ReportWire

Tag: Government finance

  • Chinese Banks’ August Loan Issuance Beat Expectations

    Chinese Banks’ August Loan Issuance Beat Expectations

    Chinese banks issued a higher-than-expected amount of new loans in August, as Beijing tapped the nation’s financial institutions to step up support for the cooling economy.

    New yuan loans extended by banks in China reached 1.36 trillion yuan ($185.20 billion) in August, up from CNY345.9 billion in July, the People’s Bank of China said Monday.

    The result beat the CNY1.2 trillion expected by economists in a Wall Street Journal poll.

    Total social financing, which includes both bank and nonbank credit, was CNY3.12 trillion in August, up sharply from CNY528.2 billion in August, the central bank said.

    M2, the broadest measure of money supply, rose 10.6% in August from a year earlier, lower than July’s 10.7% increase and the same growth rate anticipated by the surveyed economists.

    Write to Singapore Editors at singaporeeditors@dowjones.com

    Source link

  • The world has changed and institutions need to work together, says IMF chief

    The world has changed and institutions need to work together, says IMF chief

    Share

    The IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva tells CNBC’s Martin Soong that the World Bank and IMF are complementary but yet have differing expertise. “The world needs institutions to work together,” she said in an exclusive CNBC interview on the sidelines of the G20 leaders’ summit.

    Source link

  • Intuit braces for negative FTC ruling on free tax prep advertising, vows appeal

    Intuit braces for negative FTC ruling on free tax prep advertising, vows appeal

    More than a year ago, the Federal Trade Commission sued Intuit Inc., the maker of TurboTax, for allegedly tricking people into thinking they could file their income taxes for free with the tax-preparation giant.

    Now, an administrative judge inside the agency has ruled against Intuit — and the company said in a Friday afternoon SEC filing that it’s going to keep fighting the case, even if that means incurring “significant costs.”

    “We expect to appeal this decision to the FTC Commissioners and, if necessary, then to a federal court of appeals. We intend to continue to defend our position on the merits of this case,” the company said in its 10-K filing.

    “There is no monetary penalty, and Intuit expects no significant impact to its business,” Intuit spokesman Rick Heineman said in a statement. The company will appeal “this groundless and seemingly predetermined decision by the FTC to rule in its own favor,” he said.

    Intuit already reached a $141 million settlement with state attorneys general about the allegations of deceptive advertising. The company says it has been clear and upfront with customers about costs. It did not admit liability in the settlement.

    The FTC could not be immediately reached for comment Friday afternoon.

    In March 2022, the regulator sued Intuit in federal court to immediately stop commercials that repeated “free” over and over. Intuit pulled some of the advertising and after filing season ended, a San Francisco federal judge said the FTC bid for emergency halts didn’t need to happen under the circumstances.

    FTC lawyers also lodged an internal administrative complaint. “Intuit widely disseminated ads on television, on the radio, and online that gave consumers the impression that they could use TurboTax for free, even though two-thirds of taxpayers don’t qualify for Intuit’s free TurboTax offerings,” they wrote in administrative complaint proceedings.

    The ongoing legal fight is happening while the broader fight over of free tax preparation is heating up. The Internal Revenue Service is planning to test its own pilot program in the upcoming filing season where taxpayers can file their taxes directly with the IRS instead of through tax preparation companies or individual preparers.

    TurboTax and the tax software industry oppose the proposed IRS direct file system. So do Congressional Republicans.

    One sticking point in the looming government shutdown is how much money the IRS should be getting in its budget. The House appropriations bill would forbid the IRS from using any money to build the direct file system.

    Intuit Inc.
    INTU,
    +1.44%

    shares closed 1.4% higher Friday, at $549.60, and the disclosure didn’t seem to be having much effect on the shares in after-hours trading. Shares are up 41% year to date, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    is up 5% and the S&P 500
    SPX
    is up 17.6%.

    Source link

  • China’s Economy Is Worse Now Than in the 1970s, This Analyst Says

    China’s Economy Is Worse Now Than in the 1970s, This Analyst Says

    China’s property developers are under duress again, re-igniting concerns about a debt crisis. But with a faltering economy and diminished confidence among households and companies, China debt watcher Charlene Chu, senior analyst at Autonomous Research, worries the ingredients are there for a broader financial crisis for the first time.

    Source link

  • Rise in Treasury yields is almost entirely due to one factor, strategist says

    Rise in Treasury yields is almost entirely due to one factor, strategist says

    The recent rise in long-dated Treasury yields boils down to mostly one single thing, which is higher real rates resulting from changing expectations for U.S. economic growth, according to Joseph Kalish, chief global macro strategist at Ned Davis Research.

    Kalish attributes 90% of the increase to that factor alone. He points out that 5-
    BX:TMUBMUSD05Y,
    7-
    BX:TMUBMUSD07Y,
    10-
    BX:TMUBMUSD10Y
    and 20-year Treasury yields are all up significantly since 2021-2022. On Tuesday, the 10-year rate finished at 4.327%, slightly off its almost 16-year high. Meanwhile, the 5-year Treasury yield, which reflects the intermediate part of the Treasury curve known as the belly, has trended higher as traders and investors factor in prospects for a stronger U.S. economy beyond the next few years.


    Source: Tradeweb


    Source: Tradeweb

    Ordinarily, Treasury yields tend to rise based on a range of factors, such as the possibility of higher future inflation and investors’ demands to be compensated for that risk. This time around appears to be a bit different.

    Real rates, as measured by yields on Treasury inflation-protected securities, reflect the market’s view of how the economy is performing after subtracting inflation. In other words, they present a purer read on how the U.S. is likely to do when inflation isn’t a factor. And right now, real yields are rising on the strength of recent economic data as investors hold out some hope for a soft landing, or scenario in which inflation comes down on its own without a recession or major jump in unemployment, or even no landing at all.

    “Bond yields have come a long way in a short period of time,” Kalish wrote in a note distributed on Tuesday. “Nearly all of the rise has been due to higher real yields,” though an increase in the supply of U.S. government debt is also likely playing a contributing role.

    As of Monday, 10- and 30-year Treasury yields
    BX:TMUBMUSD30Y
    had respectively jumped by 105.4 basis points and 91.7 basis points since early April, and closed at their highest levels since Nov. 6, 2007, and April 27, 2011. However, they ended lower on Tuesday at 4.327% and 4.410% as investors and traders took a break from the aggressive selloff of long-dated government debt seen over the past week.

    The runup in Treasury yields has been blamed for a stock-market pullback, which has seen the S&P 500
    SPX
    retreat 4.4% so far in August. The large-cap benchmark remains up 14.3% so far this year.

    As traders and investors await Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s Jackson Hole address on Friday, Kalish wrote that “the market has been consistently underpricing the risk of additional rate hikes and overpricing the speed of rate cuts.” Powell will be “pleased at the progress on goods inflation, hopeful that the labor market is getting into better balance, but concerned about the economy growing faster than trend.”

