ReportWire

Tag: iab-financial crisis

  • Why China has few good options to boost its faltering economy | CNN Business

    Why China has few good options to boost its faltering economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Every few days for the past several weeks, a parade of Chinese leaders and policymakers have publicly vowed to do more to boost the sputtering economy, usually by promising to support the beleaguered private sector.

    Sometimes investors appear to have gained confidence from these pledges, sending shares higher.

    More often though, they’ve ignored the flurry of official messaging, hoping for more tangible stimulus measures that economists and analysts tell CNN are now unlikely to come because China has become too indebted to just pump up the economy like it did 15 years ago, during the global financial crisis.

    “We have had plenty of vague promises already, which don’t amount to a great deal so far,” said Robert Carnell, regional head of research for Asia-Pacific at ING Group.

    Except for some incremental steps to help the property market, currently mired in its worst slump in history, and tweaks to interest rates, there have been few signs of the government providing real money to struggling consumers or businesses.

    “Chinese policymakers appear unlikely to enact any major monetary or fiscal stimulus, likely fearing doing so could exacerbate China’s growing debt risks,” said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank.

    “At most, we can expect meager, mostly-supply side measures ostensibly aimed at, among other things, attracting more private capital and boosting electric vehicle ownership,” he added.

    After a strong start to the year after Covid restrictions were lifted, the world’s second largest economy has lost momentum.

    Since April, a slew of disappointing economic data and population statistics has sparked concern that China may be facing a period of much slower growth and possibly even heading for a future comparable to Japan’s.

    China’s economy barely grew in the April to June months compared with the previous quarter, as an initial burst in economic activity following the end of pandemic restrictions faded. Signs of deflation are becoming more prevalent, sparking concerns that China could enter a prolonged period of stagnation.

    Based on Japan’s experience in the 1990s, there is the risk that China is entering “a liquidity trap,” a scenario in which monetary policy becomes largely ineffective and consumers hold on to their cash rather than spend it, said Alicia Garcia-Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific for Natixis, a French investment bank.

    “In other words, there is a risk that Chinese corporates and households, pushed by their very negative sentiment about the economic outlook, prefer to disinvest and de-leverage in the light of falling revenue generation.”

    To get the economy back on track, Beijing needs to match its words with action, according to analysts.

    China “conspicuously” refrained from the giant Covid-era support seen in developed economies, according to analysts at the UBS Global Wealth Management. Fiscal stimulus, for instance, amounted to just a third of the aid offered in the United States, with no nationwide cash handouts.

    While this helped China avoid the rampant inflation shock seen elsewhere, disposable household income fell as wages and property asset values simultaneously stalled, they said in a recent research note.

    Interest rate cuts are not enough, unless they are accompanied by fiscal measures to boost demand.

    “A comprehensive policy mix — covering monetary and fiscal stimulus, including infrastructure, property, and consumption, alongside structural reforms,” would be helpful to rebuild confidence, they said.

    China’s economic trajectory is of great concern for global investors and policymakers who are counting on it to drive global expansion. But, Beijing appears to have run out of ammunition.

    Back in 2008, Chinese leaders rolled out a four trillion yuan ($586 billion) fiscal package to minimize the impact of the global financial crisis. It was seen as a success and helped boost Beijing’s domestic and international political standing as well as China’s economic growth, which soared to more than 9% in the second half of 2009.

    But the measures, which were focused on government-led infrastructure projects, also led to an unprecedented credit expansion and massive increase in local government debt, from which the economy is still struggling to recover. In 2012, Beijing said it wouldn’t be doing it again. The costs were just too high.

    China’s debt woes have only deepened during the Covid-19 pandemic, when three years of draconian restrictions and a real estate downturn drained the coffers of local government.

    Analysts estimate China’s outstanding government debts surpassed 123 trillion yuan ($18 trillion) last year. Nearly $10 trillion of that figure is so-called “hidden debt” owed by risky local government financing platforms.

    In June, Zhu Min, a former senior official at the International Monetary Fund who previously served at China’s central bank, was quoted by Bloomberg as telling the Summer Davos forum in Tianjin that he didn’t believe China would unveil massive stimulus, as the nation was already struggling with high debt levels.

    “No [fiscal stimulus] has been announced, which seems to indicate that Chinese policymakers are still wary about a too rapid increase in public debt,” said Garcia-Herrero.

    And even if Beijing were to take action, it would be less effective than in 2008, Garcia-Herrero said.

    “An infrastructure-led fiscal stimulus would need to be much bigger to have the same economic impact,” she said.

    It also implies that, if action is taken, public debt in China would jump well above the current 100% of GDP, which would place the economy “among the most indebted in the world,” she added.

    What’s worse, under President Xi Jinping, Beijing appears to have doubled down on its strategy to strengthen the party’s control over the economy, analysts said.

    A “correct response” to the economic slump would be for Beijing to return to a pro-market reform path and let the private sector play a bigger role, according to Derek Scissors, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

    But signs are “limited” that the government is considering that direction, he said.

    According to Singleton, “China’s new economic leadership team has few tools to meaningfully revive growth.”

    “Beijing’s steadfast, albeit unsurprising, refusal to acknowledge the role Xi’s economic mismanagement has played” in exacerbating China’s problems will gravely compound its broader systemic risks, he said.

    The property sector will likely be a drag on growth for years to come, Singleton said, adding that the country’s alarming debt levels and timid consumers domestically and abroad won’t help either.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why are far-right parties on the march across Europe? | CNN

    Why are far-right parties on the march across Europe? | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    While the Anglosphere was wracked by a burst of populism in 2016, most European countries proved remarkably resilient. Long-held grievances in the United Kingdom and United States fueled Brexit and took Donald Trump to the White House, but Europe – seeming at times to look aghast across the Channel and Atlantic – appeared largely immune. Brussels had fretted about a “Brexit domino effect.” In reality, the opposite came to be.

    In the five years from 2016, French centrism spurted out a new political party led by Emmanuel Macron that quelled the National Front. Angela Merkel’s resignation passed without populist fanfare and delivered a moderate successor. Mario Draghi, the technocrat par excellence, slid seamlessly from the European Central Bank to Italy’s premiership. Spain even went left.

    There were outliers: Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland and Viktor Orban in Hungary continued to shape their nations in their populist parties’ image. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged to third place in the 2017 federal elections. The billionaire tycoon Andrej Babis gained power that same year – but told CNN at the time he was more like the Czech Michael Bloomberg than the Czech Donald Trump. The story of that period was the so-called populist “wave” cresting early, and not sweeping much away. Voters in European nations largely toed the line.

    Today, there is not that same cohesion. The far right is on the march across the continent. Italy’s government under Giorgia Meloni is further to the right than at any point since the rule of Mussolini. The AfD recently won a district council election for the first time, with more victories expected to follow. In France, the perma-threat of a Marine Le Pen presidency grows with every protest against Macron’s government, whether over police violence or pension reform. Far-right parties are propping up coalitions in Finland and Sweden. Neo-Nazi groups are growing in Austria.

    And in Spain, the center-left coalition looks set to crumble after elections this weekend, paving the way for the far-right Vox party to enter government for the first time as part of a coalition.

    Why did Europe largely avoid the sort of populism that took root in the US and UK in 2016? And why are populist parties now steadily marching into the mainstream across the continent?

    It is often said that majoritarian electoral systems – as in the US and UK – help to shut extreme views out, while proportional systems – more common in Europe – welcome them in. Proportional systems give a louder legislative voice to parties like the AfD and Vox; winner-takes-all systems keep them quiet.

    For example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), despite winning more than 12% of the vote, secured only one seat in Parliament in the 2015 general election. Thanks to the UK’s first-past-the-post system, while there was significant support for UKIP’s anti-European Union, anti-immigration platform, it was not concentrated enough in any single constituency to deliver many seats. Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP, ran in seven elections but never won a seat – a supposed benefit of majoritarian systems.

    But it’s not that simple. Afraid of losing voters to UKIP (and other far-right parties), the governing Conservatives ended up adopting many of its positions. First, holding a referendum on Brexit – then pursuing a hardline form of it. Middle-of-the-road Conservatives found they had to make room in their party for more extreme views, or face losing electoral ground to parties that championed them. The system that was meant to shut extremists out of the building ended up welcoming in their ideas. Farage saw many of his policies implemented without having to win a seat.

    By contrast, despite often having extremist parties in the building, almost all mainstream European parties would simply refuse to consider them as potential coalition partners, under the principle of the “cordon sanitaire.” For instance, when the then-National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen (father of Marine) unexpectedly defeated the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin in the 2002 French Presidential election, the Socialists swung their weight behind the center-right candidate Jacques Chirac, delivering him a landslide in the second-round runoff. Despite their ideological differences, the mainstream parties simply refused to cooperate with extremists.

    Now, that dynamic has been reversed. Extremist parties that were once excluded from governing coalitions are increasingly propping them up, and the membrane separating the far and center right is proving increasingly permeable.

    In Finland, Petteri Orpo – largely seen as dependable and level-headed – only replaced Sanna Marin as Prime Minister in April after allying with the nationalist Finns Party. The party’s Vilhelm Junnila lasted barely a month as finance minister before resigning after allegations he had joked about Nazism at a far-right event in 2019. Swedish Prime Minister Ulif Kristersson relies on the votes of the increasingly Euroskeptic, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats.

    One peculiar feature of this new dynamic is how the far right and center right increasingly use each other’s language. Mainstream center-right parties, fearful of losing votes to more extreme groups, have increasingly begun to adopt their policies. In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte’s run as the second-longest serving leader in Europe ended this month after his new, hardline stance on asylum seekers proved too extreme for his more moderate coalition partners, causing his government to collapse.

    Marine Le Pen, leader of the French far-right party Rassemblement National (National Rally), has begun to use more moderate language of late.

    Conversely, far-right parties have attempted to sanitize some of their rhetoric, hoping to appear a more credible electoral prospect. After the fatal police shooting of an unarmed teenager, which sparked huge protests in France, Marine Le Pen’s response was markedly restrained.

    Philippe Marlier, a professor of French politics at University College London, told CNN that rather than seizing on traditional far-right rallying calls of “riots, ethnic minorities, rebelling against public authorities,” Le Pen’s “low-key” response was tempered “to appeal to a much broader audience than typical far-right voters.” This is part of a “long-term strategy of coming across no longer as a far-right politician, but as someone who eventually – in four years’ time – could be seen as a credible replacement for Macron.”

    Italy’s Meloni provided the model for this. When Lega leader Matteo Salvini, a long-term admirer of Vladimir Putin, planned a trip to visit the Russian President in June last year, Meloni took the opposite stance, restating her support for Ukraine and pledging to uphold sanctions against Russia if she was elected, as she then was in September. Using more moderate rhetoric is reaping electoral success for far-right politicians across the continent.

    Similarly, Germany’s AfD has begun to speak more seriously about economic policy, echoing traditional conservative values of fiscal prudence. While its flirtation with anti-vax politics may have cost it votes in the 2021 election, it has since enjoyed success in the east of the country, arguing that the government’s commitment to climate policies and supporting Ukraine’s war effort are placing overly burdensome costs on the German taxpayer. These moves suggest far-right parties, while not abandoning their extremist positions, are learning to speak the language of the mainstream to great effect.

    Co-leaders of the AfD Tino Chrupalla, left center, and Alice Weidel, right center, at the party's 10th anniversary celebration on February 6, 2023.

    All this is to say that the “supply side” of populism warrants as much attention as its “demand side.” It matters not just what voters want to buy, but what – and how – parties are selling. A bottom-up theory of populism suggests that dramatic shifts in public opinion create irresistible “waves” of support that mainstream parties are unable to resist. But, as the American political scientist Larry Bartels points out, there is also a top-down theory: Rather than an unexpected “wave,” there has long been a “reservoir” of populist sentiment in Europe. What matters is how politicians draw on it.

