’s tenure as chair, has said she will not support his renomination.Scrutiny of the 2020 trades has intensified after The New York Times reported last week that Richard H. Clarida, the Fed’s vice chair, failed to initially disclose the full extent of his trading in his original financial disclosure. Mr. Clarida amended his disclosures in late December, and the document showed that he had moved out of a stock fund as the markets were plunging during the pandemic. Three days later, he moved back into the same fund, just before Mr. Powell announced that the central bank stood ready to rescue markets.Ethics experts said the new information called into question the central bank’s original explanation that Mr. Clarida’s transaction was a preplanned rebalancing away from bonds and toward stocks, and said more information was needed to understand the trades.The new information “raises suspicions that the Fed may be failing to disclose the full scope of the scandal to the public,” Ms. Warren wrote. “I therefore ask that you respond in full to my request by January 17, 2022.”Mr. Clarida updated his disclosures after noticing “inadvertent errors,” a Fed representative said last week, and the Fed’s ethics officer said the newly noted trades were “in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.” Still, they have drawn scrutiny because the rapid move out of and back into a stock fund at a time of market tumult looked less like a rebalancing toward stocks and more like a possible response to market conditions.“This revelation is just the latest evidence of a deep-rooted ethics failure at the Fed and the urgent need for a comprehensive information release about officials’ trading activity,” Ms. Warren wrote. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Elizabeth Warren Says She Will Oppose Jerome Powell’s Nomination

    by

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, said on Monday that she would not vote to confirm Jerome H. Powell for a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve, citing “failures on regulation, climate and ethics.”Ms. Warren, who has called Mr. Powell “a dangerous man,” had been pushing for President Biden to name Lael Brainard as the next chair of the central bank. Mr. Biden’s decision to name Ms. Brainard to the No. 2 spot at the Fed drew Ms. Warren’s support but she said she would continue to push for additional governors who support aggressive financial regulation.“It’s no secret I oppose Chair Jerome Powell’s renomination, and I will vote against him,” Ms. Warren said in a statement.Other powerful Democrats, along with Republican lawmakers expressed. support for Mr. Biden’s decision, saying it would keep the central bank on a steady course and protect its political independence at a time of inflation and economic uncertainty for the country.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed, praised Mr. Powell’s role in helping the labor market heal from the pandemic downturn and giving workers greater bargaining power in terms of higher wages.“The Federal Reserve must continue to help steer our economic recovery in the right direction — toward full employment and an economy that empowers workers and their families,” Mr. Brown said. “I look forward to working with Powell to stand up to Wall Street and stand up for workers, so that they share in the prosperity they create.”Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said on Twitter that the decision “a smart move.”Mr. Biden’s decision to reappoint Mr. Powell, who was first appointed by former President Donald J. Trump, returns the country to a long tradition in which presidents of both parties have embraced the Fed chairs selected by their predecessors, in an expression of support for the central bank’s political independence. Mr. Trump bucked the tradition, replacing Janet L. Yellen with Mr. Powell in 2018.Some progressive Democrats had urged Mr. Biden to also break with tradition and appoint someone else to the role. In addition to Ms. Warren, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Jeff Merkley of Oregon had called for Mr. Powell to be replaced, citing his views on climate change, financial regulation and an ethics scandal at the central bank.Mr. Whitehouse said in a statement on Monday that he was “disappointed” in the decision, adding that Mr. Powell had done too little to address climate change.“Our Fed Chair must devote immediate and thorough attention to the climate threat before it is too late,” Mr. Whitehouse said in the statement. “I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Powell will reassess his past opposition to utilizing the Fed’s regulatory tools to minimize climate-related risks to the financial sector.”Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of community, labor and civil rights groups, called the decision “a major disappointment to those of us who have fought for tougher regulation of Wall Street.”Mr. Biden’s decision to nominate Ms. Brainard for vice chair could help mollify some of those concerns. Some progressive groups had been pushing for Ms. Brainard to lead the central bank, in part because of her views on climate change and financial regulation.Mr. Whitehouse applauded Ms. Brainard’s nomination in his statement, saying “she clearly recognizes the gravity of the climate-related financial and economic risks facing our nation and will push the Fed to fully utilize its regulatory authorities in this space.”Other groups that have been critical of the Fed expressed support for the picks, particularly Ms. Brainard.The Fed Up Campaign, which advocates more accommodative monetary policies and full employment, said the Fed needed “to continue pro-employment, pro-wage growth, pro-racial justice macroeconomic policies for as long as economic conditions allow.”