    Source link

  • The selloff in Treasurys isn’t over yet, Barclays warns

    The selloff in Treasurys isn’t over yet, Barclays warns

    There is room for a continued selloff in U.S. Treasurys which has already pushed 10- and 30-year yields to their highest levels since 2007 and 2011, according to researchers at Barclays.Though the recent selloff took a breather on Friday, the steady drive higher in long-dated yields which unfolded this week left observers warning that the era of low rates may be firmly behind the U.S. as a new normal appears to take shape in the bond market. Long-term rates yields are just beginning to enter ranges that have been historically consistent with where they traded during the early 2000s.Read: Why Treasury yields keep rising,…

    Source link

  • U.S. stocks would be much lower if it wasn’t for ‘excessive’ government spending, Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson says

    U.S. stocks would be much lower if it wasn’t for ‘excessive’ government spending, Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson says

    U.S. stocks would be in much worse shape in 2023 if it wasn’t for “excessive” fiscal policy from the government and explosive money-supply growth in recent years.

    That’s the latest take from Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson, the bank’s chief investment strategist who, as MarketWatch’s Steve Goldstein pointed out earlier, seems to never miss an opportunity to recall how wrong his market calls have been this year.

    In his latest note, Wilson told clients and the financial press that excessive government spending has helped prop up the U.S. economy and markets to a degree that Wilson and his team failed to anticipate.

    “Part of the reason we’ve found ourselves offside this year is that the fiscal impulse returned with a vengeance and remained quite strong in 2023 — something we didn’t factor into our forecasts,” Wilson said in the note.

    In an accompanying chart, Wilson noted that fiscal spending looks particularly excessive when compared with the U.S. unemployment rate, which fell to 3.5% in July, according to data from the Department of Labor released on Friday.


    MORGAN STANLEY

    To be sure, Wilson was one of a select few on Wall Street to correctly anticipating last year’s inflation-driven selloff.

    But heading into the New Year, he expected stocks would tumble to new lows during the first half of 2023.

    And after hanging on to his bearish view for months in spite of a powerful rally in equities driven by the artificial intelligence craze and a surprisingly resilient U.S. economy, he’s recently taken the opportunity to reflect on why he got it wrong, while acknowledging the possibility that the rally could continue.

    See: Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson admits ‘we were wrong’ about 2023 stock-market rally, but refuses to throw in the towel

    See: Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson is warming to the U.S. stock-market rally. Here’s what would make him turn bullish.

    It’s possible, even likely, that the government’s excessive spending could continue, at least until it comes time to raise the debt ceiling again in 2025.

    Fitch Ratings last week cited projections for ballooning budget deficits for helping to inspire its decision to strip the U.S. of its AAA credit rating.

    “The main takeaway for the equity market this year is that fiscal policy has allowed
    the economy to grow faster than forecast, giving rise to the consensus view that the
    risk of a recession has faded considerably. Furthermore, with the recent lifting of the debt ceiling until 2025, this aggressive fiscal spending could continue,” Wilson said.

    The biggest problem with spending so much during good economic times, however, is that it limits Congress’s ability to act when another recession inevitably arrives.

    That could create problems for corporate earnings and, by extension, stocks, down the road, Wilson said.

    “If fiscal policy is showing such little constraint in good times, what happens to the deficit when the next recession arrives?”

    U.S. stocks were trading higher early Monday after the S&P 500
    SPX
    logged its fourth straight day in the red on Friday, capping off the worst week for stocks since March. The index was up 0.5% in recent trade near 4,500, while the Nasdaq Composite
    COMP
    was 0.2% lower at 13,881.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA,
    which has surged higher over the past month as traders have favored some of this year’s market laggards, was up 300 points, or 0.9%, at 35,362.

    Source link

  • Rising Treasury yields spooked the stock market. Now, a key test lies ahead.

    Rising Treasury yields spooked the stock market. Now, a key test lies ahead.

    A worsening U.S. fiscal situation caught stock and bond investors off guard in the past week and now a round of approaching government auctions is about to provide a crucial test for Treasurys.

    The question in the days ahead is whether risks to the demand for U.S. government debt are growing. If so, that could put upward pressure on Treasury yields, which would undermine the performance of stocks. However, if investors end up caring less about the fiscal situation than they do about the possibility of slowing economic growth and decelerating inflation, government debt’s safe-haven appeal could be reinforced, putting a limit on how high yields might go.

    Concern about the deteriorating fiscal outlook was a factor behind the past week’s rise in long-term Treasury yields. Ten-
    BX:TMUBMUSD10Y
    and 30-year yields
    BX:TMUBMUSD30Y
    respectively jumped to 4.188% and 4.304% on Thursday, the highest levels since early November, as investors sold off long-term government debt — which took the shine off U.S. stocks. By Friday, though, a moderating pace of U.S. job creation for July sent yields into reverse, giving equities a temporary lift during the final trading session of the week.

    At issue is the extent to which potential buyers of Treasurys may be deterred by Fitch Ratings’ Aug. 1 decision to cut the U.S. government’s top AAA rating, at a time when the government is about to unleash what Barclays rates strategists describe as a “tsunami” of supply. A total of $103 billion in 3-, 10-and 30-year Treasurys come up for sale between Tuesday and Thursday. In addition, a spate of Treasury bills are scheduled to be auctioned starting on Monday.

    Gene Tannuzzo, global head of fixed income at Boston-based Columbia Threadneedle Investments, said that while he and his team still have room to add T-bills to the government money-market funds they oversee during the week ahead, they haven’t made up their minds about whether to buy more longer-dated maturities for their bond funds.

    “While we are comfortable that the Fed is at or near the end of its rate hikes, there are a lot more questions about the durability of the economic recovery, the degree that inflation will remain low, and the risk premium that needs to be put in at the long end,” Tannuzzo said via phone.

    Treasury’s $1 trillion third-quarter borrowing plans, along with some technical issues and the Bank of Japan’s decision to switch to a more flexible yield-curve control approach, might reduce demand for U.S. government debt, he said. Columbia Threadneedle managed $617 billion as of June.

    “One can’t ignore the risk of an unruly rise in yields, but our view is that this is a low risk and what the Treasury auctions may produce instead is ‘indigestion,’ driven by poor technicals and low liquidity, Fitch’s downgrade, and the Bank of Japan action — and by the end of August, we should be past much of this,” he told MarketWatch.

    Key Words: Warren Buffett dismisses Fitch downgrade: ‘There are some things people shouldn’t worry about’

    Risks to the demand for Treasurys may become obvious soon, given Tuesday-Thursday’s $103 billion in total sales of 3-, 10- and 30-year securities, according to analyst John Canavan of U.K.-based Oxford Economics. The main “question mark” for the market’s ability to absorb the increased Treasury issuance will be whether or not domestic investment funds continue to show interest, Canavan wrote in a note distributed on Friday.


    Source: Oxford Economics.

    ‘My suspicion is that with higher rates comes equally solid demand’ at upcoming auctions.