    The “demand side” often attributes the rise of populism to economic grievances and a cultural backlash. Financial crises, like that of 2008-2009, or big social shifts, like the European migrant crisis of 2015, are said to provide fertile ground for the seeds of populism to take root. Often the two factors can complement each other: The AfD, for instance, was founded during the Eurozone crisis in opposition to the common currency, but gained more support after adopting anti-Islamic policies following Germany’s welcoming of migrants mostly from the Middle East.

    The early 2020s, then, may seem to provide ground more fertile than the previous decade for these sorts of sentiments to grow. The continent has seen the return of inflation and the soaring cost of living; the end of quantitative easing and rising interest rates; increased tax burdens as government balance sheets recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and look to fund net-zero policies and increased defense spending. Recent opinion polls show the issue of immigration is also increasing in salience, as migrants continue to turn up on Europe’s shores.

    And yet, recent Eurobarometer polling shows that the public’s perception of the European economy is less bleak than we might expect – and far better than during previous crises. Negative perceptions of Europe’s economy rocketed after the financial crisis, and rose again after the start of the pandemic, but are now net positive. Similarly, trust in the European Union has been on an upward trend since 2015, and trust in national governments has remained broadly constant, but improved since the financial crisis.

    Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on a run near his Oxfordshire home on June 15, 2023.

    And so the recent successes of far-right parties cannot be explained by dramatic shifts in public opinion. Europe has weathered financial and migrant crises before, which did not translate into widespread support for populism.

    Instead, what we are seeing is a different sort of populism to the one that wracked the US and UK in 2016: A populism fueled by the collapse of the cordon sanitaire between mainstream conservatives and the far right, and one which may have learned the lessons of its short-lived predecessors.

    The defenestration of Boris Johnson and legal travails of Donald Trump perhaps offered the comforting conclusion that populism will inevitably implode: Its policy failures will be too great, the personal foibles of its leaders too unbearable, crass – and potentially criminal.

    But, on the continent, there is a newer, smarter brand of populism taking root. Whereas the UK has been content to break international law in pursuit of Brexit and its crackdown on asylum seekers, populist leaders in Europe are taking greater care not to renege on their international commitments. Many are content to wage culture wars at home, while remaining reliable partners abroad.

    Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni speaks with her Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban at the NATO summit in Vilnius on July 12, 2023.

    Orban, then Kaczynski, provided the model for this. Meloni, since, has taken quickly to the craft: Remaining responsible on the continental stage while coldly implementing far-right policies on the domestic one. This weekend, Spain may also set out on this path. After Rutte’s resignation, the Netherlands may too.

    A lot depends on the ability of mainstream parties – particularly on the left – to build tents big enough to accommodate their differences, rather than compromising with far-right parties to prop up their coalitions. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has managed this since 2018, though with dwindling success. His ability – or otherwise – to do so again this weekend may serve as a harbinger of the continent’s future.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Employers are preparing for a recession, but that doesn’t always mean layoffs | CNN Business

    Employers are preparing for a recession, but that doesn’t always mean layoffs | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    Areas of the US economy have started to crack under the weight of persistently high inflation and a string of 10 consecutive rate hikes from the Federal Reserve.

    But despite all that, the labor market has kept humming right along. And that’s largely expected to be the case, again, in Friday’s monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Economists are forecasting a net gain of 190,000 jobs for May, according to Refinitiv. While that would mark a significant retreat from April’s surprisingly strong 253,000 jobs added, it would land slightly above the average monthly gains seen during the strong labor market in the years leading up to the pandemic.

    Economists are also expecting the unemployment rate to tick back up to 3.5%. The US jobless rate has hovered at decade-lows for more than a year, with the current 3.4% rate matching a 53-year low hit in January.

    Private sector employment increased by 278,000 jobs in May, according to ADP’s monthly National Employment Report, frequently seen as a proxy for the government’s official number. That’s significantly higher than estimates of 170,000 jobs added but slightly below the previous month’s revised total of 291,000.

    Additional labor market data released Thursday showed that initial weekly jobless claims for the week ended May 27 totaled 232,000, almost no change from the previous week’s revised total of 230,000 applications.

    “In the last few months, the job market has continued to defy gravity, adding a steady clip of jobs and holding unemployment at historically low levels despite a backdrop of rising interest rates, banking turmoil, tech layoffs and debt ceiling negotiations,” Daniel Zhao, lead economist at employment review and search site Glassdoor, wrote in a note this week. “After a healthy April jobs report, May is likely to repeat with an equally strong performance.”

    Consumer spending and the labor market — two ares of strength in the economy — have, in a way, continued to feed on themselves.

    Last week, a Commerce Department report showed that not only did the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge heat up in April but so did consumer spending. Economists largely attributed consumers’ resilience to the healthy labor market as well as ample dry powder stockpiled from home refinances and from the temporary pause in student loan payments.

    In turn, that’s kept businesses busy.

    “With demand for goods and services holding up, employers who have been cautious and have been very nervous about over-hiring are — when push comes to shove — having to keep hiring just to keep pace with business activity,” Julia Pollak, chief economist for online employment marketplace ZipRecruiter, told CNN. “They’re very worried about a recession later this year, but they need to keep hiring today to provide the pizzas that people are demanding and to prevent flights being canceled.”

    She added: “Companies have also learned the hard way how costly staffing shortages can be.”

    But labor shortages are becoming far less acute: This past Memorial Day weekend, 1% of flights were canceled, Pollak said, noting that cancellations were fivefold higher a year before.

    “And while that’s a good news story — the end of shortages and disruptions during the pandemic is good for most consumers and good for businesses — it does come at some cost, which is a measurable decline in worker and job seeker leverage,” she said.

    Labor turnover data released Wednesday showed that the US employment market remained tight in April.

    Job openings bounced up to 10.1 million positions, bucking economists’ predictions for a fourth-consecutive monthly decline, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey report. The jump brought the ratio of vacancies to unemployed to almost 1.8, which is well above a range of 1.0 to 1.2 that is considered consistent with a balanced labor market, according to Michael Feroli, JPMorgan chief US economist.

    Although the April JOLTS data showed that fewer people were voluntarily quitting their jobs, the amount of layoffs and discharges dropped during the month, suggesting that employers are continuing to hoard workers, noted economist Matthew Martin of Oxford Economics.

    While monthly job gains haven’t tailed off as much as anticipated to this point, there is a notable slowdown that’s occurred from the blockbuster job gains of the past three years.

    But whether the softening is a sign of a return to pre-pandemic form or perhaps of a downswing into a downturn, remains to be seen.

    Some of the traditional recession indicators have been flashing red. Layoff announcements have quadrupled so far this year to 417,500, which — excluding 2020 — is the highest January to May total since 2009, according to a report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas released Thursday. Falling consumer confidence, monthly declines in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index, and drops in temporary help employment are also signaling that a downturn is just ahead. However, that long-predicted recession isn’t here just yet.

    “We were in such an unusual place during the pandemic with some of those indicators at completely extraordinary heights that they have experienced extraordinary declines,” Pollak said. “But those declines were just a return to normal, not a contraction, and it’s not a recession.”

    The government’s May jobs report is scheduled for Friday at 8:30 a.m. ET.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • American consumers are growing worried about a US debt default | CNN

    American consumers are growing worried about a US debt default | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    US consumer sentiment worsened in May as Americans grew concerned about the economy’s direction and a potential default of the US government’s debt, according to a preliminary report from the University of Michigan Friday.

    The political impasse over raising the debt ceiling has dragged on for weeks and is inching closer to the day the federal government will not be able to fully meet its financial obligations. Consumers are now taking notice.

    “While current incoming macroeconomic data show no sign of recession, consumers’ worries about the economy escalated in May alongside the proliferation of negative news about the economy, including the debt crisis standoff,” Joanne Hsu, director of the surveys of consumers at the University of Michigan, said in a release. “If policymakers fail to resolve the debt ceiling crisis, these dismal views over the economy will exacerbate the dire economic consequences of default.”

    The latest survey showed that the university’s consumer-sentiment index fell by 9% in May. The index’s latest decline wiped out more than half of its gains since recovering from the record low in June 2022.

    “In Washington’s past fiscal games of chicken, sentiment recovered within a few months of the crises ending,” Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank, wrote in analyst note. “On the other hand, if the government defaults, it won’t be pretty.”

    Pessimism among consumers can have an impact on their spending behavior if their expectations worsen and they decide to pull back. Some data have already pointed to demand for goods weakening some.

    US household spending was flat in March from the prior month, after limping just 0.1% in February. Retail sales sank 0.8% in March from the prior month, following a 0.5% decline in February. The Commerce Department releases April figures on retail spending next week, which will offer additional clues into how demand is shaping up as credit conditions tighten.

    A trio of recent bank failures mean that banks are poised to toughen their lending standards even more, which can dampen demand. A recent survey of loan officers showed that banks were making it harder to access credit even before the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Stack on top of that the Federal Reserve’s punishing interest-rate increases and still-high inflation, and consumers might just tap out.

    Many economists, including those at the Fed, expect the US economy to slip into a recession later in the year. A recession is a broad economic downturn that would include weakness in consumption.

    The Conference Board’s sentiment survey showed that consumer confidence worsened in April as Americans became more worried about the jobs market. The business group’s Consumer Confidence Index, which measures attitudes toward the economy and the job market, fell to 101.3 in April, down from 104 in March and marking the lowest level since July 2022.

    The labor market is still going strong. Employers added 253,000 jobs in April, a robust gain, and the unemployment rate fell back to a 53-year low of 3.4% that month. That’s good news, but the job market still isn’t balanced, because “labor demand still substantially exceeds the supply of available workers,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in his news conference after officials voted to raise the central bank’s benchmark lending rate by a quarter point earlier this month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Three investors on how to protect your portfolio | CNN Business

    Three investors on how to protect your portfolio | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Wall Street has been hit with a barrage of complex signals about the economy’s health over the past month. From banking turmoil to weakening jobs data to slowing inflation, and now the start of earnings season, investors have remained largely resilient.

    But the Federal Reserve’s March meeting minutes revealed last week that officials believe the economy will enter a recession later this year. While that’s not new news to investors who have worried that a recession is on the horizon for the past year, it does mean that markets could take a turn for the worse.

    So, how should investors protect their portfolios? Investors say there isn’t one asset that Wall Street should pile all their bets on, but there are fundamentals that should underlie their investment strategies.

    Jimmy Chang, chief investment officer at Rockefeller Global Family Office, says he advises clients to be patient, defensive and selective when navigating the market.

    In other words, investors should make decisions based on logic, not a fear of missing out.

    “You chase these rallies and then it fizzles out — you’re left holding the bag,” he said.

    Chang also recommends that investors stay defensive by investing in high-quality blue chip stocks with solid balance sheets and keep dry powder.

    Doug Fincher, portfolio manager at Ionic Capital Management, says investors should brace their portfolios against inflation.

    The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index rose 5% for the 12 months ended in February, showing that inflation remains much higher than the Fed’s 2% target.

    Coupled with the fact that the central bank has signaled that it plans to pause interest rate hikes sometime this year, it’s possible inflation could prove stickier than Wall Street expects.

    “It is the boogeyman of traditional investments,” Fincher said.

    He manages the Ionic Inflation Protection exchange-traded fund, which seeks to specifically perform well during periods of high inflation. The portfolio’s core exposure is inflation swaps, which are transactions in which one investor agrees to swap fixed payments for floating payments tied to the inflation rate. The fund also invests in short-duration Treasury Inflation Protected Securities.

    Megan Horneman, chief investment officer at Verdence Capital Advisors, says that her firm has hedged its portfolio in cash. A well-known haven, cash is a better alternative to other perceived safe spots like gold, which tends to be volatile and run up too fast, she said.

