Is the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy losing out to inflationary pressures? While supply chain costs have long been taken out of the inflation forecast, demand pressures have been stronger than hoped for by the Fed. One area of demand is the labor markets. While the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to keep prices stable and maximize employment, the shortage of workers is adding to demand-pull inflation as wages are a large input cost in a service economy. As employment remains strong, they have room to raise rates, but if strong employment is a significant cause of price pressures, they may decide to keep the increases coming.
Background
The number of new jobs unfilled increased last month as US job openings rose unexpectedly in April. The total job openings stood at 10.1 million. Make no mistake, the members of the Fed trying to steer this huge economic ship would like to see everyone working. However, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reporting “unemployed persons” at 5.7 million in April as compared to 10.1 million job openings, creates far more demand than there are people to fill the positions. Those with the right skills will find their worth has climbed as they get bid up by employers that are still financially better off hiring more expensive talent rather than doing without.
This causes wage inflation as these increased business costs work their way down into the final cost of goods and services we consume, as inflation.
Where We’re At
The 10.1 million job openings employers posted is an increase from the 9.7 million in the prior month. It is also the most since January 2023. In contrast, economists had expected vacancies to slip below 9.5 million. The increase and big miss by economists’ forecasting increases in job opportunities is a clear sign of strength in the nation’s labor market. This complicates Chair Jerome Powell’s position, along with other Fed members.
It isn’t popular to try to crush demand for new employees, but rising consumer costs at more than twice the Fed’s target will be viewed as too much.
The Fed says that it is data driven, this data is unsettling for those hoping for a pause or pivot.
The Investment Climate
These numbers and other strong economic numbers that were reported in April, create some uncertainty for investors as most would prefer to see the Fed stimulating rather than tightening conditions.
But the market has been resilient, despite the Feds’ resolve. The Fed has raised its benchmark interest rate ten times in the last 14 months. Yet jobs remain unfilled, and the stock market has gained quite a bit of ground in 2023. The concern has been that the Fed may overdo it and cause a recession. While even the Fed Chair admitted this is a risk he is willing to take, he also added that it is easier to start a stalled economy than it is to reel one in and the inflation that goes along with expansion.
So the strong labor market (along with other recent data releases) provides room for the Fed to tighten as there are still nearly two jobs for every job seeker. Additional tightening will eventually have the effect of simmering inflation to a more tolerable temperature. If the Fed overdoes it on the brake pedal, according to Powell, he knows where the gas pedal is.
Fitch Has Placed the United States and Some of its Debt on Credit Watch
What does it mean that rating agency Fitch has put the US debt on credit watch?
According to Fitch Ratings, a rating service that is one of the top three Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Agencies (NRSRO), has placed the United States AAA Long-Term, Issuer Default Rating (IDR) on rating watch and at risk of a downgrade. The primary reason for the rating agency warning is the apparent standstill of negotiations related to the US borrowing limit along with the approaching day that the US may not be able to refinance the interest portion of approaching US Treasury Bills (T-Bills), US Treasury Notes (T-Notes), and US Treasury Bonds (T-Bonds).
Implications
When a top credit rating agency places a country’s debt on credit watch, it means that the agency is considering lowering that country’s credit rating if conditions remain unchanged or worsen. This would have a number of negative consequences for the country, and could negatively impact those that operate within its economy, this could include:
Higher interest rates on government borrowing
Higher rates on corporate debt priced off of US Treasuries
Higher mortgage rates spread to US Treasuries
A decline in the value of the country’s currency
Increased difficulty in attracting foreign investment
A downgrade of the US government credit rating below AAA would be a major event with far-reaching consequences above and beyond the immediate impacts bullet-pointed above.
Wording of the Fitch Ratings Warning
Rating agencies like Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P are private companies. Debt issuers pay to have their debt issues rated to provide investors with information and a framework of value. These rating agencies or NRSROs are somewhat akin to providers of equity research to stock market participants via company-sponsored research.
Some of the main categories listed by Fitch titled, KEY RATING DRIVERS, are “Debt Ceiling Brinkmanship”, “Debt Limit Reached”, “X-Date Approaching”, “Debt Default Rating Implication”, “Potential Post Default Ratings”, and “High and Rising Public Debt Burden”.
The concern with debt ceiling brinkmanship according to Fitch is the “increased political partisanship that is hindering reaching a resolution to raise or suspend the debt limit despite the fast-approaching x-date (when the U.S. Treasury exhausts its cash position and capacity for extraordinary measures without incurring new debt).”
Fitch’s warning indicates it still expects a resolution to the debt limit before the x-date. However, it believes risks have risen that the debt limit will not be raised or suspended before the x-date and that the government could begin to miss payments on some of its obligations.
Fitch pointed out that the US reached its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling on Jan. 19, 2023. While the US Treasury has taken what Janet Yellen called “extraordinary measures” she also expects the measures could be exhausted as early as June 1, 2023. The cash balance of the Treasury reached USD76.5 billion as of May 23, and sizeable payments are due June 1-2.
The x-date has been defined as the day the US can’t meet its obligations without borrowing above the current Congressional debt limit. Failure to reach a deal “to raise or suspend the debt limit by the x-date would be a negative signal of the broader governance and willingness of the U.S. to honor its obligations in a timely fashion,” Fitch warned. The rating agency indicated this “would be unlikely to be consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating”
Fitch also addressed the 14th amendment discussions and other unconventional solutions, “avoiding default by non-conventional means such as minting a trillion-dollar coin or invoking the 14th amendment is unlikely to be consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and could also be subject to legal challenges,” Fitch advised.
The debt default rating warning comes from basic understanding of the role of a rating agency. However, Fitch did offer an opinion on the likelihood. “We believe that failing to make full and timely payments on debt securities is less likely than reaching the x-date, and is a very low probability event.
If a default did occur, Fitch indicated it would be more than one level adjustment to some debt affected. Fitch’s sovereign rating criteria would lead it to downgrade the sovereign rating (IDR) to Restricted Default (RD). Actual affected securities would be downgraded to ‘D’. Additionally, other LT debt securities with payments due within 30 days could be expected to be downgraded to ‘CCC’, and ST T-Bills maturing within the following 30 days could be expected to be downgraded to ‘C’.