    — John Flahive, head of fixed income at BNY Mellon Wealth Management

    Market players have had little difficulty absorbing Treasury coupon issuances in recent years because of flight-to-safety trades made after the U.S. onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Now, however, increased auction sizes are being accompanied by still-elevated inflation, better-than-expected economic growth, and the possibility of more rate hikes by the Federal Reserve — which is likely to complicate the market’s ability to absorb the increased supply “without hiccups,” Canavan said.

    Read: Who is buying all the Treasury auctions? Domestic funds got a record share, but another deluge is coming.

    On the flip side of the debate is John Flahive, head of fixed income at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in Boston, which managed $286 billion in assets as of June. He said equity markets will continue to be much more focused on economic developments and earnings. And as long as the latter of the two remains robust, stocks “can grind higher in a low-volatility environment,” Flahive said via phone.

    Saying he does not expect his team to be a major participant in the Treasury auctions, Flahive said that the bond market’s reaction in the past week was “a little overdone” and “we always felt that there was a limited to how much yields could go up to reflect more government debt.”

    “My suspicion is that with higher rates comes equally solid demand” at upcoming auctions, he said. “I’m still optimistic about rates going back down over time as the result of a slowing economy and decelerating inflation. We continue to like the bond market and see a better-than-even chance that yields go down as the economy continues to weaken in the quarters ahead.”

    Friday’s reaction to July’s official jobs report, which showed the U.S. added a modest 187,000 new jobs, provided a breather from the past week’s run-up in Treasury yields.

    On Friday, the 30-year Treasury yield fell 9 basis points to 4.214%, yet still ended with its biggest weekly gain since early February. The 10-year rate, which dropped 12.8 basis points to 4.06%, finished with a third straight week of advances.

    Stocks fell Friday, leaving major indexes with weekly declines. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    posted a 1.1% weekly fall, while the S&P 500
    SPX
    shed 2.3% and the Nasdaq Composite
    COMP
    retreated 2.9%. The soft start to August comes after a run of sharp gains for equities. The S&P 500 remains up 16.6% for the year to date.

    The economic calendar for the week ahead includes U.S. inflation updates.

    On Monday, June consumer-credit data is set to be released. Tuesday brings the NFIB’s small business optimism index, plus data on the U.S. trade balance and wholesale inventories. Then on Thursday, weekly initial jobless claims and the July consumer-price index are released. That’s followed on Friday by the producer-price index for last month and an August consumer-sentiment reading.

    Meanwhile, portfolio manager and fixed-income analyst John Luke Tyner at Alabama-based Aptus Capital Advisors, which manages roughly $5 billion in assets, said he plans to follow the Treasury auctions, but doesn’t usually participate in them.

    “One of the biggest trends we’ve seen is the continued increase in the issuance amounts from Treasury. Whatever we are budgeting for is never enough, which justifies the Fitch downgrade,” Tyner said via phone. “It’s tough to say people aren’t going to buy U.S. debt, but you’ve got to entice them to buy duration and take the risk.

    “The U.S. is not an emerging market, but ultimately we are going to see the market rate that participants require be higher, with a notable uptick in term premia,” he said. “What we could see in the face of all this issuance is a grind up in yields on an auction-by-auction basis. If I look at the technicals, a 4.9%-5% yield on the 10-year note seems in the cards,” and “it will be difficult for stocks to hold or expand from full valuations as rates run up.”

    Source link

  • Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman says numbers ‘justify’ Fitch downgrade of U.S. credit rating

    Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman says numbers ‘justify’ Fitch downgrade of U.S. credit rating

    ‘The numbers justified it, regrettably.’


    — Steve Schwarzman, CEO, Blackstone

    Blackstone chief executive officer Steve Schwarzman said Fitch Ratings’ recent downgrade to long-term U.S. debt was justified, and it is a “shot across the bow” after repeated debt-ceiling standoffs over the borrowing limit make the U.S. government less trustworthy than before. 

    “We’ve had an explosion of debt since the global financial crisis and we don’t appear to have a lot of discipline going forward,” Schwarzman said in a CNBC interview on Friday. “We’re running huge deficits now.” 

    Fitch Ratings late Tuesday lowered its rating on the U.S.’ long-term foreign currency issuer default rating to AA+ from AAA, saying that it reflects “expected fiscal deterioration,” a “high and growing” government debt burden and an “erosion of governance” in face of multiple debt-limit standoffs.

    See: What Fitch’s U.S. credit downgrade means for investors

    Fitch’s ratings downgrade was the first for the U.S. sovereign debt since Standard & Poor Global Ratings took the same step in 2011, cutting the nation’s credit rating to AA+ from AAA also after a debt-ceiling standoff in Congress. Moody’s Investors Service has kept its U.S. credit rating at Aaa, its highest, and remains the last of the three major credit credit-rating firms to maintain a top rating for the country. 

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Wednesday slammed the move by Fitch Ratings, calling it “arbitrary and based on outdated data” as it came two months after a debt-ceiling agreement that averted a U.S. default. She said the decision “does not change what Americans, investors, and people all around the world already know: that Treasury securities remain the world’s pre-eminent safe and liquid asset, and that the American economy is fundamentally strong.”

    See: Warren Buffett dismisses Fitch downgrade: ‘There are some things people shouldn’t worry about’

    Schwarzman said regardless of the rating, the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency. “We do defend a large part of the world including people who have triple As, and when there’s a crisis in the world, they buy our securities,” he said on Friday. 

    “Now that doesn’t last forever if you don’t keep some discipline. And so in a way, it’s a bit of a shot across the bow,” Schwarzman said. 

    U.S. stocks were holding gains Friday following the July jobs report, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    up 170 points, or 0.5%, while the S&P 500
    SPX
    also advanced 0.5%.

    Source link

  • What Fitch’s U.S. credit downgrade means for investors

    What Fitch’s U.S. credit downgrade means for investors

    As you’ve probably heard by now, Fitch Ratings late Tuesday cut the U.S. federal government’s credit rating to AA+ from AAA.

    Here’s a look at what it means for investors and markets:

    What’s a credit rating?

    A credit rating is an independent assessment of the ability of an organization, including corporations and governments, ranging from school boards to cities, counties, states and countries, that have issued debt to meet their obligations. Fitch — alongside S&P Global and Moody’s Investors Service — is one of the world’s big three ratings firms.

    Need to Know: The U.S. is downgraded. How much does it matter to markets? And the surprise asset that may benefit.

    The ratings firms use scales that employ letters, and in Moody’s case also include numbers, to provide a guide to creditworthiness. At the top of the list is the AAA rating from S&P and Fitch, or Aaa, in the case of Moody’s. AA+ is the second-highest rating.

    Ratings that employ Cs are at the bottom of the scales, with Fitch and S&P using D ratings in cases of default or bankruptcy.

    Any rating below BBB- from Fitch and S&P, or Baa from Moody’s, is considered below “investment grade.” Such debt is often termed “junk.”

    Why did the U.S. rating get cut

    Fitch had warned in May that a cut was possible, with the ratings firm expressing dismay over what it termed another round of “brinkmanship” around the U.S. government’s debt ceiling. The warning came amid a battle between congressional Republicans and the Biden administration over lifting or suspending the federal government’s debt ceiling.