    Investors have rushed into money market funds in recent weeks after the banking turmoil both shook their confidence in the banking system and sent ripples through the market.

    “Cash is actually earning you something at this point,” Horneman said. “You have to look long term.”

    Earnings season kicked off Friday with a bonanza of earnings from the nation’s largest banks.

    Perhaps most noteworthy out of the bunch was JPMorgan Chase, which reported record revenue and an earnings beat for its latest quarter.

    The bank has $3.67 trillion in assets, making it the largest bank in the country and a bellwether for the economy. Strong earnings reports from the New York-based bank and its peers including Wells Fargo, Citigroup and PNC Financial Services have shown a promising start to the earnings season.

    Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley report next week.

    Here are some key takeaways from JPMorgan Chase’s first-quarter earnings:

    • The company guided net interest income to be about $81 billion in 2023, up $7 billion from its previous estimate. That’s especially important because this earnings season is all about guidance, as investors try to gauge whether the economy is headed for a recession and which companies will be able to weather a potential downturn.
    • CEO Jamie Dimon said in the post-earnings conference call that while financial conditions are a bit tighter after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, he doesn’t see a credit crunch. But chances of a recession are now higher, he said.
    • The company said that its portfolio’s exposure to the office sector is less than 10%, addressing concerns that the $20 trillion commercial real estate industry could be the next space to see turmoil.

    Read more here.

    Monday: Empire State manufacturing index and homebuilder confidence index. Earnings report from Charles Schwab (SCHW).

    Tuesday: Earnings reports from Bank of America (BAC), Goldman Sachs (GS), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Netflix (NFLX), United Airlines (UAL) and Western Alliance Bancorp (WAL).

    Wednesday: Earnings reports from Citizens Financial Group (CFG), Morgan Stanley (MS), Tesla (TSLA) and International Business Machines (IBM). Speech from NY Federal Reserve President John Williams.

    Thursday: Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index, jobless claims, mortgage rates, US leading economic indicators and existing home sales. Earnings reports from AutoNation (AN) and American Express (AXP).

    Friday: Manufacturing PMI and services PMI. Earnings report from Procter & Gamble (PG).

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Retail spending fell in March as consumers pull back | CNN Business

    Retail spending fell in March as consumers pull back | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Spending at US retailers fell in March as consumers pulled back after the banking crisis fueled recession fears.

    Retail sales, which are adjusted for seasonality but not for inflation, fell by 1% in March from the prior month, the Commerce Department reported on Friday. That was steeper than an expected 0.4% decline, according to Refinitiv, and above the revised 0.2% decline in the prior month.

    Investors chalk up some of the weakness to a lack of tax returns and concerns about a slowing labor market. The IRS issued $84 billion in tax refunds this March, about $25 billion less than they issued in March of 2022, according to BofA analysts.

    That led consumers to pull back in spending at department stores and on durable goods, such as appliances and furniture. Spending at general merchandise stores fell 3% in March from the prior month and spending at gas stations declined 5.5% during the same period. Excluding gas station sales, retail spending retreated 0.6% in March from February.

    However, retail spending rose 2.9% year-over-year.

    Smaller tax returns likely played a role in last month’s decline in retail sales, along with the expiration of enhanced food assistance benefits, economists say.

    “March is a really important month for refunds. Some folks might have been expecting something similar to last year,” Aditya Bhave, senior US economist at BofA Global Research, told CNN.

    Credit and debit card spending per household tracked by Bank of America researchers moderated in March to its slowest pace in more than two years, which was likely the result of smaller returns and expired benefits, coupled with slowing wage growth.

    Enhanced pandemic-era benefits provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program expired in February, which might have also held back spending in March, according to a Bank of America Institute report.

    Average hourly earnings grew 4.2% in March from a year earlier, down from the prior month’s annualized 4.6% increase and the smallest annual rise since June 2021, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Employment Cost Index, a more comprehensive measure of wages, has also shown that worker pay gains have moderated this past year. ECI data for the first quarter of this year will be released later this month.

    Still, the US labor market remains solid, even though it has lost momentum recently. That could hold up consumer spending in the coming months, said Michelle Meyer, North America chief economist at Mastercard Economics Institute.

    “The big picture is still favorable for the consumer when you think about their income growth, their balance sheet and the health of the labor market,” Meyer said.

    Employers added 236,000 jobs in March, a robust gain by historical standards but smaller than the average monthly pace of job growth in the prior six months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The latest monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS report, showed that the number of available jobs remained elevated in February — but was down more than 17% from its peak of 12 million in March 2022, and revised data showed that weekly claims for US unemployment benefits were higher than previously reported.

    The job market could cool further in the coming months. Economists at the Federal Reserve expect the US economy to head into a recession later in the year as the lagged effects of higher interest rates take a deeper hold. Fed economists had forecast subdued growth, with risks of a recession, prior to the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

    For consumers, the effects of last month’s turbulence in the banking industry have been limited so far. Consumer sentiment tracked by the University of Michigan worsened slightly in March during the bank failures, but it had already shown signs of deteriorating before then.

    The latest consumer sentiment reading, released Friday morning, showed that sentiment held steady in April despite the banking crisis, but that higher gas prices helped push up year-ahead inflation expectations by a full percentage point, rising from 3.6% in March to 4.6% in April.

    “On net, consumers did not perceive material changes in the economic environment in April,” Joanne Hsu, director of the surveys of consumers at the University of Michigan, said in a news release.

    “Consumers are expecting a downturn, they’re not feeling as dismal as they were last summer, but they’re waiting for the other shoe to drop,” Hsu told Bloomberg TV in an interview Friday morning.

    This story has been updated with context and more details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • IMF: Banking crisis boosts risks and dims outlook for world economy | CNN Business

    IMF: Banking crisis boosts risks and dims outlook for world economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    At the start of the year, economists and corporate leaders expressed optimism that global economic growth might not slow down as much as they had feared. Positive developments included China’s reopening, signs of resilience in Europe and falling energy prices.

    But a crisis in the banking sector that emerged last month has changed the calculus. The International Monetary Fund downgraded its forecasts for the global economy Tuesday, noting “the recent increase in financial market volatility.”

    The IMF now expects economic growth to slow from 3.4% in 2022 to 2.8% in 2023. Its estimate in January had been for 2.9% growth this year.

    “Uncertainty is high, and the balance of risks has shifted firmly to the downside so long as the financial sector remains unsettled,” the organization said in its latest report.

    Fears about the economic outlook have increased following the failures in March of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, two regional US lenders, and the loss of confidence in the much-larger Credit Suisse

    (CS)    , which was sold to rival UBS in a government-backed rescue deal.

    Already, the global economy was grappling with the consequences of high and persistent inflation, the rapid rise in interest rates to fight it, elevated debt levels and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Now, concerns about the health of the banking industry join the list.

    “These forces are now overlaid by, and interacting with, new financial stability concerns,” the IMF said, noting that policymakers trying to tame inflation while averting a “hard landing,” or a painful recession, “may face difficult trade-offs.”

    Global inflation, which the IMF said was proving “much stickier than anticipated,” is expected to fall from 8.7% in 2022 to 7% this year and to 4.9% in 2024.

    Investors are looking for additional pockets of vulnerability in the financial sector. Meanwhile, lenders may turn more conservative to preserve cash they may need to deal with an unpredictable environment.

    That would make it harder for businesses and households to access loans, weighing on economic output over time.

    “Financial conditions have tightened, which is likely to entail lower lending and activity if they persist,” said the IMF, which hosts its spring meeting alongside the World Bank this week.

    If another shock to the world’s financial system results in a “sharp” deterioration in financial conditions, global growth could slow to 1% this year, the IMF warned. That would mean “near-stagnant income per capita.” The group put the probably of this happening at about 15%.

    The IMF acknowledged forecasting was difficult in this climate. The “fog around the world economic outlook has thickened,” it said.

    And it warned that weak growth would likely persist for years. Looking ahead to 2028, global growth is estimated at 3%, the lowest medium-term forecast since 1990.

    The IMF said this sluggishness was attributable in part to scarring from the pandemic, aging workforces and geopolitical fragmentation, pointing to Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, economic tensions between the United States and China and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Interest rates in advanced economies are likely to revert to their pre-pandemic levels once the current spell of high inflation has passed, the IMF also said.

    The body’s forecast for global growth this year is now closer to that of the World Bank. David Malpass, the outgoing World Bank president, told reporters Monday that the group now saw a 2% expansion in output in 2023, up from 1.7% predicted in January, Reuters has reported.

    In a separate report published Tuesday, the IMF said that while the rapid increase in interest rates was straining banks and other financial firms, there were fundamental differences from the 2008 global financial crisis.

    Banks now have much more capital to be able to withstand shocks. They also have curbed risky lending due to stricter regulations.

    Instead, the IMF pointed to similarities between the latest banking turmoil and the US savings and loan crisis in the 1980s, when trouble at smaller institutions hurt confidence in the broader financial system.

    So far, investors are “pricing a fairly optimistic scenario,” the IMF noted in a blog based on the report, adding that access to credit was actually greater now than it had been in October.

    “While market participants see recession probabilities as high, they also expect the depth of the recession to be modest,” the IMF said.

    Yet those expectations could be quickly upended. If inflation rises further, for example, investors could judge that interest rates will stay higher for longer, the group wrote in the blog.

    “Stresses could then reemerge in the financial system,” it noted.

    That bolsters the need for decisive action by policymakers, the IMF said. It called for gaps in supervision and regulation to “be addressed at once,” citing the need in many countries for stronger plans to wind down failed banks and for improvements to deposit insurance programs.

    — Olesya Dmitracova contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What markets are watching after digesting the US jobs data | CNN Business

    What markets are watching after digesting the US jobs data | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    In an unusual coincidence, the US jobs report was released on a holiday Friday — meaning stock markets were closed when the closely-watched economic data came out.

    It was the first monthly payroll report since Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed. It also marked a full year of jobs data since the Federal Reserve began hiking interest rates in March 2022.

    While inflation has come down and other economic data point to a cooling economy, the labor market has remained remarkably resilient.

    Investors have had a long weekend to chew over the details of the report and will likely skip the typical gut-reaction to headline numbers.

    What happened: The US economy added 236,000 jobs in March, showing that hiring remained robust though the pace was slower than in previous months. The unemployment rate currently stands at 3.5%.

    Wages increased by 0.3% on the month and 4.2% from a year ago. The three-month wage growth average has dropped to 3.8%. That’s moving closer to what Fed policymakers “believe to be in line with stable wage and inflation expectations,” wrote Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM in a note.

    “That wage data tends to suggest that the risk of a wage price spiral is easing and that will create space in the near term for the Federal Reserve to engage in a strategic pause in its efforts to restore price stability,” he added.

    The March jobs report was the last before the Fed’s next policy meeting and announcement in early May. The labor market is cooling but not rapidly or significantly, and further rate hikes can’t be ruled out.

    At the same time Wall Street is beginning to see bad news as bad news. A slowing economy could mean a recession is forthcoming.

    Markets are still largely expecting the Fed to raise rates by another quarter point. So how will they react to Friday’s report?

    Before the Bell spoke with Michael Arone, State Street Global Advisors chief investment strategist, to find out.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Before the Bell: How do you expect markets to react to this report on Monday?

    Michael Arone: I think that this has been a nice counterbalance to the weaker labor data earlier last week and all the recession fears. This data suggests that the economy is still in pretty good shape, 10-year Treasury yields increased on Friday indicating there’s less fear about an imminent recession.

    There’s this delicate balance between slower job growth and a weaker labor market without economic devastation. I think this report helps that.