“Other debt securities with payments due beyond 30 days would likely be downgraded to the expected post-default rating of the IDR,” Fitch wrote.
The US has a high and rising public debt burden, according to the rating agency. It points out that government debt fell to 112.5% of GDP at year-end 2022 (compared to 36.1% for the ‘AAA’ median). It peaked during the pandemic at 122.3%. Fitch forecasts debt to increase to 117% by end-2024. Debt dynamics under the baseline Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assumptions project that the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP will approach 119% within a decade under the current policy setting, a rise of over 20 pp. Fitch also recognizes the added cost of financing, adding, “interest rates have risen significantly over the last year with the 10-year Treasury yield at close to 3.7% (compared to 2.8% a year ago).”
Take Away
The decision to put a country’s debt on credit watch is not made lightly. One company announcement such as this can have an impact felt across the globe. It’s important for them to get this right. NRSROs typically would only put a sovereign nation, especially the US, where its debt is often called “the risk free rate,” and the US dollar serves as fiat currency. Firch did this because they view it as responsible and in line with what securities analysts and the rating services they work for are expected to watch out for.
In the current case of the United States debt ratings, the main concern is the political gridlock in Washington, which has made it difficult to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States will eventually run out of money to pay its bills, which would trigger a default. Fitch would be embarrassed (and arguably irresponsible) if they maintained a AAA rating just one week before the US Treasury Secretary indicated the nation couldn’t roll its debt.
The Pace of the U.S. Treasury Burn Rate Toward a $0.00 Balance
The US Treasury Department is nearing its last ounce of blood as it has been bleeding operating funds. All parties know that the debt ceiling has to be raised if the country is to avoid a financial catastrophe. Still, an impasse on debt ceiling negotiations continues. While the House of Representatives has passed a borrowing cap plan, it is not expected that the Senate would agree on the spending reductions, and President Biden made clear he would not sign it.
The markets, of course, have been paying attention, but for the most part, they have chosen to ignore the drama. Anyone that has been involved in the markets for a few years knows that in the past, there have been stop-gap measures or 11th hour decisions that have avoided a US debt default.
It is Getting Close
The US Treasury reported last Thursday that it had $57.3 billion in cash on hand. As with any ongoing entity, each week, it receives revenue and pays expenses. So the daily balance runoff fluctuates by different amounts each day. A snapshot is reported each Thursday along with other US financial data. The current pace, while not a precise rate to gauge the net burn rate, is useful.
The operating balance used to pay our bills as a nation has declined from $238.5 billion at the start of May, when tax collections helped boost balances. That’s a $181.2 billion decline over 18 days, or $10 billion per day. If the pace holds, the United States balance sheet reaches zero before the June 1 date previously estimated by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
The US reached its Congressionally imposed borrowing cap in January. Since then, there has been a cutting back on spending, as had been announced in January by Janet Yellen. The Treasury has since been operating under an “Extraordinary Measures” plan, reducing less than critical spending to pay obligations that can not be ignored without great consequence. This bandaid approach will go on and, at this point, can only be “fixed” if the debt ceiling is raised once again by Congress.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been clear in warning lawmakers that the Treasury’s ability to avoid default could end as soon as June 1. The nation has to increase its ability to legally borrow to make its payments while its obligations exceed its revenue.
Averting a June Crisis Without Congress
While most US citizens are aware of the mid-April individual tax date, corporate tax dates are quarterly. The next time most corporations pay their estimated taxes is June 15th. If Secretary Yellen can squeeze the Treasury balances until June 15th, she will no longer be driving on fumes – instead, she will have added a little more gas, not enough to get her to the next corporate tax date.
Another thought depends on one’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This amendment of the US Constitution contains several provisions, one of which is Section 4. This section states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” While the exact interpretation of this provision is a matter of legal debate, it has been suggested that it could potentially provide a legal basis for the government to continue meeting its financial obligations, even if the debt ceiling is reached.
Some argue that the 14th Amendment could empower the President to bypass the debt ceiling and ensure that the government continues to pay its debts on time, based on the principle that the United States must honor its financial obligations.
Although the date of $zero balance is not far off if the President and Senate doesn’t agree to the House plan, or if the House is inflexible, negotiations have moved in fits and starts with Congressional leaders meeting on and off with each other and with the Executive branch.
If the nation does default, it will unleash global economic and financial upheaval. The full consequences are not known since it’s never happened before. Those likely to see funds come to a crawl or be turned off are:
Interest on the debt: While the debt itself would continue to be serviced, a stringent austerity plan could potentially result in reduced payments towards interest on the national debt.
Government programs and agencies: Funding for discretionary programs, such as infrastructure projects, education initiatives, environmental programs, or research grants, could be reduced or eliminated.
Social welfare programs: Payments for social welfare programs, such as unemployment benefits, food assistance, housing subsidies, or healthcare subsidies, may be reduced or scaled back.
Defense spending: Military expenditures and defense contracts may face cuts, impacting payments to defense contractors and the procurement of military equipment and services.
Government salaries and benefits: Austerity measures could involve salary freezes, reductions, or furloughs for government employees, including civil servants, military personnel, or elected officials.
Infrastructure projects: Funding for infrastructure development and maintenance, including transportation systems, highways, bridges, and public facilities, may face reductions or delays.
Grants to states and local governments: Payments to states and local governments for various programs, such as education, healthcare, or community development, could be reduced.
The above are not set in stone, it’s important to note that the specific impacts of an austerity plan would depend on the policies and priorities set by the government, and different austerity measures are also a matter of negotiation.
While Yellen, the Congressional Budget Office, and multiple other forecasters think the $Zero date is likely during the first two weeks of June, it’s possible that the Treasury will have enough funds to carry it through the middle of the month, which would add more time.
However, as it looks now, the US Government is running on fumes; in the past, it has not allowed itself to completely run out of gas. If today’s situation follows past history, the markets will get scared a few more times before the US leaders agree and the country is back to business as usual.
ChatGPT-Powered Wall Street: The Benefits and Perils of Using Artificial Intelligence to Trade Stocks and Other Financial Instruments
Artificial Intelligence-powered tools, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize the efficiency, effectiveness and speed of the work humans do.