    The limit has been a frequent source of political squabbling. While the showdown was resolved with a two-year suspension of the limit, the battle underlined the high stakes. Failure to reach a deal could have led to a default. In Tuesday’s decision, Fitch said that the past two decades have seen “a steady deterioration in standards of governance” in the U.S., the debt-ceiling agreement notwithstanding.

    How does the U.S. rating stack up to other countries

    Fitch isn’t the first of the big three ratings firms to strip the U.S. of its AAA rating. S&P did so in 2011, amid an earlier debt-limit battle. That leaves Moody’s as the only firm to still assign the U.S. its top rating.

    The pool of triple-A sovereign ratings, meanwhile, continues to dwindle. Only a handful of countries carry triple-A ratings across the board from all three ratings firms.

    See: Here are the countries that still have Triple-A credit ratings across the board

    What does rating cut mean to investors?

    The cut isn’t seen having much lasting effect on investor demand for U.S. Treasurys. The market for Treasurys is the largest and most liquid debt market in the world. Despite the lack of triple-A ratings, Treasurys are viewed and treated by investors as being virtually “risk-free,” or equivalent to cash. Other types of debt are often quoted in terms of the yield premium, or spread, demanded by investors to hold them over Treasurys.

    That isn’t going to change overnight. Analysts have emphasized that investors don’t buy Treasurys based on the credit rating. And any outflows from funds that are required to hold only triple-A rated bonds are expected to be limited.

    See: $25 trillion Treasury market is in the spotlight as U.S. loses its AAA rating for a second time

    “Many major Treasury holders, such as funds and index trackers, have already prepared for the move by changing mandates to specifically refer to Treasurys rather than AAA credit, and are unlikely to be forced into selling given the importance of the asset class,” said Solita Marcelli, chief investment officer for the Americas at UBS Global Wealth Management, in a Wednesday note.

    How are markets reacting?

    The downgrade was blamed for a weak tone across global equity markets, with U.S. stocks following suit. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    dropped around 315 points, or 0.9%, while the S&P 500
    SPX
    shed 1.3%. The moves come after a strong run of gains, however.

    Treasury yields, which move opposite to price, were higher. The selling, however, took hold only after data from ADP that showed a stronger-than-expected rise in private-sector payrolls. Treasurys took the downgrade in stride in earlier trading, with yields moving lower.

    The yield on the 10-year Treasury note
    BX:TMUBMUSD10Y
    was up around 2 basis points near 4.02%.

    Marcelli recalled that in 2011 the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury fell around 50 basis points, or half a percentage point, in the three days after the S&P downgrade to 2.6% on Aug. 5. Even 15 trading days later, yields were still down 40 basis points from the day of the downgrade, and around 80 basis points lower compared with where they were 15 trading days before the move.

    Source link

  • ‘Eye-popping’ borrowing need from U.S. Treasury raises risk of buyers’ fatigue

    ‘Eye-popping’ borrowing need from U.S. Treasury raises risk of buyers’ fatigue

    Just a day after the Treasury Department released a $1 trillion borrowing estimate for the third quarter, questions are being raised about the extent to which foreign and domestic buyers can continue to keep up their demand for U.S. government debt.

    Further details about Treasury’s financing need will be released at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday. For now, the $1 trillion estimate, the largest ever for the July-September period, has analysts concluding that the U.S. is facing a deteriorating fiscal deficit outlook and continuing pressure to borrow.

    At stake for the broader fixed-income market is whether the presence of large ongoing auctions over the coming quarter and beyond will lead to a prolonged period where demand from potential buyers might begin to dry up, Treasury yields edge higher, and the government-debt market returns to some form of illiquidity.

    “You can make the argument that since 2020, with the onset of Covid, that Treasury issuances have been met with reasonably good demand,” said Thomas Simons, an economist at Jefferies
    JEF,
    -1.75%
    .
    “But as we go forward and further away from that period of time, it’s hard to see where that same flow of dollars can come from. We may be looking at recent history and drawing too much of a conclusion that this borrowing need will be easily met.”

    Simons said in a phone interview Tuesday that “the risk is that you don’t get continued demand from foreign or domestic buyers of fixed income.” The result could be “six to nine months where the market is fatigued by bigger auction sizes, Treasurys become more and more difficult to trade, there’s a grind higher in yields, and there may be issues with liquidity where markets may not be so deep.” Still, he expects such a period, if there is one, to be less acute than what was seen in the 2013 taper tantrum or last year’s volatility in the U.K. bond market.

    On Monday, the Treasury revealed a $1.007 trillion third-quarter borrowing estimate that was $274 billion higher than what it had expected in May. The estimate — which Simons calls “eye-popping” — assumes an end-of-September cash balance of $650 billion, and has gone up partly because of projections for lower receipts and higher outlays, according to Treasury officials.

    Monday’s estimate is the largest ever for the third quarter, though not relative to other parts of the year. In May 2020, a few months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., Treasury gave an almost $3 trillion borrowing estimate for the April-June quarter of that year.

    For the upcoming fourth quarter, Treasury is now expecting to borrow $852 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-December cash balance of $750 billion. According to strategist Jay Barry and others at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
    JPM,
    -1.05%
    ,
    the third- and fourth-quarter estimates “suggest that, at face value, Treasury continues to expect a wider budget deficit” for the 2023 fiscal year.

    As of Tuesday, investors appeared to be less focused on the Treasury’s borrowing needs than on signs of continued strength in the U.S. labor market, which raises the prospect of higher-for-longer interest rates. One-
    TMUBMUSD01Y,
    5.400%

    through 30-year Treasury yields
    TMUBMUSD30Y,
    4.100%

    were all higher as data showed demand for workers is still strong. Meanwhile, all three major U.S. stock indexes
    DJIA,
    +0.05%

    SPX,
    -0.33%

    COMP,
    -0.41%

    were mostly lower in morning trading.

    According to Simons, who the most likely buyers will be at Treasury’s upcoming auctions will depend on where the department decides to focus its issuances. If the focus is on bills, then money-market mutual funds could “move some cash over,” he said. And if it’s on long-duration coupons, it would be “real money” players such as insurers, pension funds, hedge funds and bond funds — though much will rely on inflows from clients “before demand would pick up.”

    Source link

  • Am I being tricked into overtipping when I eat out? Should I tip before or after sales tax is added?

    Am I being tricked into overtipping when I eat out? Should I tip before or after sales tax is added?

    Dear Quentin,

    I’ve read your previous responses to letters on tipping, and my thoughts are simple: Tipping is dependent on the service given. I won’t tip at a deli counter, but I will tip more in a diner. I see no reason to tip a deli counter person on a regular basis. The person who rings up my groceries isn’t allowed to accept tips, and they do a lot more than put a sandwich in a bag.

    As far as restaurants go, 15% is the starting point and I will go up from that as warranted. I do tend to tip a high percentage in diners. The waitstaff there are generally fabulous, deal with lower price points and a varied clientele. I feel they also suffer from customer bias where some people seem to think it’s only a diner not a fancy restaurant.

    ‘Helping others is not always through money. I volunteer my time with several charities and donate blood.’