“Governor Brainard is a strong choice for Vice Chair, and we are expecting Biden to continue to name truly bold and pro-worker choices to the vacant governor seats,” the group said.Lawmakers also expressed support for the move, though some Republicans expressed concerns about Ms. Brainard, who has pushed for tougher financial regulations.Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, said that he disagreed with some of Mr. Powell’s decisions during the crisis, but that he would support his nomination.“When the pandemic hit in 2020, Chairman Powell acted swiftly and took extraordinary and necessary steps to help stabilize financial markets and the economy,” Mr. Toomey said in a statement.The senator expressed “concerns about regulatory policies that Governor Brainard would support as Vice Chair,” but said looked forward to discussing those issues.Both Mr. Powell and Ms. Brainard must win 60 votes in order to be confirmed by the Senate. More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Chair Jerome Powell Faces Reappointment Amid Tumult

    by

    Mr. Powell is facing down progressive pushback and an ethics scandal as the White House considers his future.As Jerome H. Powell’s term as the chair of the Federal Reserve nears its expiration, President Biden’s decision over whether to keep him in the job has grown more complicated amid Senator Elizabeth Warren’s vocal opposition to his leadership and an ethics scandal that has engulfed his central bank.Mr. Powell, whose four-year term as chair expires early next year, continues to have a good chance of being reappointed because he has earned respect within the White House for his aggressive use of the Fed’s tools in the wake of the pandemic recession, people familiar with the administration’s internal discussions said.But the decision and the timing of an announcement remain subject to an unusually high level of uncertainty, even for a top economic appointment. The White House will most likely announce Mr. Biden’s choice in the coming weeks, but that, too, is tenuous.The administration is preoccupied with other major priorities, including passing spending legislation and lifting the nation’s debt limit. But the uncertainty also reflects growing complications around Mr. Powell’s renomination. Ms. Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has blasted his track record on big bank regulation and last week called him a “dangerous man” to lead the central bank.She has also taken aim at Mr. Powell for not preventing top Fed officials from trading securities in 2020, a year in which the central bank rescued markets, potentially giving the officials privileged information. Two regional presidents traded for their own profit in assets that the Fed’s actions could have influenced, according to recent disclosures. And Richard H. Clarida, the Fed’s vice chair, moved money from bond funds into stock funds in late February 2020, just before the Fed hinted that it would rescue markets and the economy. “It is not clear why Chair Powell did not takes steps to prevent these activities,” Ms. Warren said during a Senate floor speech on Tuesday, after sending a letter on Monday calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether the transactions amounted to insider trading. “The responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the Federal Reserve rests squarely with him.”Asked on Tuesday whether he had confidence in Mr. Powell, the president said he did but that he was still catching up on events.The White House’s decision over Mr. Powell’s future is pending at a critical moment for the U.S. economy. Millions of jobs are still missing compared with before the pandemic, and inflation has jumped higher as strong demand clashes with supply chain disruptions, presenting dueling challenges for the Fed chair to navigate. The Fed’s next leader will also shape its involvement in climate finance policy, a possible central bank digital currency and the response to the central bank’s ethics dilemma.“This is starting to feel like an incredibly consequential time for the Fed,” said Dennis Kelleher, the chief executive of Better Markets, a group that has been critical of the Fed’s deregulatory moves in recent years and has criticized it for insufficient ethical oversight.The administration is under pressure to make a prompt decision, in part because the Fed’s seven-person Board of Governors in Washington will soon face a spate of openings. One governor role is already open. Mr. Clarida’s term ends early next year, leaving another vacancy, and Randal K. Quarles’s term as the board’s vice chair for supervision will expire next week, although his term as a governor runs through 2032.By announcing key picks soon, the Biden administration could ensure that someone was ready to step into Mr. Quarles’s leadership role. And nominating several officials at once could give the president a chance to show that he is heeding the concerns of Democrats in Congress, who want to see more diversity at the Fed and officials who favor tougher bank regulation.But the ethics scandal threatens to complicate the picks.Recent financial disclosures showed that Robert S. Kaplan at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas traded millions of dollars in individual stocks last year, and that Eric S. Rosengren at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston traded real estate-tied securities