And this is true in financial markets as much as in sectors like health care, manufacturing and pretty much every other aspect of our lives.
I’ve been researching financial markets and algorithmic trading for 14 years. While AI offers lots of benefits, the growing use of these technologies in financial markets also points to potential perils. A look at Wall Street’s past efforts to speed up trading by embracing computers and AI offers important lessons on the implications of using them for decision-making.
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of,Pawan Jain, Assistant Professor of Finance, West Virginia University.
Program Trading Fuels Black Monday
In the early 1980s, fueled by advancements in technology and financial innovations such as derivatives, institutional investors began using computer programs to execute trades based on predefined rules and algorithms. This helped them complete large trades quickly and efficiently.
Back then, these algorithms were relatively simple and were primarily used for so-called index arbitrage, which involves trying to profit from discrepancies between the price of a stock index – like the S&P 500 – and that of the stocks it’s composed of.
As technology advanced and more data became available, this kind of program trading became increasingly sophisticated, with algorithms able to analyze complex market data and execute trades based on a wide range of factors. These program traders continued to grow in number on the largely unregulated trading freeways – on which over a trillion dollars worth of assets change hands every day – causing market volatility to increase dramatically.
Eventually this resulted in the massive stock market crash in 1987 known as Black Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered what was at the time the biggest percentage drop in its history, and the pain spread throughout the globe.
In response, regulatory authorities implemented a number of measures to restrict the use of program trading, including circuit breakers that halt trading when there are significant market swings and other limits. But despite these measures, program trading continued to grow in popularity in the years following the crash.
HFT: Program Trading on Steroids
Fast forward 15 years, to 2002, when the New York Stock Exchange introduced a fully automated trading system. As a result, program traders gave way to more sophisticated automations with much more advanced technology: High-frequency trading.
HFT uses computer programs to analyze market data and execute trades at extremely high speeds. Unlike program traders that bought and sold baskets of securities over time to take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity – a difference in price of similar securities that can be exploited for profit – high-frequency traders use powerful computers and high-speed networks to analyze market data and execute trades at lightning-fast speeds. High-frequency traders can conduct trades in approximately one 64-millionth of a second, compared with the several seconds it took traders in the 1980s.
These trades are typically very short term in nature and may involve buying and selling the same security multiple times in a matter of nanoseconds. AI algorithms analyze large amounts of data in real time and identify patterns and trends that are not immediately apparent to human traders. This helps traders make better decisions and execute trades at a faster pace than would be possible manually.
Another important application of AI in HFT is natural language processing, which involves analyzing and interpreting human language data such as news articles and social media posts. By analyzing this data, traders can gain valuable insights into market sentiment and adjust their trading strategies accordingly.
Benefits of AI Trading
These AI-based, high-frequency traders operate very differently than people do.
The human brain is slow, inaccurate and forgetful. It is incapable of quick, high-precision, floating-point arithmetic needed for analyzing huge volumes of data for identifying trade signals. Computers are millions of times faster, with essentially infallible memory, perfect attention and limitless capability for analyzing large volumes of data in split milliseconds.
And, so, just like most technologies, HFT provides several benefits to stock markets.
These traders typically buy and sell assets at prices very close to the market price, which means they don’t charge investors high fees. This helps ensure that there are always buyers and sellers in the market, which in turn helps to stabilize prices and reduce the potential for sudden price swings.
High-frequency trading can also help to reduce the impact of market inefficiencies by quickly identifying and exploiting mispricing in the market. For example, HFT algorithms can detect when a particular stock is undervalued or overvalued and execute trades to take advantage of these discrepancies. By doing so, this kind of trading can help to correct market inefficiencies and ensure that assets are priced more accurately.
Stock exchanges used to be packed with traders buying and selling securities, as in this scene from 1983. Today’s trading floors are increasingly empty as AI-powered computers handle more and more of the work.
The Downsides
But speed and efficiency can also cause harm.
HFT algorithms can react so quickly to news events and other market signals that they can cause sudden spikes or drops in asset prices.
Additionally, HFT financial firms are able to use their speed and technology to gain an unfair advantage over other traders, further distorting market signals. The volatility created by these extremely sophisticated AI-powered trading beasts led to the so-called flash crash in May 2010, when stocks plunged and then recovered in a matter of minutes – erasing and then restoring about $1 trillion in market value.
Since then, volatile markets have become the new normal. In 2016 research, two co-authors and I found that volatility – a measure of how rapidly and unpredictably prices move up and down – increased significantly after the introduction of HFT.
The speed and efficiency with which high-frequency traders analyze the data mean that even a small change in market conditions can trigger a large number of trades, leading to sudden price swings and increased volatility.
In addition, research I published with several other colleagues in 2021 shows that most high-frequency traders use similar algorithms, which increases the risk of market failure. That’s because as the number of these traders increases in the marketplace, the similarity in these algorithms can lead to similar trading decisions.
This means that all of the high-frequency traders might trade on the same side of the market if their algorithms release similar trading signals. That is, they all might try to sell in case of negative news or buy in case of positive news. If there is no one to take the other side of the trade, markets can fail.
Enter ChatGPT
That brings us to a new world of ChatGPT-powered trading algorithms and similar programs. They could take the problem of too many traders on the same side of a deal and make it even worse.
In general, humans, left to their own devices, will tend to make a diverse range of decisions. But if everyone’s deriving their decisions from a similar artificial intelligence, this can limit the diversity of opinion.
Consider an extreme, nonfinancial situation in which everyone depends on ChatGPT to decide on the best computer to buy. Consumers are already very prone to herding behavior, in which they tend to buy the same products and models. For example, reviews on Yelp, Amazon and so on motivate consumers to pick among a few top choices.
Since decisions made by the generative AI-powered chatbot are based on past training data, there would be a similarity in the decisions suggested by the chatbot. It is highly likely that ChatGPT would suggest the same brand and model to everyone. This might take herding to a whole new level and could lead to shortages in certain products and service as well as severe price spikes.
This becomes more problematic when the AI making the decisions is informed by biased and incorrect information. AI algorithms can reinforce existing biases when systems are trained on biased, old or limited data sets. And ChatGPT and similar tools have been criticized for making factual errors.