    As it relates to the stock market, I would expect the cyclical sectors to do well — your industrials, your materials, your energy companies. If interest rates are rising, that’s going to weigh on growth stocks — technology and communication services sectors, for example. Less recession fears will mean investors won’t be as defensively positioned in classic staples like healthcare and utilities.

    Could this lead to a reverse in the current trend where tech companies are bolstering markets?

    Yes, exactly. It’s difficult to make too much out of any singular data point, but I think this report will hopefully lead to broader participation in the stock market. If those recession fears begin to abate somewhat, and investors recognize that recession isn’t imminent, there will be more investment.

    What else are investors looking at in this report?

    We’ve seen weakness in the interest rate sensitive parts of the market — areas that are typically the first to weaken as the economy slows down. So things like manufacturing, things like construction. That’s where the weakness in this jobs report is. And the services areas continue to remain strong. That’s where the shortage of qualified skilled workers remains. I think that you’re seeing continued job strength in those areas.

    What does this mean for this week’s inflation reports? It seems like the jobs report just pushed the tension forward.

    it did. I expect that inflation figures will continue to decelerate — or grow at a slower rate. But I do think that the sticky part of inflation continues to be on the wage front. And so I think, if anything, this helps alleviate some of those inflation pressures, but we’ll see how it flows through into the CPI report next week. And also the PPI report.

    Is the Federal Reserve addressing real structural changes to the labor market?

    The Fed was confused in February 2020 when we were in full employment and there was no inflation. They’re equally confused today, after raising rates from zero to 5%, that we haven’t had more job losses.

    I’m not sure why, but from my perspective, the Fed hasn’t taken into consideration the structural changes in the labor force, and they’re still confused by it. I think the risk here is that they’ll continue to focus on raising rates to stabilize prices, perhaps underestimating the kind of structural changes in the labor economy that haven’t resulted in the type of weakness that they’ve been anticipating. I think that’s a risk for the economy and markets.

    A few weeks ago, Before the Bell wrote about big problems brewing in the $20 trillion commercial real estate industry.

    After decades of thriving growth bolstered by low interest rates and easy credit, commercial real estate has hit a wall. Office and retail property valuations have been falling since the pandemic brought about lower occupancy rates and changes in where people work and how they shop. The Fed’s efforts to fight inflation by raising interest rates have also hurt the credit-dependent industry.

    Recent banking stress will likely add to those woes. Lending to commercial real estate developers and managers largely comes from small and mid-sized banks, where the pressure on liquidity has been most severe. About 80% of all bank loans for commercial properties come from regional banks, according to Goldman Sachs economists.

    Since then, things have gotten worse, CNN’s Julia Horowitz reports.

    In a worst-case scenario, anxiety about bank lending to commercial real estate could spiral, prompting customers to yank their deposits. A bank run is what toppled Silicon Valley Bank last month, roiling financial markets and raising fears of a recession.

    “We’re watching it pretty closely,” said Michael Reynolds, vice president of investment strategy at Glenmede, a wealth manager. While he doesn’t expect office loans to become a problem for all banks, “one or two” institutions could find themselves “caught offside.”

    Signs of strain are increasing. The proportion of commercial office mortgages where borrowers are behind with payments is rising, according to Trepp, which provides data on commercial real estate.

    High-profile defaults are making headlines. Earlier this year, a landlord owned by asset manager PIMCO defaulted on nearly $2 billion in debt for seven office buildings in San Francisco, New York City, Boston and Jersey City.

    Dig into Julia’s story here.

    Tech stocks led market losses in 2022, but seemed to rebound quickly at the start of this year. So as we enter earnings season, what should we expect from Big Tech?

    Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, says that he has high hopes.

    “Tech stocks have held up very well so far in 2023 and comfortably outpaced the overall market as we believe the tech sector has become the new ‘safety trade’ in this overall uncertain market,” he wrote in a note on Sunday evening.

    Even the recent spate of layoffs in Big Tech has upside, he wrote.

    “Significant cost cutting underway in the Valley led by Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and others, conservative guidance already given in the January earnings season ‘rip the band- aid off moment’, and tech fundamentals that are holding up in a shaky macro [environment] are setting up for a green light for tech stocks.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Fed could easily drive Black unemployment much higher than the overall jobless rate | CNN Business

    The Fed could easily drive Black unemployment much higher than the overall jobless rate | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Millions of jobs could be on the chopping block this year, as the Federal Reserve continues its rate-hiking campaign to tame inflation. But the effects of that action likely won’t reverberate evenly across the economy.

    The Fed has seen some success: Inflation has cooled for eighth consecutive months, according to the February Consumer Price Index. The Producer Price Index shows a dramatic drop in wholesale prices in February. And the Fed’s favored inflation gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, has also started to moderate.

    But the job market has proved to be a formidable force, humming steadily in the face of climbing rates meant to slow its growth. After adding more than half a million jobs in January, the US economy then added 311,000 jobs in February, with an unemployment rate of 3.6% — just above a half-century low — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    However, the jobless rate isn’t expected to be that low for long.

    At its most recent policy-making meeting, the Fed released projections for the year ahead that showed unemployment could jump to 4.5%, representing another 1.5 million job losses, by the end of the year.

    While that’s a small improvement from the central bank’s previous 4.6% jobless rate estimate, economists say it’s possible the unemployment rate could rise above the Fed’s expectations. Moreover, they say that historically disadvantaged groups could be disproportionately affected by the central bank’s stringent monetary policy.

    While some groups often sidelined in the job market have seen benefits from this hot job market — women have seen a faster pace of job gains than men in recent months, for example — others, including Black women and Latino men, have seen slower recoveries in jobless rates since the onset of the Covid pandemic.

    Recession fears gained traction last month when the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sent markets wobbling, raising concerns about the economy’s ability to handle more stress. Goldman Sachs revised its estimate of the United States entering a recession over the next 12 months to a 35% chance, up from its estimate of a 25% chance before the banking sector turmoil.

    That’s of particular concern to certain demographic groups: Jobless rates for Black and Hispanic Americans often increase by more than those of their White counterparts during recessions, said Rakesh Kochhar, a senior researcher focusing on demographics and social trends at the Pew Research Center.

    History makes that discrepancy clear.

    A Pew Research Center report comparing two recessions in recent decades shows how Black and Hispanic Americans experience disproportionate effects on their jobless rates during periods of economic downturn. From the second quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, during the Great Recession, the unemployment rate rose 6.5 percentage points for Black Americans. The Hispanic unemployment rate climbed 6.3 percentage points. For White workers, it increased 4 percentage points.

    And from the first quarter of 1990 to the first quarter of 1991, the unemployment rate climbed 1.4 percentage points for Black Americans and 2.1 percentage points for Hispanic Americans. The White unemployment rate rose 1.3 percentage points.

    Economists say it’s hard to guess the trajectory of the unemployment rate this year, noting it could very well exceed the Fed’s estimate.

    “There’s just tons of momentum, and once you slow the economy enough to get the unemployment rate moving up, it’s very hard to sort of turn that cruise ship back around,” said Josh Bivens, research director and chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

    As such, the Fed’s tightening efforts could easily drive the Black unemployment rate much higher than the overall jobless rate, said William Spriggs, an economics professor at Howard University and chief economist to the AFL-CIO.

    “If the Fed continues to use unemployment as its measure of labor force slack, and thinks they want a 4.5% unemployment rate — to make that happen, the Fed would have to induce net job loss in the labor market,” Spriggs told CNN in an email. “If we go through two months of negative job growth, all bets are off. The Black unemployment rate will easily get to 9% in that scenario.”

    One other likely consequence of growing unemployment is slowing wage growth, Bivens said.

    Like rising unemployment, stunted wage growth tends to hit marginalized groups harder. A 2021 Economic Policy Institute report shows that a 1 percentage point increase in overall unemployment correlates with about 0.5% slower wage growth for White median hourly wages. Wage growth falls by roughly 0.8% for Black median hourly wages.

    “A lot of people have this idea that in a recession, if unemployment rises by a couple of percentage points, as long as you’re not one of those unlucky people to lose the job, you’ve dodged the bullet,” Bivens said. “And that’s not true at all.”

    Still, a robust labor market isn’t a permanent solution to bridging employment disparities, even if the Fed does keep rates lower, says Wendy Edelberg, director of the Hamilton Project and a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

    The job market’s recent strength is unsustainable, she said. The US economy needs about 75,000 net job gains a month to keep stable and is currently adding about 350,000 net job gains a month on average, according to Edelberg.

    “[The Fed is] right to be confident that one of the things that’s going to have to happen to get inflation back down to a normal, stable level is to get job growth to a normal, sustainable level,” Edelberg said. “But if the Fed’s actions resulted in a slower labor market, then inflation stayed high — that would be a disaster.”

    The March jobs report from the Department of Labor, due to be released Friday at 8:30 a.m., is expected to show the US economy gained 240,000 positions last month. ADP’s private-sector payroll report, generally seen by investors as a proxy for the trajectory of Friday’s number, fell short of expectations, with just 145,000 jobs added. Economists had expected private hiring would rise by 200,000 positions last month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns banking crisis will be felt for ‘years to come’ | CNN Business

    JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns banking crisis will be felt for ‘years to come’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The banking crisis triggered by the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank is not over yet and will ripple through the economy for years to come, said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Tuesday.

    In his closely watched annual letter to shareholders, the chief executive of America’s largest bank outlined the extensive damage the financial system meltdown had on all banks — large and small — and urged lawmakers to think carefully before responding with increased regulation.

    “These failures were not good for banks of any size,” wrote Dimon, responding to reports that large financial institution benefited greatly from the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank as wary customers sought safety by moving billions of dollars worth of money to big banks.

    In a note last month, Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo wrote “Goliath is winning.” JPMorgan in particular, he said, was benefiting from more deposits “in these less certain times.”

    “Any crisis that damages Americans’ trust in their banks damages all banks — a fact that was known even before this crisis,” he wrote. “While it is true that this bank crisis ‘benefited’ larger banks due to the inflow of deposits they received from smaller institutions, the notion that this meltdown was good for them in any way is absurd.”

    The failures of SVB and Signature Bank, he argued, had little to do with banks bypassing regulations. He said that SVB’s high Interest rate exposure and large amount of uninsured deposits were already well-known to both regulators and to the marketplace at large.

    Current regulations, he argued, could actually lull banks into complacency without actually addressing real system-wide banking issues. Abiding by these regulations, he wrote, has just “become an enormous, mind-numbingly complex task about crossing t’s and dotting i’s.”

    And while regulatory change will almost certainly follow the recent banking crisis, Dimon argued that, “it is extremely important that we avoid knee-jerk, whack-a-mole or politically motivated responses that often result in achieving the opposite of what people intended.” Regulations, he said, are often put in place in one part of the framework but have adverse effects on other areas and just make things more complicated.

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has said it will propose new rule changes in May, while the Federal Reserve is currently conducting an internal review to assess what changes should be made. Lawmakers in Congress, including Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have suggested that new legislation meant to regulate banks is in the works.

    But, wrote Dimon, “the debate should not always be about more or less regulation but about what mix of regulations will keep America’s banking system the best in the world.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who will end up paying for the banking crisis: You | CNN Business

    Who will end up paying for the banking crisis: You | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    It cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about $23 billion to clean up the mess that Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank left in the wake of their collapses earlier this month.

    Now, as the dust clears and the US banking system steadies, the FDIC needs to figure out where to send its invoice. While regional and mid-sized banks are behind the recent turmoil, it appears that large banks may be footing the bill.

    Ultimately, that means higher fees for bank customers and lower rates on their savings accounts.

    What’s happening: The FDIC maintains a $128 billion deposit insurance fund to insure bank deposits and protect depositors. That fund is typically supplied by quarterly payments from insured banks in the United States. But when a big, expensive event happens — like the FDIC making uninsured customers whole at Silicon Valley Bank — the agency is able to assess a special charge on the banking industry to recover the cost.