even as he warned publicly about problems in that sector. The trades have drawn criticism because they occurred during a year in which the Fed hugely influenced a wide range of financial markets.Both men resigned from their roles as regional presidents amid the controversy, though Mr. Rosengren said he was leaving for health reasons.Attention has now turned to Mr. Clarida. All of his trades were in broad funds, not individual securities, and have been public since May, but have drawn attention amid the current reckoning. He sold a stake in a bond fund totaling at least $1 million and moved that money into stock funds on Feb. 27, 2020. The transaction gave him more exposure to stocks shortly before the Fed rolled out policies that goosed such investments.The Fed has said Mr. Clarida’s trades were part of a planned portfolio rebalancing, but declined to specify when the planning happened.Mr. Powell kicked off an internal ethics review last month. A Fed spokesperson said on Monday that an independent government watchdog would carry out an investigation into whether senior officials broke relevant ethics rules or laws.But some progressives have seized on the problems to bolster their case that Mr. Powell should not be reappointed. Jeff Hauser, the founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project, which has urged Mr. Biden to keep corporate influence out of his administration, has pointed out that the Fed chair himself moved money around last year, listing 26 transactions, albeit all in broad-based funds. He also noted that Lael Brainard, a Fed governor and a longtime favorite to replace Mr. Powell if he is not reappointed, did not report any transactions year.“If you’re trying to go above and beyond, and be beyond reproach, not trading is the better option,” Mr. Hauser said.Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether top Fed officials engaged in insider trading in 2020.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIt is not clear how much the blowback will ultimately fall on Mr. Powell. During his testimony to a Senate committee last week, lawmakers asked him about the ethics issues without explicitly blaming him for them.The trades were not historically abnormal. Mr. Kaplan transacted in stocks throughout his tenure, including when Mr. Powell’s predecessor, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, led the central bank. Ms. Yellen’s vice chair, Stanley Fischer, bought and sold individual stocks, his 2017 disclosures showed. Ms. Brainard herself has in the past made broad-based transactions. It was the Fed’s more expansive role in 2020 that spurred the backlash.Agencies often need a “wake-up call” to notice evolving problems with their oversight rules, said Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an ethics adviser in President Barack Obama’s White House.“My own view is that Chair Powell is pivoting briskly to address the weaknesses in the Fed’s ethics system,” he said. Ms. Warren cited regulation, not ethics issues, upon first announcing that she would not support Mr. Powell. Democrats have raised concerns for years about the deregulatory approach that the Fed has embraced under Mr. Quarles’s leadership. Mr. Powell has largely deferred to his vice chair for supervision as the central bank made bank stress tests more transparent and enabled big banks to become more intertwined with venture capital.Critics say reappointing Mr. Powell amounts to retaining that more hands-off regulatory approach. And some progressive groups suggest that if Mr. Powell stays in place, Mr. Quarles will feel emboldened to stick around: He has hinted that he might stay on as a Fed governor once his leadership term ends.That would mean four of seven Fed Board officials — a majority — would remain Republican-appointed. Two other governors — Michelle W. Bowman and Christopher J. Waller — were nominated by President Donald J. Trump.During Mr. Powell’s Senate testimony last week, Ms. Warren said renominating him as chair meant “gambling that, for the next five years, a Republican majority at the Federal Reserve, with a Republican chair who has regularly voted to deregulate Wall Street, won’t drive this economy over a financial cliff again.”Even without Ms. Warren’s approval, Mr. Powell would most likely draw enough support to clear the Senate Banking Committee, the first step before the full Senate could vote on his nomination, because of his continued backing from the committee’s Republicans. But having a powerful Democratic opponent whose support the administration needs on other legislative priorities is not helpful.The Fed chair does have some powerful allies in the administration, including Ms. Yellen, the Treasury secretary. But the decision rests with Mr. Biden.“I know he will talk to many people and consider a wide range of evidence and opinions,” Ms. Yellen said on CNBC on Tuesday. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Elizabeth Warren Calls Jerome Powell a ‘Dangerous Man’

    by