In addition, since market crashes are relatively rare, there isn’t much data on them. Since generative AIs depend on data training to learn, their lack of knowledge about them could make them more likely to happen.
For now, at least, it seems most banks won’t be allowing their employees to take advantage of ChatGPT and similar tools. Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and several other lenders have already banned their use on trading-room floors, citing privacy concerns.
But I strongly believe banks will eventually embrace generative AI, once they resolve concerns they have with it. The potential gains are too significant to pass up – and there’s a risk of being left behind by rivals.
War Rooms and Bailouts: How Banks and the Fed are Preparing for a US Default – and the Chaos Expected to Follow
When you are the CEO responsible for a bank and all the related depositors and investors, you don’t take an “it’ll never happen” approach to the possibility of a U.S. debt default. The odds are it won’t happen, but if it does, being unprepared would be devastating. Banks of all sizes are getting their doomsday plans in place, and other industries are as well, but big banks, on many fronts would be most directly impacted. The following is an informative article on how banks are preparing. It’s authored by John W. Diamond the Director of the Center for Public Finance at the Baker Institute, Rice University, and republished with permission from The Conversation. – Paul Hoffman, Managing Editor, Channelchek
Convening war rooms, planning speedy bailouts and raising house-on-fire alarm bells: Those are a few of the ways the biggest banks and financial regulators are preparing for a potential default on U.S. debt.
“You hope it doesn’t happen, but hope is not a strategy – so you prepare for it,” Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, the nation’s second-biggest lender, said in a television interview.
The doomsday planning is a reaction to a lack of progress in talks between President Joe Biden and House Republicans over raising the US$31.4 trillion debt ceiling – another round of negotiations took place on May 16, 2023. Without an increase in the debt limit, the U.S. can’t borrow more money to cover its bills – all of which have already been agreed to by Congress – and in practical terms that means a default.
What happens if a default occurs is an open question, but economists – including me – generally expect financial chaos as access to credit dries up and borrowing costs rise quickly for companies and consumers. A severe and prolonged global economic recession would be all but guaranteed, and the reputation of the U.S. and the dollar as beacons of stability and safety would be further tarnished.
But how do you prepare for an event that many expect would trigger the worst global recession since the 1930s?
Preparing for Panic
Jamie Dimon, who runs JPMorgan Chase, the biggest U.S. bank, told Bloomberg he’s been convening a weekly war room to discuss a potential default and how the bank should respond. The meetings are likely to become more frequent as June 1 – the date on which the U.S. might run out of cash – nears.
Dimon described the wide range of economic and financial effects that the group must consider such as the impact on “contracts, collateral, clearing houses, clients” – basically every corner of the financial system – at home and abroad.
“I don’t think it’s going to happen — because it gets catastrophic, and the closer you get to it, you will have panic,” he said.
That’s when rational decision-making gives way to fear and irrationality. Markets overtaken by these emotions are chaotic and leave lasting economic scars.
Banks haven’t revealed many of the details of how they are responding, but we can glean some clues from how they’ve reacted to past crises, such as the financial crisis in 2008 or the debt ceiling showdowns of 2011 and 2013.
One important way banks can prepare is by reducing exposure to Treasury securities – some or all of which could be considered to be in default once the U.S. exhausts its ability to pay all of its bill. All U.S. debts are referred to as Treasury bills or bonds.
The value of Treasurys is likely to plunge in the case of a default, which could weaken bank balance sheets even more. The recent bank crisis, in fact, was prompted primarily by a drop in the market value of Treasurys due to the sharp rise in interest rates over the past year. And a default would only make that problem worse, with close to 190 banks at risk of failure as of March 2023.
Another strategy banks can use to hedge their exposure to a sell-off in Treasurys is to buy credit default swaps, financial instruments that allow an investor to offset credit risk. Data suggests this is already happening, as the cost to protect U.S. government debt from default is higher than that of Brazil, Greece and Mexico, all of which have defaulted multiple times and have much lower credit ratings.
But buying credit default swaps at ever-higher prices limits a third key preventive measure for banks: keeping their cash balances as high as possible so they’re able and ready to deal with whatever happens in a default.
Keeping the Financial Plumbing Working
Financial industry groups and financial regulators have also gamed out a potential default with an eye toward keeping the financial system running as best they can.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, for example, has been updating its playbook to dictate how players in the Treasurys market will communicate in case of a default.
And the Federal Reserve, which is broadly responsible for ensuring financial stability, has been pondering a U.S. default for over a decade. One such instance came in 2013, when Republicans demanded the elimination of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Ultimately, Republicans capitulated and raised the limit one day before the U.S. was expected to run out of cash.
One of the biggest concerns Fed officials had at the time, according to a meeting transcript recently made public, is that the U.S. Treasury would no longer be able to access financial markets to “roll over” maturing debt. While hitting the current ceiling prevents the U.S. from issuing new debt that exceeds $31.4 trillion, the government still has to roll existing debt into new debt as it comes due. On May 15, 2023, for example, the government issued just under $100 billion in notes and bonds to replace maturing debt and raise cash.
The risk is that there would be too few buyers at one of the government’s daily debt auctions – at which investors from around the world bid to buy Treasury bills and bonds. If that happens, the government would have to use its cash on hand to pay back investors who hold maturing debt.
That would further reduce the amount of cash available for Social Security payments, federal employees wages and countless other items the government spent over $6 trillion on in 2022. This would be nothing short of apocalyptic if the Fed could not save the day.
To mitigate that risk, the Fed said it could immediately step in as a buyer of last resort for Treasurys, quickly lower its lending rates and provide whatever funding is needed in an attempt to prevent financial contagion and collapse. The Fed is likely having the same conversations and preparing similar actions today.
A Self-Imposed Catastrophe
Ultimately, I hope that Congress does what it has done in every previous debt ceiling scare: raise the limit.
These contentious debates over lifting it have become too commonplace, even as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle express concerns about the growing federal debt and the need to rein in government spending. Even when these debates result in some bipartisan effort to rein in spending, as they did in 2011, history shows they fail, as energy analyst Autumn Engebretson and I recently explained in a review of that episode.