    The law also gives the FDIC the authority to decide which banks shoulder the brunt of that assessment fee. FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said this week that he plans to make the details of the latest assessment public in May. He has also hinted that he would protect community banks from having to shell out too much money.

    The fees that the FDIC assesses on banks tend to vary. Historically, they were fixed, but 2010’s Dodd-Frank act required that the agency needed to consider the size of a bank when setting rates. It also takes into consideration the “economic conditions, the effects on the industry, and such other factors as the FDIC deems appropriate and relevant,” according to Gruenberg.

    On Tuesday and Wednesday, members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee grilled Gruenberg about his plans to charge banks for the damage done by SVB and others, and repeatedly implored him to leave small banks alone.

    Gruenberg appeared receptive.

    “Will you commit to using your authority…to establish separate risk-based assessment systems for large and small members of the Deposit Insurance Fund so that these well-managed banks don’t have to bail out Silicon Valley Bank?” asked the US Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican who represents of Kentucky’s 6th district.

    “I’m certainly willing to consider that,” replied Gruenberg.

    “if smaller community banks in Texas will be left responsible for bailing out the failed banks in California and New York?” asked US Rep. Roger Williams, a Republican who represents Texas’ 25th district.

    “Let me just say, without forecasting what our board is going to vote, we’re going to be keenly sensitive to the impact on community banks,” replied Gruenberg.

    Representatives Frank Lucas, John Rose, Ayanna Pressley, Dan Meuser, Nikema Williams, Zach Nunn and Andy Ogles all asked similar questions and received similar responses. As did US Sens. Sherrod Brown and Cynthia Lummis.

    “I don’t doubt he’s still fielding a lot of phone calls,” from politicians pressuring him to place the burden on large banks, former FDIC chairman Bill Isaac told CNN.

    Smaller banks are saying that they’re unable to pick up this tab and didn’t have anything to do with the failure of “these two wild and crazy banks,” said Isaac. “They’re arguing to put the assessment on larger banks and as I understand it, the FDIC is thinking seriously about it,” he added.

    A spokesperson from the FDIC told CNN that the agency “will issue in May 2023 a proposed rulemaking for the special assessment for public comment.” In regard to Greunberg’s testimony they added that “when the boss says something, we defer to the boss.”

    Big banks: “We need to think hard about liquidity risk and concentrations of uninsured deposits and how that’s evaluated in terms of deposit insurance assessments,” said Gruenberg to the Senate Banking Committee, indicating that smaller banks that are operating carefully could be asked to bear less of the assessment.

    A larger assessment on big banks would add to what will already be a multi-billion dollar payment from the nation’s largest banks like JPMorgan Chase

    (JPM)    , Citigroup

    (C)    , Bank of America

    (BAC)     and Wells Fargo

    (WFC)    .

    The argument is that the largest US banks will be able to shoulder extra payments without collapsing under it. Those large banks also benefited greatly from the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank as wary customers sought safety by moving billions of dollars worth of money to big banks. 

    Passing it on: Regardless of who’s charged, the fees will eventually get passed on to bank customers in the end, said Isaac. “It’s going to be passed on to all customers. I have no doubts that banks will make up for these extra costs in their pricing — higher fees for services, higher prices for loans and less compensation for deposits.”

    It’s hard out there for a Wall Street banker. Or harder than it was.

    The average annual Wall Street bonus fell to $176,700 last year, a 26% drop from the previous year’s average of $240,400, according to estimates released Thursday by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

    While that’s a big decrease, the 2022 bonus figure is still more than twice the median annual income for US households, reports CNN’s Jeanne Sahadi.

    All in, Wall Street firms had a $33.7 billion bonus pool for 2022, which is 21% smaller than the previous year’s record of $42.7 billion — and the largest drop since the Great Recession.

    For New York City and New York State coffers, bonus season means a welcome infusion of revenue, since employees in the securities industry make up 5% of private sector employees in NYC and their pay accounts for 22% of the city’s private sector wages. In 2021, Wall Street was estimated to be responsible for 16% of all economic activity in the city.

    DiNapoli’s office projects the lower bonuses will bring in $457 million less in state income tax revenue and $208 million less for the city compared to the year before.

    Beleaguered retailed Bed Bath & Beyond will attempt to $300 million of its stock to repay creditors and fund its business as it struggles to avoid bankruptcy, reports CNN’s Nathaniel Meyersohn.

    If it’s not able to raise sufficient money from the offering, the home furnishings giant said Thursday it expects to “likely file for bankruptcy.”

    Bed Bath & Beyond was able to initially avoid bankruptcy in February by completing a complex stock offering that gave it both an immediate injection of cash and a pledge for more funding in the future to pay down its debt. That offering was backed by private equity group Hudson Bay Capital.

    But on Thursday, Bed Bath & Beyond said it was terminating the deal with Hudson Bay Capital for future funding and is turning to the public market.

    Shares of Bed Bath & Beyond dropped more than 26% Thursday. The stock was trading around 60 cents a share.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘It’s not zero.’ Wall Street is pricing in a small but growing risk of a disastrous US default | CNN Business

    ‘It’s not zero.’ Wall Street is pricing in a small but growing risk of a disastrous US default | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A US default would have such devastating economic and financial consequences that many observers dismiss the possibility out of hand. But investors are not ruling out such a nightmare scenario.

    Even though a default could wipe out millions of jobs and wreak havoc on Wall Street, the White House and Republican leaders in Washington are nowhere near a deal to avert disaster that could strike as soon as July.

    As politicians sleepwalk toward a potential debt ceiling crisis, financial markets have begun pricing in a small — but growing — chance of a disastrous default.

    The implied probability of a US government default has increased to approximately 2%, according to modeling by research provider MSCI shared exclusively with CNN. That calculation is based on the cost to insure US debt in the market for credit default swaps.

    Although the probability of default is tiny, it has increased roughly fivefold since January 2, MSCI said.

    Since then, chaos in Congress, underlined by the historic dysfunction leading up to the election of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have raised concerns about how lawmakers will reach a compromise on much thornier issues such as the debt ceiling.

    “The probability of default has gone up noticeably,” Andy Sparks, head of portfolio management research at MSCI, told CNN in an interview. “It is small, but it’s not zero. And it has gone up in a very significant way.”

    An actual default would be terrible — for both Wall Street and Main Street. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi has described a default as “financial Armageddon.”

    “I don’t think anyone should be complacent about this,” said Sparks. “Turmoil in the banking system shows how things can change very quickly.”

    The federal government hit the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January, forcing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to take accounting moves known as “extraordinary measures” to avoid default.

    Yellen has used unusually strong language for a former central banker to warn Congress against messing with the debt ceiling. On Thursday, Yellen said a breach of the debt ceiling could spark a “prolonged downturn and a global financial crisis.”

    “It could upend the lives of millions of Americans and those around the world,” Yellen said in a speech.

    Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius told CNN in January that even a near-default could cause a recession as well as turmoil in financial markets. Moody’s estimates that even a brief breach of the debt limit would kill almost a million jobs.

    All of this explains why many believe Washington will get a deal done before disaster strikes, as it has in the past.

    Even though leaders in Washington are not seriously negotiating on a debt ceiling deal, there is still time.

    The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even without addressing the debt ceiling, the government will have enough cash to avoid a default until sometime between July and September. The exact timing for the so-called X-date will depend in large part on 2022 tax collections in April.

    Tom Barkin, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, told CNN last week that it’s “hard to imagine” the government would breach the debt ceiling.

    Still, Barkin conceded if it happened the Fed would be forced to react, much like it did after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

    Others are more pessimistic about the debt ceiling.

    Greg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, only sees a 60% chance that Congress reaches a deal to address the debt ceiling.

    “I think we’ll come right up to the precipice,” Valliere, who is based in Washington, told CNN. “Most people in this city feel it’s inconceivable we could default on our debt. I agree it’s unlikely but it’ll be much closer than people thought.”

    He pointed to the more radical makeup of the Republican caucus and the reluctance among some lawmakers to vote for a debt ceiling hike.

    Even McCarthy, the Republican House Speaker, told CNBC this week there has been “no progress” in negotiations. “Time is ticking. Now I’m very concerned about where we are,” McCarthy said.

    “I worry there are just enough House radicals who might not accept anything. And it doesn’t take many of them to make this a crisis,” Valliere said.

    Asked about MSCI’s estimate of a 2% implied probability of a default, Valliere said that number is low.

    “The markets are too sanguine,” he said. “The market has felt for months that this is like the little boy who cries wolf. But this is not a typical debt ceiling debate.”

    There are some early indicators of concern popping up in the bond market.

    Morgan Stanley wrote in a report on Thursday that “kinks” have emerged in the Treasury bill market around bonds that mature around the X-date.

    “Market attention could swing back to this issue soon” Morgan Stanley advised clients.

    Or maybe not.

    McCarthy and his top lieutenants say they are prepared to push ahead with a fallback plan: A party-line bill to raise the debt ceiling, CNN’s Manu Raju reports.

    But such a move could be risky. Republicans can only afford to lose four of their own members in any party-line vote.

    There is also a possibility that Congress punts, reaching a short-term agreement to delay the issue by a few months.

    Eurasia Group analyst Jon Lieber said in a report Thursday there is a growing chance that lawmakers put off a debt ceiling solution until the end of the year.

    “A short-term punt would merely delay and not eliminate the disruption risks of the debt limit,” Lieber said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US economy grew 2.6% during the fourth quarter, slower than previously estimated | CNN Business

    The US economy grew 2.6% during the fourth quarter, slower than previously estimated | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    The US economy grew at a slower pace in the fourth quarter than previously estimated.

    Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic activity — increased 2.6% for the final three months of 2022, according to the Commerce Department’s third and final reading for the quarter.

    Growth was initially estimated at 2.9%, then revised down last month to 2.7%.

    Economists were expecting GDP growth to hold steady at 2.7%, according to Refinitiv.

    This story is developing and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What the banking crisis means for mortgage rates | CNN Business

    What the banking crisis means for mortgage rates | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Mortgage rates have taken would-be buyers on a ride this year — and it’s only March.

    Generally, home buyers can anticipate mortgage rates to move down through the rest of this year as the banking crisis drags on, which could cool down inflation.

    But there are bound to be some bumps along the way. Here’s why rates have been bouncing around and where they could end up.

    After steadily rising last year as a result of the Federal Reserve’s historic campaign to rein in inflation, the average rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage topped out at 7.08% in November, according to Freddie Mac. Then, with economic data suggesting inflation was retreating, the average rate drifted down through January.

    But a raft of robust economic reports in February brought concerns that inflation was not cooling as quickly or as much as many had hoped. As a result, after falling to 6.09%, average mortgage rates climbed back up, rising half a percentage point over the month.

    Then in March banks began collapsing. That sent rates falling again.

    Neither the actions of the Federal Reserve nor the bank failures directly impact mortgage rates. But rates are indirectly impacted by actions that the Fed takes or is expected to take, as well as the health of the broader financial system and any uncertainty that may be percolating.

    On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced it would raise interest rates by a quarter point as it attempts to fight stubbornly high inflation while taking into account recent risks to financial stability.

    While the bank failures made the Fed’s work more complicated, analysts have said that, if contained, the banking meltdown may have actually done some work for the Fed, by bringing down prices without raising interest rates. To that point, the Fed suggested on Wednesday that it may be at the end of its rate hike cycle.

    Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds, which move based on a combination of anticipation about the Fed’s actions, what the Fed actually does and investors’ reactions. When Treasury yields go up, so do mortgage rates; when they go down, mortgage rates tend to follow.

    Following the Fed’s announcement on Wednesday, bond yields — and the mortgage rates that usually follow them — fell.