    The job is the same whether my meal is $10 or $100. I try to pay in cash to ensure the waitstaff is promptly getting their tip, and to ensure that the money does indeed go to the wait staff. Are we expected to tip on a total that includes credit-card charges? What’s more, helping others is not always through money. I volunteer my time with several charities and donate blood.

    What troubles me is that throughout the New York City metro area, tipping recommendations in restaurants are based on faulty calculations. My friends and I all agree that tips are supposed to be based on the price of the meal — that is the subtotal or pre-tax figure. Restaurants frequently encourage people to tip on the final amount. 

    A Fair Tipper

    Related: I’m sick and tired of tipping 20% every time I eat out. Is it ever OK to tip less? Or am I a cheapskate? 

    Dear Fair,

    Yes, yes, yes, and yes. 

    Yes, wait staff in diners work as hard as any restaurant worker, and they deserve whatever your optimum tip — 15% or 20% — and as much as you would tip in a white-tablecloth restaurant. Yes, consumers should not be expected to tip in a deli — unless you have a good relationship with the staff, and you tip occasionally for goodwill. If you choose to “skip” the charity donation in a pharmacy, that’s OK too. Yes, donations and tips are increasingly being conflated, and that’s not always a good thing. We should be comfortable with the charity and 100% sure that the donation is going to the charity in question. 

    And your main point: Yes, tipping on the subtotal before tax and before credit-card charges is absolutely fair, although a lot of people — especially when calculating the tip among friends — tip on the after-tax total. Why? Perhaps we don’t want to be seen splitting hairs over the tax among friends and/or in front of a service worker who has given us exemplary service. Calculating tips is often done under pressure, and no one likes to be seen as a cheapskate. I almost always tip on the total amount, knowing that the sales tax is included, primarily because I figure that extra $1 or more is going to the person who served my table.

    My colleague, MarketWatch news editor Nicole Pesce, put together a guide for how much you should tip everyone, and who you should NOT tip. She also cited three reasons why tipping has become such a note of contention, and why it appears we are tipping more: people tipped staff more during the pandemic (they were, after all, putting their health and lives at risk with their jobs); 40-year high inflation over the last 12 months has increased the cost of everything and, as such our tips rose in tandem with prices; and, finally, digital tipping appears to be ubiquitous, and people have been suffering from tipping fatigue. 

    ‘You’re not the only one: Americans are souring on tipping.’

    You’re not the only one with tipping fatigue, though: Americans are generally souring on tipping. A large majority (66%) of U.S. adults have a negative view about tipping, according to a poll released by the personal-finance site Bankrate last month. The bottom line: consumers feel they are being forced to compensate employees for low pay (41%) and they don’t appreciate all that digital guilt tipping (32%) and, as a result, they believe that tipping culture has gotten out of control (30%). Respondents also said they were confused about how much to tip (15%), but a small minority (a paltry 16%) said they would be willing to pay higher prices in lieu of tipping.

    People appear to be less generous with their tipping amounts, and they also appear to be tipping less often. What’s perhaps most surprising from Bankrate’s research is that only 65% of diners actually tip when they eat out (that’s down from 73% last year). After restaurants, people are most likely to tip barbers/hairdressers (53% of those polled) and food-delivery workers (50%). From thereon, only a minority of people say they tip taxi or rideshare drivers (New York City cabs, which give tipping options upon payment, may be an outlier here), hotel housekeepers, baristas and food-delivery workers.

    It’s important that we have this conversation about tipping because expectations and digital tipping methods are evolving all the time. On the one hand, people are facing higher prices and they are understandably feeling under pressure to tip. On the other hand, this conversation naturally overlaps with the working conditions and pay of service workers. Americans are tipping less than they did during the worst days of the pandemic. Service workers — along with medical personnel, bus and train drivers and first responders — were among the heroes of the pandemic. That is something I hope we never forget.

    “The person who rings up my groceries isn’t allowed to accept tips, and they do a lot more than put a sandwich in a bag,” the letter writer says.


    MarketWatch illustration

    Also read:

    ‘I respect every profession equally, but I feel like so many people look down on me for being a waitress’: Americans are tipping less. Should we step up to the plate? 

    ‘We’re very upset!’ We gave a friend $400 concert tickets and $2,000 Rangers seats, but weren’t invited to his wedding. Do we speak up?

    ‘All of these tips add up’: If a restaurant adds a 20% tip, am I obliged to pay? Should tipping not be optional? 

    Source link

  • East Coast mayors call for more office-to-apartment conversions

    East Coast mayors call for more office-to-apartment conversions

    Mayors in cities across the U.S. want to loosen rules that can slow the pace of office-to-residential conversions. In some instances, cities have offered generous tax abatements to developers who build new housing.

    “We have a great opportunity to change the uses in the downtown,” said Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser at a December 2022 news conference in support of her housing budget proposals.

    “It’s absolutely a budget gimmick” said Erica Williams, executive director at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, referring to Bowser’s 2023 proposal to increase the downtown developer tax break. “We fully support the idea that some of these buildings could be turned into residential properties or into mixed-use properties, but that we don’t necessarily need to subsidize that.”

    In New York City, a task force of planners assembled by Mayor Eric Adams is studying the effects of zoning changes, and possible abatements for developers who include affordable units in conversions.

    Cities like Philadelphia have previously embraced these policies to revitalize their downtowns. In Philadelphia, homeowners and investors received more than $1 billion in tax breaks for their renovation projects.

    A small collective of developers have taken on this challenging slice of the real estate business. Since 2000, 498 buildings have been converted in the U.S., creating 49,390 new housing units through the final quarter of 2022, according to real estate services firm CBRE.

    Prominent investors Societe Generale and KKR have worked with developers like Philadelphia-based Post Brothers to finance institutional-scale office conversions in expensive central business districts.

    “Capital has gotten much more limited,” said Michael Pestronk, CEO of Post Brothers. “We’re able to get financing today. … It is a lot more expensive than it was a year ago.”

    Many experts believe local governments will alter zoning laws and building codes to make these conversions easier over the years.

    “Our rules are in the way, and we need to fix that,” said Dan Garodnick, director of New York City’s Department of City Planning.

    Watch the video above to learn how cities are getting developers to convert more offices into apartments.

    Source link

  • Here’s what’s stopping cities from converting offices into apartments

    Here’s what’s stopping cities from converting offices into apartments

    Share

    Some U.S. mayors are loosening up rules that determine how developers convert office buildings into apartment complexes. The conversion trend sped up in the 2020s, as the Covid pandemic remote work boom reshaped cities. Declines in office leasing activity is constraining funding for services like education and transit, leading some local leaders to prioritize conversion of dated buildings. These rule changes may create some additional housing supply in regions like the U.S. East Coast.

    11:46

    Sat, Jul 15 20237:00 AM EDT

    Source link

  • Construction spending inches up, showing signs of a recovery in housing

    Construction spending inches up, showing signs of a recovery in housing

    The construction industry posted a slight gain in May as companies and the government increased spending on projects across the U.S.