That’s why one of the most important ways banks are preparing for such an outcome is by speaking out about the serious damage not raising the ceiling is likely to inflict on not only their companies but everyone else, too. This increases the pressure on political leaders to reach a deal.
Going back to my original question, how do you prepare for such a self-imposed catastrophe? The answer is, no one should have to.
Is a U.S. Default or Bankruptcy Possible – How Would that Work?
It seems no one is talking about what would happen if the U.S. defaulted on maturing debt, yet it is within the realm of possibilities. Also not impossible is the idea of the powerful country joining the list of sovereign nations that once declared bankruptcy and survived. A retired government employee with a passion for economic history wrote a timely piece on this subject. It was originally published on the Mises Institute website on May 12, 2023. Channelchek has shared it here with permission.
The current known federal debt is $31.7 trillion, according to the website, U.S. Debt Clock, this is about $94,726 for every man, woman, and child who are citizens as of April 24, 2023. Can you write a check right now made payable to the United States Treasury for the known share of the federal debt of each member of your family after liquidating the assets you own?
A report released by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Branch on March 6, 2023, stated a similar figure for the total known federal debt of about $31.4 trillion as of December 31, 2022. The federal debt size is so great, it can never be repaid in its current form.
Some of us have been in or known families or businesses who had financial debt that could not be paid when adjustments like reducing expenses, increasing income, renegotiating loan repayments to lender(s), and selling assets to raise money for loan repayment were not enough. The reality is that they still could not pay the debt owed to the lender(s).
This leads to filing bankruptcy under federal bankruptcy laws overseen by a federal bankruptcy court.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a liquidation proceeding available to consumers and businesses. It allows for assets of a debtor that are not exempt from creditors to be collected and liquidated (turned to cash), and the proceeds distributed to creditors. A consumer debtor receives a complete discharge from debt under Chapter 7, except for certain debts that are prohibited from discharge by the Bankruptcy Code.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides a procedure by which an individual or a business can reorganize its debts while continuing to operate. The vast majority of Chapter 11 cases are filed by businesses. The debtor, often with participation from creditors, creates a plan of reorganization under which to repay part or all its debts.
These government entities have filed for Chapter 9 federal bankruptcy:
Orange County, California, in 1994 for about $1.7 billion
Jefferson County, Alabama, in 2011 for about $5 billion
The City of Detroit, Michigan, in 2013 for about $18 billion
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 2017 for $72 billion
According to the United States Courts website:
The purpose of Chapter 9 is to provide a financially-distressed municipality protection from its creditors while it develops and negotiates a plan for adjusting its debts. Reorganization of the debts of a municipality is typically accomplished either by extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, or refinancing the debt by obtaining a new loan.
Although similar to other Chapters in some respects, Chapter 9 is significantly different in that there is no provision in the law for liquidation of the assets of the municipality and distribution of the proceeds to creditors.
The bankruptcies of two counties, a major city, and a sovereign territory resulted in bondholders with financial losses not repaid in full as well as reforms enacted in each governmental entity. Each one emerged from bankruptcy, one hopes, humbled and better able to manage their finances.
The federal government’s best solution for bondholders, taxpayers, and other interested parties is to default, declare sovereign bankruptcy, and make the required changes to get the fiscal business in order. Default, as defined by Dictionary.com as a verb, is “to fail to meet financial obligations or to account properly for money in one’s care.”
Sovereign government defaults are not new in our lifetime with Argentina in 1989, 2001, 2014, and 2020; South Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand in 1997, known as the Asian flu; Greece in 2009; and Russia in 1998.
Possible Outcomes
Some outcomes from these defaults lead to sovereign government debt bond ratings being reduced by the private rating agencies, bondholders losing value on their holdings, debt repayments being renegotiated with lenders, many countries receiving loans with a repayment plan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reforms being required to nations’ entitlement programs, a number of government taxes being raised, their currency losing value on currency trading exchanges, price inflation becoming more of a reality to its citizens, and higher interest rates being offered on future government debt bond offerings.
Very few in the financial world are talking about any outcomes of a U.S. federal government debt default. One outcome from the 2011 near default was Standard & Poor’s lowering their AAA federal bond rating to AA+ where it has remained.
What organization would oversee the execution of a U.S. federal government debt default, and what authorization would they be given to deal with the situation? No suggestions are offered when its scale is numerically mind-numbing since the U.S. has used debt as its drug of choice to overdose on fiscal reality.
Some outcomes would include a lowered federal bond rating by the three private bond rating agencies, where the reality of higher interest rates being offered on newly issued federal debt cannot be ignored. Federal government spending cuts in some form will be required by the realities of economic law, which includes reducing the number of federal employees, abolishing federal agencies, reducing and reforming military budgets, selling federal government property, delegating federal programs to the states, and reforming the federal entitlement programs of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Federal government tax revenue to repay the known debt with interest will rise as a percentage of each year’s future federal budget.
One real impact from a federal government debt default would be that the U.S. dollar would no longer be the global reserve currency, with dollars in many national reserve banks coming back to the U.S. Holding dollars will be like holding a hot potato. Nations holding federal debt paper—like China ($859 billion), Great Britain ($668 billion), Japan ($1.11 trillion), and others as of the January 2023 numbers published by the U.S. Treasury—as well as many mutual funds and others will see their holdings reduced in value leading to a selling off of a magnitude one cannot imagine in scale and timing. Many mutual fund holders like retirees, city and state retirement systems, and 401(k) account holders will be impacted by this unfolding event.
The direction of an individual or business when they emerge from federal bankruptcy is hopefully humility—looking back with the perspective of mistakes made, learning from these mistakes, and moving forward with a focus to benefit their family and community.
However, cities, counties, and sovereign territories differ from individuals, families, and private businesses in emerging from federal bankruptcy. What the outcome of a federal government debt default will be is unknown. Yet its reality is before us.
About the Author:
Stephen Anderson is retired from state government service and is a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin. He currently lives in Texas. His passions are reading, writing, and helping friends and family understand economic history.
US Debt Default Could Trigger Dollar’s Collapse – and Severely Erode America’s Political and Economic Might
Congressional leaders at loggerheads over a debt ceiling impasse sat down with President Joe Biden on May 9, 2023, as the clock ticks down to a potentially catastrophic default if nothing is done by the end of the month.