    But the relationship between mortgage rates and Treasurys has weakened slightly in recent weeks, said Orphe Divounguy, senior economist at Zillow.

    “The secondary mortgage market may react to speculation that more financial entities may need to sell their long-term investments, like mortgage backed securities, to get more liquidity today,” he said.

    Even as Treasurys decline, he said, tighter credit conditions as a result of bank failures will likely limit any dramatic plunging of mortgage rates.

    “This could restrict mortgage lenders’ access to funding sources, resulting in higher rates than Treasuries would otherwise indicate,” Divounguy said. “For borrowers, lending standards were already quite strict, and tighter conditions may make it more difficult for some home shoppers to secure funding. In turn, for home sellers, the time it takes to sell could increase as buyers hesitate.”

    Inflation is still quite high, but it is slowing and analysts are anticipating a much slower economy over the next few quarters — which should further bring down inflation. This is good for mortgage borrowers, who can expect to see rates retreating through this year, said Mike Fratantoni, Mortgage Bankers Association senior vice president and chief economist.

    “Homebuyers in 2023 have shown themselves to be quite sensitive to any changes in mortgage rates,” Fratantoni said.

    The MBA forecasts that mortgage rates are likely to trend down over the course of this year, with the 30-year fixed rate falling to around 5.3% by the end of the year.

    “The housing market was the first sector to slow as the result of tighter monetary policy and should be the first to benefit as policymakers slow — and ultimately stop — hiking rates,” said Fratantoni.

    In second half of the year, the inflation picture is expected to improve, leading to mortgage rates that are more stable.

    “Expectations for slower economic growth or even a recession should bring inflation down and help mortgage rates decline,” said Divounguy.

    That’s good news for home buyers since it improves affordability, bringing down the cost to finance a home. It also benefits sellers, since it reduces the intensity of an interest-rate lock-in.

    Lower rates could also convince more homeowners to list their home for sale. With the inventory of homes for sale near historic lows, this would add badly needed inventory to an extremely limited pool.

    “Mortgage rates are steering both supply and demand in today’s costly environment,” said Divounguy. “Home sales picked up in January when rates were relatively low, then slacked off as they ramped back up.”

    But with cooling inflation comes a higher risk of job losses, which is typically bad for the housing market.

    “Of course, much uncertainty surrounding the state of inflation and this still-evolving banking turmoil remains,” said Divounguy.

    In his remarks on Wednesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said estimates of how much the recent banking developments could slow the economy amounted to “guesswork, almost, at this point.”

    But regardless of the tack the economy and banking concerns take, their impact will quickly be seen in mortgage rates.

    “Evidence — in either direction — of spillovers into the broader economy or accelerating inflation would likely cause another policy shift, which would materialize in mortgage rates,” said Divounguy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Too big for Switzerland? Credit Suisse rescue creates bank twice the size of the economy | CNN Business

    Too big for Switzerland? Credit Suisse rescue creates bank twice the size of the economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The last-minute rescue of Credit Suisse may have prevented the current banking crisis from exploding, but it’s a raw deal for Switzerland.

    Worries that Credit Suisse’s downfall would spark a broader banking meltdown left Swiss regulators with few good options. A tie-up with its larger rival, UBS

    (UBS)    , offered the best chance of restoring stability in the banking sector globally and in Switzerland, and protecting the Swiss economy in the near term.

    But it leaves Switzerland exposed to a single massive financial institution, even as there is still huge uncertainty over how successful the mega merger will prove to be.

    “One of the most established facts in academic research is that bank mergers hardly ever work,” said Arturo Bris, a professor of finance at Swiss business school IMD.

    There are also concerns that the deal will lead to huge job losses in Switzerland and weaken competition in the country’s vital financial sector, which overall employs more than 5% of the national workforce, or nearly 212,000 people.

    Taxpayers, meanwhile, are now on the hook for up to 9 billions Swiss francs ($9.8 billion) of future potential losses at UBS arising from certain Credit Suisse assets, provided those losses exceed 5 billion francs ($5.4 billion). The state has also explicitly guaranteed a 100 billion Swiss franc ($109 billion) lifeline to UBS, should it need it, although that would be repayable.

    Switzerland’s Social Democratic party has already called for an investigation into what went wrong at Credit Suisse, arguing that the newly created “super-megabank” increases risks for the Swiss economy.

    The demise of one of Switzerland’s oldest institutions has come as a shock to many of its citizens. Credit Suisse is “part of Switzerland’s identity,” said Hans Gersbach, a professor of macroeconomics at ETH university in Zurich. The bank “has been instrumental in the development of modern Switzerland.”

    Its collapse has also tainted Switzerland’s reputation as a safe and stable global financial center, particularly after the government effectively stripped shareholders of voting rights to get the deal done.

    Swiss authorities also wiped out some bondholders ahead of shareholders, upending the traditional hierarchy of losses in a bank failure and dealing another blow to the country’s reputation among investors.

    “The repercussions for Switzerland are terrible,” said Bris of IMD. “For a start, the reputation of Switzerland has been damaged forever.”

    That will benefit other wealth management centers, including Singapore, he told CNN. Singaporeans are “celebrating… because there is going to be a huge inflow of funds into other wealth management jurisdictions.”

    At roughly $1.7 trillion, the combined assets of the new entity amount to double the size of Switzerland’s annual economic output. By deposits and loans to Swiss customers, UBS will now be bigger than the next two local banks combined.

    With a roughly 30% market share in Swiss banking, “we see too much concentration risk and market share control,” JPMorgan analysts wrote in a note last week before the deal was done. They suggested that the combined entity would need to exit or IPO some businesses.

    The problem with having one single large bank in a small economy is that if it faces a bank run or needs a bailout — which UBS did during the 2008 crisis — the government’s financial firepower may be insufficient.

    At 333 billion francs ($363 billion), local deposits in the new entity equal 45% of GDP — an enormous amount even for a country with healthy public finances and low levels of debt.

    On the other hand, UBS is in a much stronger financial position than it was during the 2008 crisis and it will be required to build up an even bigger financial buffer as a result of the deal. The Swiss financial regulator, FINMA, has said it will “very closely monitor the transaction and compliance with all requirements under supervisory law.”

    UBS chairman Colm Kelleher underscored the health of UBS’s balance sheet Sunday at a press conference on the deal. “Having been chief financial officer [at Morgan Stanley] during the last global financial crisis, I’m well aware of the importance of a solid balance sheet. UBS will remain rock-solid,” he said.

    Kelleher added that UBS would trim Credit Suisse’s investment bank “and align it with our conservative risk culture.”

    Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics, said “the question of market concentration in Switzerland is something to address in future.” “30% [market share] is higher than you might ideally want but not so high that it’s a major problem.”

    The deal has “surgically removed the most worrying part of [Switzerland’s] banking system,” leaving it stronger, Kenningham added.

    The deal will have an adverse affect on jobs, though, likely adding to the 9,000 cuts that Credit Suisse already announced as part of an earlier turnaround plan.

    For Switzerland, the threat is acute. The two banks collectively employ more than 37,000 people in the country, about 18% of the financial sector’s workforce, and there is bound to be overlap.

    “The Credit Suisse branch in the city where I live is right in front of UBS’s, meaning one of the two will certainly close,” Bris of IMD wrote in a note Monday.

    In a call with analysts Sunday night, UBS CEO Ralph Hamers said the bank would try to remove 8 billion francs ($8.9 billion) of costs a year by 2027, 6 billion francs ($6.5 billion) of which would come from reducing staff numbers.

    “We are clearly cognizant of Swiss societal and economic factors. We will be considerate employers, but we need to do this in a rational way,” Kelleher told reporters.

    The Credit Suisse headquarters in Zurich

    Not only does the deal, done in a hurry, fail to protect jobs in Switzerland, but it contains no special provisions on competition issues.

    UBS now has “quasi-monopoly power,” which could increase the cost of banking services in the country, according to Bris.

    Although Switzerland has dozens of smaller regional and savings banks, including 24 cantonal banks, UBS is now an even more dominant player. “Everything they do… will influence the market,” said Gersbach of ETH.

    Credit Suisse’s Swiss banking arm, arguably its crown jewel, could have been subject to a future sale as part of the terms of the deal, he added.

    A spinoff of the domestic bank now looks unlikely, however, after UBS made clear that it intended to hold onto it. “The Credit Suisse Swiss bank is a fine asset that we are very determined to keep,” Kelleher said Sunday.

    At $3.25 billion, UBS got Credit Suisse for 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed two days prior. Whether that ultimately turns out to be a steal remains to be seen. Large mergers are notoriously fraught with risk and often don’t deliver the promised returns to shareholders.

    UBS argues that by expanding its global wealth and asset management franchise, the deal will drive long-term shareholder value. “UBS’s strength and our familiarity with Credit Suisse’s business puts us in a unique position to execute this integration efficiently and effectively,” Kelleher said. UBS expects the deal to increase its profit by 2027.

    The transaction is expected to close in the coming months, but fully integrating the two institutions will take three to five years, according to Phillip Straley, the president of data analytics company FNA. “There’s a huge amount of integration risk,” he said.

    Moody’s on Tuesday affirmed its credit ratings on UBS but changed the outlook on some of its debt from stable to negative, judging that the “complexity, extent and duration of the integration” posed risks to the bank.

    It pointed to challenges retaining key Credit Suisse staff, minimizing the loss of overlapping clients in Switzerland and unifying the cultures of “two somewhat different organizations.”

    According to Kenningham of Capital Economics, the “track record of shotgun marriages in the banking sector is mixed.”

    “Some, such as the 1995 purchase of Barings by ING, have proved long-lasting. But others, including several during the global financial crisis, soon brought into question the viability of the acquiring bank, while others have proven very difficult to implement.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Silicon Valley Bank left a void that won’t easily be filled | CNN Business

    Silicon Valley Bank left a void that won’t easily be filled | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    It’s difficult to overstate the influence that Silicon Valley Bank had over the startup world and the ripple effect its collapse this month had on the global tech sector and banking system.

    While SVB was largely known as a regional bank to those outside of the tight-knit venture capital sphere, within certain circles it had become an integral part of the community – a bank that managed the idiosyncrasies of the tech world and helped pave the way for the Silicon Valley-based boom that has consumed much of the economy over the past three decades.

    SVB’s collapse was the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis: It was the 16th largest bank in the country, holding about $342 billion in client funds and $74 billion in loans.

    At the time of its collapse, about half of all US venture-backed technology and life science firms were banking with SVB. In total, it was the bank for about 2,500 venture firms including Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Bain Capital and Insight Partners.

    But the influence of SVB went beyond lending and banking – former CEO Gregory Becker sat on the boards of numerous tech advocacy groups in the Bay Area. He chaired the TechNet trade association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, was a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and served on the United States Department of Commerce’s Digital Economy Board of Advisors.

    There’s no doubt that the failure of Silicon Valley Bank left a large void in tech. The question is how that gap will be filled.

    To find out, Before the Bell spoke with Ahmad Thomas, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The influential advocacy group is working to convene its hundreds of member companies – including Amazon, Bank of America, BlackRock, Google, Microsoft and Meta – to discuss what happens next.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Before the Bell: What’s the feeling on the ground with tech and VC leadership in Silicon Valley?

    Ahmad Thomas: Silicon Valley Bank has been a key part of our fabric here for four decades. SVB was truly a pillar of the community and the innovation economy. The absence of SVB – that void – and coalescing leaders to fill that void is where my energy is focused and that is not a small task.

    I would say there was a fairly high level of unease a few days ago, and I believe the swift steps taken by leaders in Washington have helped quell a fair amount of that unease, but looking at Credit Suisse and First Republic just over the last couple of days, clearly we are in a situation that is going to continue to develop in the weeks and months ahead.

    So how do you fill it?