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, blasted the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, for his financial regulation track record and said that she would not support him if the White House renominated him, calling him a “dangerous man to head up the Fed.”Mr. Powell’s term as head of the central bank ends in early 2022, and the Biden administration is considering whether to reappoint him. Mr. Powell, a Republican, was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and elevated to chair by former President Donald J. Trump.While some prominent Democratic economists and advocacy groups support Mr. Powell, who has been intensely focused on the labor market during his term as Fed chair, some progressives openly oppose him. They often cite his track record on financial regulation — as Ms. Warren did to his face on Tuesday, as he testified before the Senate Banking Committee.“The elephant in the room is whether you’re going to be renominated,” Ms. Warren said, looking down at the Fed chair during the hearing. “Renominating you means gambling that, for the next five years, a Republican majority at the Federal Reserve, with a Republican chair who has regularly voted to deregulate Wall Street, won’t drive this economy over a financial cliff again.”Ms. Warren, and those who agree with her, have worried that leaving Mr. Powell in place will prevent the Fed from taking a tougher stance on financial regulation. Mr. Powell has said that when it comes to regulatory matters, he defers to the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, noting that Congress created that job to lead up bank oversight following the 2008 financial crisis.“I respect that that’s the person who will set the regulatory agenda going forward,” Mr. Powell said during a news conference last week. “And furthermore, it’s fully appropriate to look for a new person to come in and look at the current state of regulation and supervision and suggest appropriate changes.”Ms. Warren’s colleague Senator Michael Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, followed her scathing comments by saying that Mr. Powell deserved to be renominated, and that he looked forward to working with him for the next several years.The White House has so far given little indication of whom it will pick to lead the central bank.President Biden already has the opportunity to fill one open governor position at the Fed, and several other roles will soon become available: The governor seat of the Fed’s vice chair, Richard Clarida, will expire in the coming months, as will Randal K. Quarles’s position as vice chair for supervision. The openings could give the administration a chance to remake the central bank from the top with its nominations, who must pass Senate confirmation.Other lawmakers at the Senate hearing pushed Mr. Powell to focus on improving diversity at the central bank — highlighting another key concern among Democrats as the leadership shuffle gets underway.Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio and the head of the Senate Banking Committee, pointed out that there had never been a Black woman on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in Washington, while also referring to reporting from earlier this year that showed a dearth of Black economists at the central bank.He asked if Mr. Powell believed that the central bank should have a Black woman on its Board of Governors.“I would strongly agree that we want everyone’s voice heard around the table, and that would of course include Black women,” Mr. Powell said. “We of course have no role in the selection process, but we would certainly welcome it.”Lisa Cook, a Michigan State University economist, and William Spriggs, chief economist of the labor union AFL-CIO, are often raised as possible candidates for governor positions or leadership roles. Both are Black. Lael Brainard, a white woman who is currently a Fed governor, is frequently raised as a possible replacement for Mr. Powell if he is not renominated, and Sarah Bloom Raskin, a white woman who is a former top Fed and Treasury official, is often suggested as a replacement for Mr. Quarles.Mr. Powell, as he noted, has no formal role in selecting his future colleagues at the Fed Board.He and his colleagues at the Fed Board will, however, have a chance to weigh in on who will take over two newly open positions around the Fed’s decision-making table. The central bank has 19 total officials at full strength, seven governors and 12 regional bank presidents.Robert S. Kaplan, the Dallas Fed president, and Eric S. Rosengren, the Boston Fed president, both announced their imminent retirements on Monday, amid widespread criticism of the fact that they were trading securities in 2020 — during a year in which the Fed unrolled a widespread market rescue in response to the pandemic.Mr. Powell addressed that scandal on Tuesday, pledging to lawmakers that the Fed would change its ethics rules and saying that the Fed was looking into the trading activity to make sure it was in compliance with those rules and with the law.“Our need to sustain the public’s trust is the essence of our work,” Mr. Powell said, adding that “we will rise to this moment.”Beyond grabbing headlines, the departures will leave two regional bank jobs available at the Fed. The regional branches’ boards, except for bank-tied members, will search for and select replacement presidents. The Fed’s governors in Washington have a “yes” or “no” vote on the pick.The Fed has never had a Black woman as a regional bank president, either. Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is the first Black man to serve in one of those roles.At the Board of Governors, Mr. Quarles’s leadership term ends most imminently, on Oct. 13. His position as governor does not expire until 2032, and he has signaled that he will likely stay on as a Fed governor at least through the end of his leadership term at the Financial Stability Board, a global oversight body, in December. Mr. Powell’s leadership term ends in early 2022, though he could stay on as governor since his term in that role does not expire until 2028. Mr. Clarida will have to leave early next year unless he is reappointed. More