Republicans, who regained control of the House of Representatives in November 2022, are threatening not to allow an increase in the debt limit unless they get spending cuts and regulatory rollbacks in return, which they outlined in a bill passed in April 2023. In so doing, they risk pushing the U.S. government into default.
It feels a lot like a case of déjà vu all over again.
Brinkmanship over the debt ceiling has become a regular ritual – it happened under the Clinton administration in 1995, then again with Barack Obama as president in 2011, and more recently in 2021.
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Michael Humphries, Deputy Chair of Business Administration, Touro University.
Image: An 11 year-old sampling of possibilities from the RPC (June 19, 2012)
As an economist, I know that defaulting on the national debt would have real-life consequences. Even the threat of pushing the U.S. into default has an economic impact. In August 2021, the mere prospect of a potential default led to an unprecedented downgrade of the the nation’s credit rating, hurting America’s financial prestige as well as countless individuals, including retirees.
And that was caused by the mere specter of default. An actual default would be far more damaging.
Dollar’s Collapse
Possibly the most serious consequence would be the collapse of the U.S. dollar and its replacement as global trade’s “unit of account.” That essentially means that it is widely used in global finance and trade.
Day to day, most Americans are likely unaware of the economic and political power that goes with being the world’s unit of account. Currently, more than half of world trade – from oil and gold to cars and smartphones – is in U.S. dollars, with the euro accounting for around 30% and all other currencies making up the balance.
As a result of this dominance, the U.S. is the only country on the planet that can pay its foreign debt in its own currency. This gives both the U.S. government and American companies tremendous leeway in international trade and finance.
No matter how much debt the U.S. government owes foreign investors, it can simply print the money needed to pay them back – although for economic reasons, it may not be wise to do so. Other countries must buy either the dollar or the euro to pay their foreign debt. And the only way for them to do so is to either to export more than they import or borrow more dollars or euros on the international market.
The U.S. is free from such constraints and can run up large trade deficits – that is, import more than it exports – for decades without the same consequences.
For American companies, the dominance of the dollar means they’re not as subject to the exchange rate risk as are their foreign competitors. Exchange rate risk refers to how changes in the relative value of currencies may affect a company’s profitability.
Since international trade is generally denominated in dollars, U.S. businesses can buy and sell in their own currency, something their foreign competitors cannot do as easily. As simple as this sounds, it gives American companies a tremendous competitive advantage.
If Republicans push the U.S. into default, the dollar would likely lose its position as the international unit of account, forcing the government and companies to pay their international bills in another currency.
Loss of Political Power Too
The dollar’s dominance means trade must go through an American bank at some point. This is one important way it gives the U.S. tremendous political power, especially to punish economic rivals and unfriendly governments.
For example, when former President Donald Trump imposed economic sanctions on Iran, he denied the country access to American banks and to the dollar. He also imposed secondary sanctions, which means that non-American companies trading with Iran were also sanctioned. Given a choice of access to the dollar or trading with Iran, most of the world economies chose access to the dollar and complied with the sanctions. As a result, Iran entered a deep recession, and its currency plummeted about 30%.
President Joe Biden did something similar against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Limiting Russia’s access to the dollar has helped push the country into a recession that’s bordering on a depression.
No other country today could unilaterally impose this level of economic pain on another country. And all an American president currently needs is a pen.
Rivals Rewarded
Another consequence of the dollar’s collapse would be enhancing the position of the U.S.‘s top rival for global influence: China.
While the euro would likely replace the dollar as the world’s primary unit of account, the Chinese yuan would move into second place.
If the yuan were to become a significant international unit of account, this would enhance China’s international position both economically and politically. As it is, China has been working with the other BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia and India – to accept the yuan as a unit of account. With the other three already resentful of U.S. economic and political dominance, a U.S. default would support that effort.
They may not be alone: Recently, Saudi Arabia suggested it was open to trading some of its oil in currencies other than the dollar – something that would change long-standing policy.
Severe Consequences
Beyond the impact on the dollar and the economic and political clout of the U.S., a default would be profoundly felt in many other ways and by countless people.
In the U.S., tens of millions of Americans and thousands of companies that depend on government support could suffer, and the economy would most likely sink into recession – or worse, given the U.S. is already expected to soon suffer a downturn. In addition, retirees could see the worth of their pensions dwindle.
The truth is, we really don’t know what will happen or how bad it will get. The scale of the damage caused by a U.S. default is hard to calculate in advance because it has never happened before.
But there’s one thing we can be certain of. If the threat of default is taken too far, the U.S. and Americans will suffer tremendously.
Even a Short-Lived Default Would Hurt Money Market Fund Investors
While the U.S. Treasury is now at the mercy of politicians negotiating, positioning, and stonewalling as they work to raise the debt ceiling to avoid an economic catastrophe, money kept on the sidelines may be at risk. Generally, when investors reduce their involvement in stocks and other “risk-on” trades, they will park assets in money market funds. These investment products are now paying the highest interest rates in 15 years, which has made the decision to “take money off the table” even easier for those involved in the markets.
But, are investors experiencing a false sense of security?
Background
Money Market Funds (MMF) are mutual funds that invest in top credit-tier (low-risk) debt securities with fewer than 397 days to maturity. The SEC requires at least 10% to be maturing daily and 30% to be liquid within seven days. The acceptable securities in a general MMF include Treasury bills, commercial paper, and even bank CDs. The sole purpose of a money market fund is to provide investors with a stable value investment option with a low level of risk.
Unlike other mutual funds, money market funds are initially set and trade at a $1 price per share (NAV). As interest accrues, rather than the value of each share rising, investors are granted more shares (or fractional shares) at $1. However, the funds are marketed-to-market each day. Typically market prices don’t impact short-term debt securities at a rate above the daily interest accrual. But “typically” doesn’t mean always. Occasionally, asset values have dropped faster than the daily interest accrual. When this happens, the fund is worth less than $1 per share. It’s called “breaking the buck.”
When a money market fund “breaks the buck,” it means that the net asset value (NAV) per share of the fund falls below $1. In addition to quick valuation changes, it can also happen when the fund’s expense ratio exceeds its income. You may have gotten a notice during the extremely low interest period that your money market fund provider was absorbing expenses. This was to prevent it from breaking the buck.