    We’re working to be a voice around stability, particularly about the fundamentals of the innovation economy. We can acknowledge the void given the absence of Silicon Valley Bank, but I do think we need voices out there to be very clear in highlighting that the fundamentals and the innovation infrastructure remains robust here in Silicon Valley.

    This is a moment where I think people need to take a step back, let cooler heads prevail, and understand that there are opportunities both from an investment standpoint, a community engagement standpoint and corporate citizenship standpoint for new leaders in Silicon Valley to step up.

    Are you working to advocate for more permanent regulation in DC?

    It’s far too early for that. But if there are opportunities to enhance access to capital to entrepreneurs to founders of color or in marginalized communities and if there are opportunities to try and drive innovation and economic growth, we will always be at the table for those conversations.

    Do you have any ideas about how long this crisis will continue for? What’s your outlook?

    The problem is twofold: A crisis of confidence and the set of economic conditions on the ground. The economic conditions remain volatile for a variety of reasons: The softening economy, inflationary pressures and the interest rate environment. But I think right now we need to focus on stabilizing confidence in the investor community, in our business executive community and in the broader set of stakeholders around the strength of the innovation economy. That is something we need to shore up near term.

    From CNN’s Mark Thompson

    Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to buy its ailing rival Credit Suisse (CS) in an emergency rescue deal aimed at stemming financial market panic unleashed by the failure of two American banks earlier this month.

    “UBS today announced the takeover of Credit Suisse,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement. It said the rescue would “secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy.”

    UBS is paying 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.25 billion) for Credit Suisse, about 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed on Friday. Credit Suisse shareholders will be largely wiped out, receiving the equivalent of just 0.76 Swiss francs in UBS shares for stock that was worth 1.86 Swiss francs on Friday.

    Extraordinarily, the deal will not need the approval of shareholders after the Swiss government agreed to change the law to remove any uncertainty about the deal.

    Credit Suisse had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years. In 2022, it recorded its worst loss since the global financial crisis. But confidence collapsed last week after it acknowledged “material weakness” in its bookkeeping and as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank spread fear about weaker institutions at a time when soaring interest rates have undermined the value of some financial assets.

    Read more here.

    From CNN’s David Goldman

    A week after Signature Bank failed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said it has sold most of its deposits to Flagstar Bank, a subsidiary of New York Community Bank.

    On Monday, Signature Bank’s 40 branches will begin operating as Flagstar Bank. Signature customers won’t need to make any changes to do their banking Monday.

    New York Community Bank bought substantially all of Signature’s deposits and a total of $38.4 billion worth of the company’s assets. That includes $12.9 billion of Signature’s loans, which New York Community Bank purchased at a steep discount -— it paid just $2.7 billion for them. New York Community Bank also paid the FDIC stock that could be worth up to $300 million.

    At the end of last year, Signature had more than $110 billion worth of assets, including $88.6 billion of deposits, showing how the run against the bank two weeks ago led to a massive decline in deposits.

    Not included in the transaction is about $60 billion in other assets, which will remain in the FDIC’s receivership. It also doesn’t include $4 billion in deposits from Signature’s digital bank business.

    Read more here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UBS is buying Credit Suisse in bid to halt banking crisis | CNN Business

    UBS is buying Credit Suisse in bid to halt banking crisis | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to buy its ailing rival Credit Suisse in an emergency rescue deal aimed at stemming financial market panic unleashed by the failure of two American banks earlier this month.

    “UBS today announced the takeover of Credit Suisse,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement. It said the rescue would “secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy.”

    UBS is paying 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.25 billion) for Credit Suisse, about 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed on Friday. Credit Suisse shareholders will be largely wiped out, receiving the equivalent of just 0.76 Swiss francs in UBS shares for stock that was worth 1.86 Swiss francs on Friday.

    Extraordinarily, the deal will not need the approval of shareholders after the Swiss government agreed to change the law to remove any uncertainty about the deal.

    Credit Suisse

    (CS)     had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years. In 2022, it recorded its worst loss since the global financial crisis. But confidence collapsed last week after it acknowledged “material weakness” in its bookkeeping and as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank spread fear about weaker institutions at a time when soaring interest rates have undermined the value of some financial assets.

    Shares in the 167-year-old bank fell 25% over the week, money poured from investment funds it manages and at one point account holders were withdrawing deposits of more than $10 billion per day, the Financial Times reported. An emergency loan of nearly $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank failed to stop the bleeding.

    But it did “build a bridge” to the weekend, to allow the rescue to be pieced together, Swiss officials said Sunday night.

    “This acquisition is attractive for UBS shareholders but, let us be clear, as far as Credit Suisse is concerned, this is an emergency rescue,” UBS chairman Colm Kelleher told reporters.

    “It is absolutely essential to the financial structure of Switzerland and … to global finance,” he told reporters.

    Desperate to prevent the meltdown spreading through the global financial system on Monday, Swiss authorities initiated the search for a private sector solution, with limited state support, while reportedly considering Plan B — a full or partial nationalization.

    “Given recent extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, the announced merger represents the best available outcome,” Credit Suisse chairman Axel Lehmann said in a statement.

    “This has been an extremely challenging time for Credit Suisse and while the team has worked tirelessly to address many significant legacy issues and execute on its new strategy, we are forced to reach a solution today that provides a durable outcome.”

    The emergency takeover was agreed to after a days of frantic negotiations involving financial regulators in Switzerland, the United States and United Kingdom. UBS

    (UBS)     and Credit Suisse rank among the 30 most important banks in the global financial system, and together they have almost $1.7 trillion in assets.

    Financial market regulators around the world cheered UBS’ action to take over Credit Suisse.

    US authorities said they supported the action and worked closely with the Swiss central bank to assist the takeover.

    “We welcome the announcements by the Swiss authorities today to support financial stability,” said US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a joint statement. “The capital and liquidity positions of the US. banking system are strong, and the US financial system is resilient.”

    Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, said the banking sector remains resilient but the ECB stands at the ready to help banks maintain enough cash on hand to fund their operations if the need arises.

    “I welcome the swift action and the decisions taken by the Swiss authorities,” Lagarde said. “They are instrumental for restoring orderly market conditions and ensuring financial stability.

    The Bank of England said it welcomed the measures taken by the Swiss authorities “to support financial stability.”

    “We have been engaging closely with international counterparts throughout the preparations for today’s announcements and will continue to support their implementation,” it said in a statement. “The UK banking system is well capitalized and funded, and remains safe and sound.”

    The global headquarters of UBS and Credit Suisse are just 300 yards apart in Zurich but the banks’ fortunes have been on very different paths recently. Shares of UBS have climbed 15% in the past two years, and it booked a profit of $7.6 billion in 2022. It had a stock market value of about $65 billion on Friday, according to Refinitiv.

    Credit Suisse shares have lost 84% of their value over the same period, and last year it posted a loss of $7.9 billion. It was worth just $8 billion at the end of last week.

    Dating back to 1856, Credit Suisse has its roots in the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt (SKA), which was set up to finance the expansion of the railroad network and industrialization of Switzerland.

    In addition to being Switzerland’s second biggest bank, it looks after the wealth of many of the world’s richest people and offers global investment banking services. It had more than 50,000 employees at the end of 2022, 17,000 of those in Switzerland.

    The Swiss National Bank said it would provide a loan of 100 billion Swiss francs ($108 billion) to UBS and Credit Suisse to boost liquidity.

    UBS Chief Executive Ralph Hamers will be CEO of the combined bank, and Kelleher will serve as chairman.

    The takeover will reinforce the position of UBS as the world’s leading wealth manager with $5 trillion of invested assets, and boost its ambition to grow in the Americas and Asia. UBS said it expects to generate cost savings of $8 billion per year by 2027. Credit Suisse’s investment bank is in the crosshairs.

    “Let me be clear. UBS intends to downsize Credit Suisse’s investment banking business and align it with our conservative risk culture,” Kelleher said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed and what it could mean | CNN Business

    Why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed and what it could mean | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Silicon Valley Bank collapsed with astounding speed on Friday. Investors are now on edge about whether its demise could spark a broader banking meltdown.

    The US federal government has stepped in to guarantee customer deposits, but SVB’s downfall continues to reverberate across global financial markets. The government has also shut down Signature Bank, a regional bank that was teetering on the brink of collapse, and guaranteed its deposits.

    In a sign of how seriously officials are taking the SVB failure, US President Joe Biden told Americans Monday that they “can rest assured that our banking system is safe,” adding: “We will do whatever is needed on top of all this.”

    Here’s what you need to know about the biggest US bank failure since the global financial crisis.

    Established in 1983, Silicon Valley Bank was, just before collapsing, America’s 16th largest commercial bank. It provided banking services to nearly half of all US venture-backed technology and life science companies.

    It also has operations in Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

    SVB benefited hugely from the tech sector’s explosive growth in recent years, fueled by ultra-low borrowing costs and a pandemic-induced boom in demand for digital services.

    The bank’s assets, which include loans, more than tripled from $71 billion at the end of 2019 to a peak of $220 billion at the end of March 2022, according to financial statements. Deposits ballooned from $62 billion to $198 billion over that period, as thousands of tech startups parked their cash at the lender. Its global headcount more than doubled.

    SVB’s collapse came suddenly, following a frenetic 48 hours during which customers yanked deposits from the lender in a classic run on the bank.

    But the root of its demise goes back several years. Like many other banks, SVB ploughed billions into US government bonds during the era of near-zero interest rates.

    What seemed like a safe bet quickly came unstuck, as the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates aggressively to tame inflation.

    When interest rates rise, bond prices fall, so the jump in rates eroded the value of SVB’s bond portfolio. The portfolio was yielding an average 1.79% return last week, far below the 10-year Treasury yield of around 3.9%, Reuters reported.

    At the same time, the Fed’s hiking spree sent borrowing costs higher, meaning tech startups had to channel more cash towards repaying debt. At the same time, they were struggling to raise new venture capital funding.

    That forced companies to draw down on deposits held by SVB to fund their operations and growth.

    While SVB’s problems can be traced back to its earlier investment decisions, the run on the bank was triggered Wednesday when the lender announced that it had sold a bunch of securities at a loss and would sell $2.25 billion in new shares to plug the hole in its finances.

    That set off panic among customers, who withdrew their money in large numbers.

    The bank’s stock plummeted 60% Thursday and dragged other bank shares down with it as investors began to fear a repeat of the global financial crisis a decade and a half ago.

    By Friday morning, trading in SVB shares was halted and it had abandoned efforts to raise capital or find a buyer. California regulators intervened, shutting the bank down and placing it in receivership under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which typically means liquidating the bank’s assets to pay back depositors and creditors.

    US regulators said Sunday that they would guarantee all SVB customers’ deposits. The move is aimed at preventing more bank runs and helping tech companies to continue paying staff and funding their operations.

    The intervention does not amount to a 2008-style bailout, however, which means investors in the company’s stock and bonds will not be protected.

    “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out … and the reforms that have been put in place mean that we’re not going to do that again,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told CBS in an interview Sunday.

    “But we are concerned about depositors and are focused on trying to meet their needs.”

    There are already some signs of stress at other banks. Trading in First Republic Bank

    (FRC)     and PacWest Bancorp

    (PACW)     was temporarily halted Monday after the shares plunged 65% and 52% respectively. Charles Schwab

    (SCHW)     stock was down 7% at 11.30 a.m. ET Monday.

    In Europe, the benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 Banks index, which tracks 42 big EU and UK banks, fell 5.6% in morning trade — notching its biggest fall since last March. Shares in embattled Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse were down 9%.

    SVB isn’t the only financial institution whose investments into government bonds and other assets have fallen dramatically in value.

    At the end of 2022, US banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses — assets that have decreased in price but haven’t been sold yet, according to the FDIC.