    Spending on construction projects rose 0.9% in May to $1.93 trillion, the Commerce Department reported Monday. 

    Wall Street was expecting construction spending to rise 0.5% in April.

    Construction spending reveals how much the government and private companies spend on projects, from housing to highways. The more the U.S. spends on construction, the higher the level of economic activity. 

    The government revised spending on construction in April to 0.4% from an initial read of a 1.2% increase.

    Over the past year, construction spending was up 2.4%. 

    In terms of residential real estate, private residential construction fell 11.6% in May as compared to the previous year. It was up 2.2% as compared to April.

    Single-family construction rose on a month-over-month basis in May by 1.7%, but fell sharply by 25% from last year.

    Multifamily construction fell by 0.1% in May, but increased by 20.4% from last year.

    Spending on public residential construction rose by 0.1% from last month, and 12.3% from last year. The U.S. increased spending on public residential construction by 1.1% from last month, and 8.3% over the last year.

    The increase in spending May overall was “strong,” Stephen Stanley, chief U.S. economist at Santander U.S. Capital Markets, wrote in a note.

    “In particular, new residential activity jumped by 2.2%, reversing the cumulative declines recorded over the three prior months,” he added. “This lines up with the big increase in housing starts in May and adds to the growing body of evidence that the housing sector is bottoming out.”

    Stocks
    DJIA,
    +0.11%

    SPX,
    +0.04%

    were down in early trading on Monday. The 10-year Treasury note
    TMUBMUSD10Y,
    3.844%

    was around 3.8%.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court knocks down Biden’s student-debt forgiveness plan

    Supreme Court knocks down Biden’s student-debt forgiveness plan

    The Supreme Court knocked down the Biden administration’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a wide swath of borrowers, the court announced Friday. 

    The decision means that the White House won’t move forward with the plan for now, though it’s possible officials could try to launch a new version of the debt-forgiveness initiative using a different legal authority. Roughly 26 million borrowers applied for or were automatically eligible for debt relief under the Biden administration’s plan, which canceled up to $10,000 in student debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 in federal loans for borrowers who met that criteria and also used a Pell grant in college. 

    Americans owe $1.7 trillion of student loans and the White House had estimated that more than 40 million borrowers would benefit from the initiative. But almost as soon as the Biden administration announced the debt-forgiveness plan last year, opponents looked for ways to challenge it legally. Ultimately, two cases made it to the high court. 

    In one case, two student-loan borrowers sued over the debt-relief plan in part because the Department of Education didn’t submit it for public comment. That, they said, resulted in an initiative that arbitrarily left out or limited the amount of relief available to some student loan borrowers, like themselves. The suit filed by the borrowers was backed by the Job Creators Network, a conservative advocacy organization co-founded by Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, who also supported former President Donald Trump. 

    Six Republican-led states brought the other case on the basis that canceling debt could harm their state coffers. 

    The court considered two issues in these cases. The first is whether the plaintiffs had standing, or the ability to bring a lawsuit because they’ve been directly harmed by the policy. The second is whether the Biden administration overstepped in its executive authority when issuing the policy. In order for the justices to reach the second issue, or the merits of the case, they had to find that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. 

    Legal experts, including some who believed the Biden administration didn’t have the authority to authorize the debt-relief plan, were skeptical of the notion that the parties bringing the cases had standing to sue. During oral arguments in February, the court’s three liberal justices also questioned whether the parties who challenged debt forgiveness were actually injured by the policy. 

    In addition, one of the members of the court’s conservative wing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, asked pointed questions about the six states’ argument that they had standing to sue in part because the debt-relief plan would injure the state of Missouri. That claim surrounded the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA, a state-affiliated organization that services federal student loans. The states had argued if MOHELA lost accounts due to the debt-relief plan, its revenue would decline and that loss would hurt Missouri because of MOHELA’s ties to the state. 

    Despite these questions, Barrett agreed with the court’s five other conservative judges and found that the states have standing to sue. The three liberal justices dissented.

    “MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “It was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”

    The court’s decision in the states’ suit allowed the justices to get to the merits of the case. The parties challenging the debt-relief plan argued that the Department of Education went beyond the authority Congress delegated it in discharging student debt. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued to the justices that in canceling student debt, the Secretary of Education acted “within the heartland” of the authority Congress provided to him under the HEROES Act, a 2003 law that aims to ensure student-loan borrowers aren’t left worse off by a national emergency. 

    The court’s conservative majority sided with the states, with a 6-3 decision, striking down the debt-relief plan in its current form. 

    “The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal,” Roberts wrote.

    In the months leading up to the court’s decision, White House officials said there was no backup plan for if the Supreme Court knocked down the debt-forgiveness initiative. Advocates and activists have said that student-loan repayments shouldn’t resume until the Biden administration fulfills its promise to cancel some student debt.

    The bill President Joe Biden signed in June to raise the nation’s debt limit requires that the Department of Education end the pause on federal student loan, interest payments and collections 60 days after June 30, 2023. Interest on federal student loans will resume starting September 1 and payments will start to come due in October, according to the Department’s website.

    Advocates and activists have said for years that the Higher Education Act provides the Secretary of Education with the authority to discharge student loans. In ruling that the HEROES Act didn’t authorize the Biden administration’s debt-relief plan, the court left the option open for the Biden administration to create a loan-forgiveness program authorized under the HEA. 

    The court’s decision marks the latest development in a more-than-decade-long push to get the government to cancel student debt en masse. The idea, which has its origins in the Occupy Wall Street movement, made it to the presidential campaign stage during the 2020 cycle and was adopted by the White House last year.    

    Proponents of student debt cancellation and the Biden administration, have expressed concern that without some kind of relief a large swath of borrowers could slip into delinquency and default with the return of student loan payments later this year.

    Source link

  • Biden signs debt ceiling bill that pulls U.S. back from brink of unprecedented default

    Biden signs debt ceiling bill that pulls U.S. back from brink of unprecedented default

    With just two days to spare, President Joe Biden signed legislation on Saturday that lifts the nation’s debt ceiling, averting an unprecedented default on the federal government’s debt.

    The Treasury Department had warned that the country would start running short of cash to pay all of its bills on Monday, which would have sent shockwaves through the U.S. and global economies.

    Republicans refused to raise the country’s borrowing limit unless Democrats agreed to cut spending, leading to a standoff that was not resolved until weeks of intense negotiations between the White House and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

    The final agreement, which was passed by the House on Wednesday and the Senate on Thursday, suspends the debt limit until 2025 — after the next presidential election — and restricts government spending.

    Raising the nation’s debt limit, now at $31.4 trillion, will ensure that the government can borrow to pay debts already incurred.

    “Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher,” Biden said from the Oval Office on Friday evening. “Nothing would have been more catastrophic,” he said, than defaulting on the country’s debt.

    See also: ‘We averted an economic crisis’: Biden hails debt-ceiling deal in Oval Office address

    The agreement was hashed out by Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, giving Republicans some of their demanded federal spending cuts but holding the line on major Democratic priorities.