Nothing is Risk Free
Just under $600 billion has moved into money-market funds in the past ten weeks. This is more than flowed into MM accounts after Lehman Brothers went belly up which set off panic and flights to safety. Currently, $5.3 trillion is invested in these funds; this is approaching an all-time record.
The Federal Reserve has been lifting interest rates at a record pace, the level they have the most control over is the bank overnight lending rate, or Fed Funds. This impacts short-term rates the most. Along with more attractive rates, stock market investors have become nervous. This is another reason asset levels in MMFs are so high – a high-yielding money-market fund that is viewed as risk-free looks attractive compared to the fear of getting caught in a stock market sell-off.
As discussed before, there are risks in money-market funds. And right now, the risks may be peaking. This is because government spending has exceeded the ability for the U.S. to borrow and pay for it under the current debt ceiling limit. The limit was actually reached last January when it was addressed by kicking the problem further down the road. Well, the road now ends sometime in June. In fact, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. government may run out of cash by June 1 if Congress doesn’t act, and that economic chaos would ensue if the government couldn’t pay its obligations. Not paying obligations would include not paying interest on maturing U.S. Treasuries.
It isn’t a stretch to say the foundation of all other securities pricing is in relationship with the “risk-free” rate of U.S. debt. That is to say, price discovery has as its benchmark that which can be earned in U.S. debt which has been presumed to be without risk of non-payment.
What Happens to Money Market Funds in a Default?
In a default, the U.S. Treasury wouldn’t pay the full principle it owes on liabilities such as maturing Treasury debt – short term term government debt with extremely short average maturities is a staple of market funds. That is why the price of one-month Treasury debt has dropped recently, sending its yield up to above 5% from a 2023 low of about 3.3%. It has driven expected returns of MMFs up as well, but there is a risk that these short maturities may not get fully paid on time. Many fund providers’ money market funds would then break the $1 share price.
Breaking the buck can have significant consequences for investors, particularly those who rely on money market funds for their cash reserves. Because money market funds are considered a low-risk investment, investors may not expect to lose money on their investment. If a money market fund breaks the buck, it would diminish investor confidence in the stability of these funds, leading to a potential run on the fund and broader implications for the financial system.
Likelihood of Breaking the Buck
Money market funds breaking the buck is a relatively rare occurrence. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), there have been only a few instances where MMFs have broken the buck in the history of the industry. The most significant of these occurred in 2008 during the financial crisis when one of the oldest money market funds, Reserve Primary Fund, dropped below $1 due to losses on its holdings of Lehman Brothers debt securities. This event led to a run on many money market funds creating significant instability in the financial system.
Since the Reserve Primary Fund incident, regulatory changes have been implemented to strengthen the money market fund industry and reduce the risk of funds breaking the buck. These changes include requirements for funds to maintain a minimum level of liquidity, hold more diversified portfolios, and limit their exposure to certain types of securities.
Take Away
Nothing is risk-free. Banks such as Silicon Valley Bank found that out when their investment portfolio, largely low credit risk, normally stable securities, wasn’t valued at what they needed it to be worth to fund large withdrawals.
Stock market investors that were drawn in invest in to rising bond yields also found that when yields keep rising, the values of their portfolios can drop just as quickly as if they were invested in stocks during a sell-off. While no one truly expects the current tug-of-war over debt levels in Washington to lead to a U.S. default, one can’t be sure at a time when there have been many firsts that we thought could never happen in America.
Image: AI rendering of futuristic robot photobombing the VP and new AI Czar
Planning Ahead to Avoid an AI Pandora’s Box
Vice President Kamala Harris wasted no time as the newly appointed White House Artificial Intelligence (AI) Czar. She has already met with heads of companies involved in AI and explained that although Artificial intelligence technology has the potential to benefit humanity, the opportunities it allows also come with extreme risk. She is now tasked with spearheading the effort to preemptively prevent a Pandora’s box situation where, once allowed, the bad that results may overshadow the good.
The plan that the administration is devising, overseen by the Vice President, calls for putting in place protections as the technology grows.
On May 4, Harris met with corporate heads of companies leading in AI technology. They included OpenAI, Google and Microsoft. In a tweet from the President’s desk, he is shown thanking the corporate heads in advance for their cooperation. “What you’re doing has enormous potential and enormous danger,” Biden told the CEOs
Image: Twitter (@POTUS)
Amid recent warnings from AI experts that say tyrannical dictators could exploit the developing technology to push disinformation, the White House has allocated $140 million in funding for seven newly created AI research groups. President Biden has said the technology was “one of the most powerful” of our time, then added, “But in order to seize the opportunities it presents, we must first mitigate its risks.”
The full plan unveiled this week is to launch 25 research institutes across the US that will seek assurance from companies, including ChatGPT’s creator OpenAI, that they will ‘participate in a public evaluation.’
The reason for the concern and the actions taken is that many of the world’s best minds have been warning about the dangers of AI, specifically that it could be used against humanity. Serial tech entrepreneur Elon Musk fears AI technology will soon surpass human intelligence and have independent thinking. Put another way; the machines would no longer need to abide by human commands. At the worst currently imagined, they may develop the ability to steal nuclear codes, create pandemics and spark world wars.
After Harris met with tech executives Thursday to discuss reducing potential risks, she said in a statement, “As I shared today with CEOs of companies at the forefront of American AI innovation, the private sector has an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their products.”
The sudden elevation of artificial intelligence as needing to be managed came as awareness grew as to just how remarkable and powerful the technology has the potential to become. This broad awareness came as OpenAI released a version of ChatGPT which already had the ability to mimic humanlike thinking and interaction.
Other considerations, and probably many not yet conceived, is that AI can generate humanlike writing and fake images; there are ethical and societal concerns. As an example, the fabricated image at the top of this article was created within three minutes by a new user of an AI program.
Can Biden and McCarthy Avert a Calamitous Debt Default? Three Evidence-Backed Leadership Strategies that Might Help
The U.S. is teetering toward an unprecedented debt default that could come as soon as June 1, 2023.