    In a sign that regulators have concerns about wider financial chaos, the Fed said Sunday that it would make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent the next SVB from collapsing.

    Most analysts point out that US and European banks have much stronger financial buffers now than during the global financial crisis. They also highlight that SVB had very heavy exposure to the tech sector, which has been particularly hard hit by rising interest rates.

    “While SVB is a major failure, [it] and other niche players like Signature are quite unique in the broader banking world,” research analysts David Covey, Adrian Cighi and Jaimin Shah at M&G Investments commented in a blog post on Monday. “So unique, in our view, that it is unlikely to create material problems for any of the large diversified banks in the US or Europe from a credit point of view.”

    HSBC stepped in Monday to buy SVB UK for £1 ($1.2), securing the deposits of thousands of British tech companies that hold money at the lender.

    Had a buyer not been found, SVB UK would have been placed into insolvency by the Bank of England, leaving customers with only deposits worth up to £85,000 ($100,000) — or £170,000 ($200,000) for joint accounts — guaranteed.

    The HSBC rescue is “fantastic news” for the UK startup ecosystem, said Piotr Pisarz, the CEO of Uncapped, a financial tech startup that lends to other startups. “I think we can all relax a bit today,” he told CNN.

    In a statement, HSBC CEO Noel Quinn said the acquisition “strengthens our commercial banking franchise and enhances our ability to serve innovative and fast-growing firms, including in the technology and life science sectors, in the UK and internationally.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • From Wile E. Coyote to edibles: Recession forecasts are getting weird | CNN Business

    From Wile E. Coyote to edibles: Recession forecasts are getting weird | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Understanding the economy is a complicated task, and even the experts are struggling to answer seemingly simple questions like “Are we on the brink of a recession?” or “Why isn’t inflation falling faster?”

    Many have resorted to the use of metaphor to convey the current complexity of the economy.

    It’s a communications tactic that some Federal Reserve officials have long favored. In the early 1980s, Nancy Teeters, the first woman appointed to the Federal Reserve Board, came up with an apt metaphor to explain why she disagreed with steep rate hikes implemented by then-Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

    Her colleagues were “pulling the financial fabric of this country so tight that it’s going to rip,” she said. “Once you tear a piece of fabric, it’s very difficult, almost impossible, to put it back together again,” she added, before remarking that “none of these guys has ever sewn anything in his life.”

    These days, economists and analysts are turning to increasingly outlandish metaphors to help translate their thoughts.

    Here are some of the most interesting descriptors used recently and what they mean:

    Wile E. Coyote

    If you think back to Saturday morning cartoons, you may remember the never-ending, and mostly futile, chase between Wile E. Coyote and his nemesis, Road Runner. That pursuit often ended with Wile E. running off a cliff and into mid-air.

    The toons were fun sources of entertainment in our salad years, but former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says they now double as a case study for the Fed and the economy.

    “The [Federal Reserve’s] process of bringing down inflation will bring on a recession at some stage, as it almost always has in the past,” Summers told CNN last week.

    And for the US economy, it could likely mean a “Wile E. Coyote moment,” Summers said — if we run off the cliff, gravity will eventually win out.

    “The economy could hit an air pocket in a few months,” he said.

    Antibiotics

    When describing the state of the economy, Summers doesn’t just rely on Looney Tunes. He also borrows from the medical community.

    While describing why the Fed can’t end its rate hike regimen when inflation shows signs of showing, Summers has compared higher interest rates to medicine for a country sick with high inflation. The entire dose must be taken for the treatment to fully work, he says.

    “We’ve all had the experience of taking a course of drugs and giving up, stopping the drugs, before the course was exhausted, simply because we felt better. And then, whatever infection we had came back and it was harder to fight the second time,” Summers told Boston’s NPR news station WBUR in February.

    For what it’s worth, Before the Bell is also guilty of using this one.

    Fog report

    We may be driving in the fog, landing a plane in the fog or even just walking in it.

    What’s important in this oft-used scenario is that it’s hard to see and we’re doing something that typically requires clear visibility.

    Clients “facing the fog of uncertainty in financial markets, economic growth and geopolitics,” should “avoid unnecessary lane changes,” and “allow extra time to reach your destination,” advised Goldman Sachs analysts earlier this year.

    It’s essentially a fancy way of saying that no one really knows what’s going on in this economy. Instead of attempting to find a way out of the chaos, investors should slow down, stay the course and wait for recovery.

    Edibles

    Late last year, investment analyst Peter Boockvar used a semi-illicit metaphor to explain why he thought the Fed might be over-tightening the economy into recession. He compared the Fed to an inexperienced consumer of weed gummies, which can take a long time to kick in.

    During that waiting period, an eager consumer may think the drugs aren’t working and eat more before the effects of the first dose even set in. They then inevitably find themselves way too stoned and feeling not-so-great.

    Boockvar was careful to note that he himself does not indulge in this practice, by the way.

    Storm chasing

    JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should receive an honorary degree in meteorology for his recessionary weather predictions.

    The Big Bank exec has repeatedly referred to economic recession as a storm gathering on the horizon — occasionally he’ll update the public on how far away and how bad that storm is.

    Last summer Dimon spooked markets when he compared a possible upcoming recession to a “hurricane.” In November, he downgraded it to a “storm.”

    By January, his forecast was simply “storm clouds,” adding that he probably should never have used the term “hurricane.”

    Polyurethane

    Rick Rieder, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officer of Global Fixed Income, has likened the economy to a bendable piece of plastic. Much like the economy, he wrote, polyurethane, “displays flexibility and adaptability, but also durability and strength.”

    He added that “the material’s ability to be stretched, bent, stressed and flexed without breaking, while in fact returning to its original condition, is what makes it so chemically unique. In recent years the US economy has displayed a remarkable resilience to stresses and an extraordinary ability to adapt to changing conditions.”

    Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren grilled Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell about American job losses being potential casualties of the central bank’s battle against high inflation.

    Warren, a frequent critic of the Fed’s leader, noted that an additional 2 million people would have to lose their jobs if the unemployment rate rises from its current 3.6% rate to reach the Fed’s projections of 4.6% by the end of the year.

    “If you could speak directly to the two million hardworking people who have decent jobs today, who you’re planning to get fired over the next year, what would you say to them?” Warren asked.

    Powell argued that all Americans, not just two million, are suffering under high inflation.

    “Will working people be better off if we just walk away from our jobs and inflation remains 5% or 6%?” Powell replied.

    Warren cautioned Powell that he was “gambling with people’s lives.”

    The discussion was part of a larger cost-benefit conversation that keeps popping up around the jobs market: Which is worse — widespread job loss or elevated inflation?

    CNN spoke with two top economic analysts with different perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of the debate.

    Below is our interview with Johns Hopkins economist Laurence Ball.

    Yesterday we published our interview with Roosevelt Institute director Michael Konczal, you can read that here.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Before the Bell: Is it necessary to increase the unemployment rate to successfully fight inflation?

    Laurence Ball: There’s a trade off between inflation and unemployment. When the economy is very strong and unemployment is pushed down, inflation tends to be higher. Right now there are almost two job openings per unemployed worker, the supply of workers looking for jobs and the demand for firms to hire is out of whack. That’s leading to faster wage increases, which sounds good except that gets passed through to faster price increases and more inflation. So somehow the labor market has to be brought back towards a normal balance of workers and jobs and that means slowing down the economy, and that probably means raising unemployment.

    Can you explain the cost-benefit analysis of two million jobs lost to get down to 2% inflation?

    If we assume we have to get inflation down to 2%, then it’s just an unhappy fact of life that that’s going to require higher unemployment. But a lot of people, including me, think that if the Fed gets it down to 4% or 3%, that’s the time to declare victory or say, ‘close enough for government work.’

    It gets more and more expensive in terms of how much unemployment it costs to go from 3% to 2% inflation. Those last few points will have disproportionately large costs, and it’s very dubious if that’s really worth it.

    Now, the Fed has the political problem that they’ve been insisting on a 2% target rate for years. If they say right at this moment that 3% or 4% is okay that would be seen as surrendering or moving the goalposts. I think a likely outcome is that inflation gets down to 3% or 4% and the Fed continues to say their target is a 2% inflation rate but never does what has to be done to get it there.

    If you examine Fed history you see that 5% appears to be a magic number. When inflation is above 5% it becomes this big political issue. When it goes below 5% it disappears from the headlines.

    What do you think is important for our readers to know about this back-and-forth between Powell and Warren?

    Behind all of this, in a market economy there’s sort of a basic glitch. We have this thing called unemployment, we sort of chronically have not enough jobs for everybody and that’s a big problem. The problem can be reduced somewhat in the short run if you get the economy going very fast. But then that leads to inflation. Accepting that unemployment has to go back up is just recognizing that there’s this glitch in the market economy or capitalism. It’s not clear how we can get around that.

    CNN Business’ David Goldman reports: 

    In an extraordinary action to restore confidence in America’s banking system, the Biden administration on Sunday guaranteed that customers of the failed Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all their money starting Monday.

    In a related action, the government shut down Signature Bank, a regional bank that was teetering on the brink of collapse in recent days. Signature’s customers will receive a similar deal, ensuring that even uninsured deposits will be returned to them Monday.

    SVB collapse: live updates

    In a joint statement Sunday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said the FDIC will make SVB and Signature’s customers whole. By guaranteeing all deposits — even the uninsured money that customers kept with the failed banks — the government aimed to prevent more bank runs and to help companies that deposited large sums with the banks to continue to make payroll and fund their operations.

    The Fed will also make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent runs on similar banks in the future.

    Wall Street investors were relieved that the government intervened as stock futures rebounded on Sunday evening, although the rally is fading Monday morning. Markets had tumbled more than 3% Thursday and Friday as investors feared more bank failures and systemic risk for the tech sector.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Treasury secretary rules out bailout for Silicon Valley Bank | CNN Politics

    Treasury secretary rules out bailout for Silicon Valley Bank | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Sunday ruled out a federal bailout for Silicon Valley Bank following its spectacular collapse last week.

    “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out, and we’re certainly not looking,” Yellen told CBS News when asked if there will be a bailout. “And the reforms that have been put in place means that we’re not going to do that again.”

    Also Sunday, Shalanda Young, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, stressed in an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “State of the Union” that the US banking system at large was “more resilient” now.

    “It has a better foundation than before the [2008] financial crisis. That’s largely due to the reforms put in place,” Young said on “State of the Union.”

    Yellen said she’s been hearing from depositors all weekend, many of whom are “small businesses” and employ thousands of people. “I’ve been working all weekend with our banking regulators to design appropriate policies to address this situation,” the Treasury secretary said, declining to provide further details.

    SVB collapsed Friday morning after a stunning 48 hours in which a bank run and a capital crisis led to the second-largest failure of a financial institution in US history.

    California regulators closed down the tech lender and put it under the control of the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC is acting as a receiver, which typically means it will liquidate the bank’s assets to pay back its customers, including depositors and creditors.

    Despite initial panic on Wall Street over the run on SVB, which caused its shares to crater, analysts said the bank’s collapse is unlikely to set off the kind of domino effect that gripped the banking industry during the financial crisis.

    But the collapse has prompted a bailout debate in Washington as lawmakers assess the fallout.

    Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina told Collins in a separate interview on “State of the Union” that she doesn’t support a bailout “at this time” but cautioned, “It’s still very early.”

    “We cannot keep bailing out private companies because there’s no consequences to their actions. People, when they make mistakes or break the law, have to be held accountable in this country,” she said.

    While relatively unknown outside Silicon Valley, SVB was among the top 20 American commercial banks, with $209 billion in total assets at the end of last year, according to the FDIC. It’s the largest lender to fail since Washington Mutual collapsed in 2008.

    [ad_2]

    Source link