    It raises the debt limit until 2025 — after the 2024 presidential election — and gives legislators budget targets for the next two years in hopes of assuring fiscal stability as the political season heats up.

    “No one got everything they wanted but the American people got what they needed,” Biden said, highlighting the “compromise and consensus” in the deal. “We averted an economic crisis and an economic collapse.”

    Biden used the opportunity to itemize the achievements of his first term as he runs for reelection, including support for high-tech manufacturing, infrastructure investments and financial incentives for fighting climate change.

    He also highlighted ways he blunted Republican efforts to roll back his agenda and achieve deeper cuts.

    “We’re cutting spending and bringing deficits down at the same time,” Biden said. “We’re protecting important priorities from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to veterans to our transformational investments in infrastructure and clean energy.”

    Even as he pledged to continue working with Republicans, Biden also drew contrasts with the opposing party, particularly when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy, something the Democratic president has sought.

    It’s something he suggested may need to wait until a second term.

    “I’m going to be coming back,” he said. “With your help, I’m going to win.”

    Biden’s remarks were the most detailed comments from the Democratic president on the compromise he and his staff negotiated. He largely remained quiet publicly during the high-stakes talks, a decision that frustrated some members of his party but was intended to give space for both sides to reach a deal and for lawmakers to vote it to his desk.

    Biden praised McCarthy and his negotiators for operating in good faith, and all congressional leaders for ensuring swift passage of the legislation. “They acted responsibly, and put the good of the country ahead of politics,” he said.

    Overall, the 99-page bill restricts spending for the next two years and changes some policies, including imposing new work requirements for older Americans receiving food aid and greenlighting an Appalachian natural gas pipeline that many Democrats oppose.

    Some environmental rules were modified to help streamline approvals for infrastructure and energy projects — a move long sought by moderates in Congress.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates it could actually expand total eligibility for federal food assistance, with the elimination of work requirements for veterans, homeless people and young people leaving foster care.

    The legislation also bolsters funds for defense and veterans, cuts back some new money for the Internal Revenue Service and rejects Biden’s call to roll back Trump-era tax breaks on corporations and the wealthy to help cover the nation’s deficits. But the White House said the IRS’ plans to step up enforcement of tax laws for high-income earners and corporations would continue.

    The agreement imposes an automatic overall 1% cut to spending programs if Congress fails to approve its annual spending bills — a measure designed to pressure lawmakers of both parties to reach consensus before the end of the fiscal year in September.

    See also: With debt-ceiling deal, student-loan borrowers will start resuming payments in 3 months — here’s how to prepare

    In both chambers, more Democrats backed the legislation than Republicans, but both parties were critical to its passage. In the Senate the tally was 63-36 including 46 Democrats and independents and 17 Republicans in favor, 31 Republicans along with four Democrats and one independent who caucuses with the Democrats opposed.

    The vote in the House was 314-117.

    Source link

  • ‘Potent liquidity squeeze’ threatens stock market once debt-ceiling deal is done

    ‘Potent liquidity squeeze’ threatens stock market once debt-ceiling deal is done

    Lawmakers and the White House appear set to avert a calamitous U.S. government default, but stock-market investors need to be aware that what comes next could still make for a bumpy ride.

    “Some time in the next several days, markets will trade their last bit of angst over raising the debt ceiling for what was always going to be the real problem — handling the massive fundraise by Treasury,” said Steven Blitz, chief U.S. economist at TS Lombard, in a Wednesday note warning of a “potent liquidity squeeze” ahead.

    For…

    Source link

  • The debt ceiling deal: This clause is bad for Social Security

    The debt ceiling deal: This clause is bad for Social Security

    If there were no tax cheats in America, there would be no Social Security crisis. Benefits could be paid, and payroll taxes kept the same, for the next 75 years.

    That’s not me talking. That’s math. It comes from the number crunchers at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.

    And it explains why those of us who support Social Security should be pounding the table in outrage over one clause of the Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal: The part where the president has to retreat from his crackdown on tax cheats just so McCarthy and the House Republicans would agree to prevent America defaulting on its debts.

    It’s just two years since the administration got into law an extra $80 billion for the IRS to beef up enforcement. That was supposed to include hiring an estimated 87,000 IRS agents. 

    OK, so nobody likes paying taxes and nobody likes the IRS. Cue the inevitable critiques of an IRS tax “army,” and so on. But this isn’t about whether taxes should be higher or lower. It’s about whether everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.

    After all, if we’re going to cut taxes, shouldn’t they apply to those of us who obey the laws as well as those who don’t? Or do we just support the “Tax Cuts for Criminals” Act?

    Why would any voter rally around a platform of “I stand with tax cheats?”

    The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the extra funding for the IRS would have reduced the deficit, because it would more than pay for itself. But it’s now been cut by an estimated $21 billion out of $80 billion.

    If this seems abstract, consider the context and how it affects you and your retirement — and the retirements of everyone you know.

    Social Security is now running at an $80 billion annual deficit. That’s the amount benefits are expected to exceed payroll taxes this year. (So say the Social Security Administration’s trustees.)

    Next year, that deficit is expected to top $150 billion. By 2026, we’re looking at $200 billion and rising. The trust fund will run out of cash by 2034, and without extra payroll taxes will have to slash benefits by a fifth or more.

    Over the next 75 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, the entire funding gap for the program will average about 1.7% of gross domestic product per year.

    Meanwhile, how much are tax cheats stealing from the rest of us? A multiple of that.

    According to the most recent estimates from the IRS, tax cheats steal about $470 billion a year. And that figure is four years out of date, relating to 2019. That’s the figure after enforcement measures.

    Oh, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration says that’s a lowball number.

    But it still worked out at around 12% of all the taxes people were supposed to pay (including payroll taxes). And around 2.3% of GDP.

    Over the next 10 years, based on similar ratios to GDP, that would come to another $3.3 billion. 

    Sure, Social Security’s trust fund is theoretically separate from the rest of Uncle Sam’s finances. But that’s an accounting issue: A distinction without a difference.

    Social Security is America’s retirement plan. Few could retire in dignity without it. Yet it is facing a fiscal crisis. By 2034, without changes, the program will be forced to cut benefits — drastically.

    Some people want to cut benefits. Others want to raise the retirement age, which also means cutting benefits. Others want to raise taxes on benefits — which also means cutting benefits. Others want to hike payroll taxes, either on all of us or (initially) only on very high earners.

    At last — just 40 or so years out of date — some are starting to talk about investing some of the trust fund like nearly every other pension plan in the world, in high-returning stocks instead of just low-returning Treasury bonds. 

    (It is hard for me to believe that it’s now almost 16 years since I first wrote about this ridiculously obvious fix And, yes, I’ve been boring readers on the subject ever since, including here and most recently here, and, no, I have no plans to stop.)

    But if investing some of the trust fund in stocks is a no-brainer, so, too, is insisting everyone obey the law and pay the taxes they actually owe each year. I mean, shouldn’t we do that before we think about raising taxes even further on those who abide by the law?

    How could anyone object? Any party that believes in law and order would support enforcing, er, law and order on tax evasion. And any party of fiscal conservatism would support measures, like tax enforcement, to narrow the deficit.

    And, actually, any party that truly supported lower taxes for all would be tough on tax evasion: It is precisely this $500 billion in evasion by a small, scofflaw minority that forces the rest of us to pay more. We have, quite literally, a tax on obeying the law.

    One of the many arguments in favor of taxing assets or wealth, instead of just income, is that enforcement would be easier and evasion much harder

    Washington, D.C., seems to be a place where people come up with complex proposals just so they can avoid the simple, fair ones.

    Source link

  • Debt-ceiling deal reached in principle by Biden and McCarthy, vote could come early next week

    Debt-ceiling deal reached in principle by Biden and McCarthy, vote could come early next week

    WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached an “agreement in principle” to raise the nation’s legal debt ceiling late Saturday as they raced to strike a deal to limit federal spending and avert a potentially disastrous U.S. default.

    However, the agreement risks angering both Democratic and Republican sides with the concessions made to reach it. Negotiators agreed to some Republican demands for increased work requirements for recipients of food stamps that had sparked an uproar from House Democrats as a nonstarter.

    Support from both parties will be needed to win congressional approval next week before a June 5 deadline.

    The Democratic president and Republican speaker reached the agreement after the two spoke earlier Saturday evening by phone, said McCarthy. The country and the world have been watching and waiting for a resolution to a political standoff that threatened the U.S. and global economies.

    “The agreement represents a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want,” Biden said in a statement late Saturday night. “That’s the responsibility of governing,” he said.

    Biden called the agreement “good news for the American people, because it prevents what could have been a catastrophic default and would have led to an economic recession, retirement accounts devastated, and millions of jobs lost.”

    McCarthy in brief remarks at the Capitol, said that “we still have a lot of work to do.”

    But the Republican speaker said: “I believe this is an agreement in principle that’s worthy of the American people.”

    With the outlines of a deal in place, the legislative package could be drafted and shared with lawmakers in time for votes early next week in the House and later in the Senate.

    Central to the package is a two-year budget deal that would hold spending flat for 2024 and impose limits for 2025 in exchange for raising the debt limit for two years, pushing the volatile political issue past the next presidential election.

    The agreement would limit food stamp eligibility for able-bodied adults up to age 54, but Biden was able to secure waivers for veterans and the homeless.

    The two sides had also reached for an ambitious overhaul of federal permitting to ease development of energy projects and transmission lines. Instead, the agreement puts in place changes in the the National Environmental Policy Act that will designate “a single lead agency” to develop economic reviews, in hopes of streamlining the process.

    The deal came together after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the United States could default on its debt obligations by June 5 — four days later than previously estimated — if lawmakers did not act in time to raise the federal debt ceiling. The extended “X-date” gave the two sides a bit of extra time as they scrambled for a deal.

    Biden also spoke earlier in the day with Democratic leaders in Congress to discuss the status of the talks.

    The Republican House speaker had gathered top allies behind closed doors at the Capitol as negotiators pushed for a deal that would avoid a first-ever government default while also making spending cuts that House Republicans are demanding.

    But as another day dragged on with financial disaster looming closer, it had appeared some of the problems over policy issues that dogged talks all week remained unresolved.

    Both sides have suggested one of the main holdups was a GOP effort to expand work requirements for recipients of food stamps and other federal aid programs, a longtime Republican goal that Democrats have strenuously opposed. The White House said the Republican proposals were “cruel and senseless.”

    Biden has said the work requirements for Medicaid would be a nonstarter. He seemed potentially open to negotiating minor changes on food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, despite objections from rank-and-file Democrats.

    McCarthy, who dashed out before the lunch hour Saturday and arrived back at the Capitol with a big box of takeout, declined to elaborate on those discussions. One of his negotiators, Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, said there was “not a chance” that Republicans might relent on the work requirements issue.

    Americans and the world were uneasily watching the negotiating brinkmanship that could throw the U.S. economy into chaos and sap world confidence in the nation’s leadership.

    Anxious retirees and others were already making contingency plans for missed checks, with the next Social Security payments due next week.

    Yellen said failure to act by the new date would “cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.”

    The president, spending part of the weekend at Camp David, continued to talk with his negotiating team multiple times a day, signing off on offers and counteroffers.

    Any deal would need to be a political compromise in a divided Congress. Many of the hard-right Trump-aligned Republicans in Congress have long been skeptical of the Treasury’s projections, and they are pressing McCarthy to hold out.

    Lawmakers are not expected to return to work from the Memorial Day weekend before Tuesday, at the earliest, and McCarthy has promised lawmakers he will abide by the rule to post any bill for 72 hours before voting.

    The Democratic-held Senate has largely stayed out of the negotiations, leaving the talks to Biden and McCarthy. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has pledged to move quickly to send a compromise package to Biden’s desk.

    Weeks of talks have failed to produce a deal in part because the Biden administration resisted for months on negotiating with McCarthy, arguing that the country’s full faith and credit should not be used as leverage to extract other partisan priorities.

    But House Republicans united behind a plan to cut spending, narrowly passing legislation in late April that would raise the debt ceiling in exchange for the spending reductions.

    With the outlines of a deal in place, the legislative package could be drafted and shared with lawmakers in time for votes early next week in the House and later in the Senate.

    Central to the package is a two-year budget deal that would hold spending flat for 2024 and impose limits for 2025 in exchange for raising the debt limit for two years, pushing the volatile political issue past the next presidential election.

    Background: What’s in the emerging debt-ceiling deal? A cut to IRS funding, among other items.

    Negotiators agreed to some Republican demands for enhanced work requirements on recipients of food stamps that had sparked an uproar from House Democrats as a nonstarter.

    Biden also spoke earlier in the day with Democratic leaders in Congress to discuss the status of the talks, according to three people familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

    The Republican House speaker had gathered top allies behind closed doors at the Capitol as negotiators pushed for a deal that would raise the nation’s borrowing limit and avoid a first-ever default on the federal debt, while also making spending cuts that House Republicans are demanding.

    As he arrived at the Capitol early in the day, McCarthy said that Republican negotiators were “closer to an agreement.”

    McCarthy’s comments had echoed the latest public assessment from Biden, who said Friday evening that bargainers were “very close.” Biden and McCarthy last met face-to-face on the matter Monday.

    Their new discussion Saturday by phone came after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the United States could default on its debt obligations by June 5 — four days later than previously estimated — if lawmakers do not act in time to raise the federal debt ceiling. The extended “X-date” gives the two sides a bit of extra time as they scramble for a deal.

    Americans and the world were uneasily watching the negotiating brinkmanship that could throw the U.S. economy into chaos and sap world confidence in the nation’s leadership. House negotiators left the Capitol at 2 a.m. the night before, only to return hours later.

    Failure to lift the borrowing limit, now $31 trillion, to pay the nation’s incurred bills, would send shockwaves through the U.S. and global economy. Yellen said failure to act by the new date would “cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.”

    Anxious retirees and others were already making contingency plans for missed checks, with the next Social Security payments due next week.

    Source link