In order for the U.S. to borrow more money, Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling – currently $31.4 trillion. President Joe Biden has refused to negotiate with House Republicans over spending, demanding instead that Congress pass a stand-alone bill to increase the debt limit. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy won a small victory on April 26 by narrowly passing a more complex bill with GOP support that would raise the debt ceiling but also slash spending and roll back Biden’s policy agenda.
Biden recently invited congressional leaders, including GOP leader McCarthy, to the White House on May 9 to discuss the situation but insisted he isn’t willing to negotiate.
Rather than leading the nation, Biden and McCarthy seem to be waging a partisan political war. Biden likely doesn’t want to be seen as giving in to Repubicans’ demands and diminishing legislative wins for his liberal constituency. McCarthy, with his slim majority in the House, needs to appease even the most hard-line members of his party.
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Wendy K. Smith, Professor of Business and Leadership, University of Delaware.
Having studied leadership for over 25 years, I would suggest that their leadership styles are polarized, oppositional, short-term and highly ineffective. Such combative leadership risks a debt default that could send the U.S. into recession and potentially lead to a global economic and financial crisis.
While it may seem almost impossible in the current political climate, Biden and McCarthy have an opportunity to turn around this crisis and leave a positive and lasting legacy of courageous leadership. To do so, they need to put aside partisanship and adopt a different approach. Here are a few evidence-backed strategies to get them started.
Moving From a Zero-Sum Game to a More Holistic Approach
Political leaders often risk being hijacked by members of their own party. McCarthy faces a direct threat by hard-line conservative members of his coalition.
For example, back in January, McCarthy agreed to let a single lawmaker force a vote for his ouster to win enough votes from ultraconservative lawmakers to become speaker. That and other concessions give the most extreme members of his party a lot of control over his agenda and limit McCarthy’s ability to make a compromise deal with the president.
Biden, who just announced he’s running for reelection in 2024, is betting his first-term accomplishments – such as unprecedented climate investments and student loan forgiveness – will help him keep the White House. Negotiating any of that away could cost him the support of key parts of his base.
My research partner Marianne W. Lewis and I label this kind of short-term, one-sided leadership as “either/or” thinking. That is, this approach assumes that leadership decisions are a zero-sum game – every inch you give is a loss to your side. We argue that this kind of leadership is limited at best and detrimental at worst.
Instead, we find that great leadership involves what we call “both/and” thinking, which involves seeking integration and unity across opposing perspectives. History offers examples of how this more holistic leadership style has achieved substantial achievements.
President Lyndon B. Johnson and fellow Democrats were struggling to get a Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and needed Republican support. Despite his initial opposition, Republican Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen – then the minority leader and a staunch conservative – led colleagues in crossing party lines and joining Democrats to pass the historic legislation.
Another example came in 1990, when South Africa’s then-President Frederik Willem de Klerk freed opponent Nelson Mandela from prison. The two erstwhile political enemies agreed to a deal that ended apartheid and paved the way for a democratic government – which won them both the Nobel Peace Prize. Mandela became president four years later.
This integrative leadership approach starts with a shift of mindset that moves away from seeing opposing sides as conflicting and instead values them as generative of new possibilities. So in the case of the debt ceiling situation, holistic leadership means, at the least, Biden would not simply put up his hands and refuse to negotiate over spending. He could acknowledge that Republicans have a point about the nation’s soaring debt load. McCarthy and his party might recognize they cannot just slash spending. Together they could achieve greater success by developing an integrative plan that cuts costs, increases taxes and raises the debt ceiling.
Champion a Long-Term Vision Over Short-Term Goals
What we call “short-termism” plagues America’s politics. Leaders face pressure to demonstrate immediate results to voters. Biden and McCarthy both have strong incentives to focus on a short-term victory for their side with the presidential and congressional elections coming soon. Instead, long-term thinking can help leaders with competing agendas.
In a 2015 study, Natalie Slawinski and Pratima Bansal studied executives at five Canadian oil companies who were dealing with tensions between keeping costs low in the short term while making investments that could mitigate their industry’s environmental impact over the long run. The two scholars found that those who focused on the short term struggled to reconcile the two competing forces, while long-term thinkers managed to find more creative solutions that kept costs down but also allowed them to do more to fight climate change.
Likewise, if Biden and McCarthy want to avert a financial crisis and leave a lasting legacy, they would benefit from focusing on the long term. Finding points of connection in this shared long-term goal, rather than stressing their significant differences about how to get there, can help shift away from their standoff and toward a solution.
Be Adaptive, Not Assured
Voters often praise political leaders who act swiftly and with confidence and self-assurance, particularly at a moment of economic uncertainty.
Yet finding a creative solution to America’s greatest challenges often requires leaders to put aside the swagger and adapt, meaning they take small steps to listen to one another, experiment with solutions, evaluate these outcomes and adjust their approach as needed.
In a study of business decisions at a Fortune 500 technology company, I spent a year following the senior management teams in charge of six units – each of which had revenues of over $1 billion. I found that the team leaders who were most innovative tended to be good at adaptation. They constantly explored whether they had made the right investment and made changes if needed.
Small steps are also necessary to build unlikely relationships with political foes. In his 2017 book, “Collaborating With the Enemy,” organizational consultant Adam Kahane describes how he facilitated workshops to help former enemies take small steps toward reconciliation, such as in South Africa at the end of apartheid and in Colombia amid the drug wars. Such efforts helped South Africa become a successful multiracial democracy and Colombia end decades of war with a guerrilla insurgency.
This kind of leadership requires small steps toward connection rather than large political leaps. It also requires that both sides let go of their positions and consider where they are willing to compromise.
Biden and McCarthy could learn from two former Tennessee governors, Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican Bill Haslam. Though they oppose each other on almost every political issue, including gun control, the two former leaders have built a constructive relationship over the years. Rather than tackle the big divisive issues, they started with identifying the small points where they agreed with each other. Doing so led them to build greater trust and continue to look for connections.
So when a gunman killed six people at a school in Nashville recently, the two former governors were able to move beyond political finger-pointing and focus on how their respective parties could work together on meaningful gun reform.
Of course, it’s easier to do this once you’re out of office and the pressure from voters and parties goes away. And although current Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee agreed on the need for gun reform, his fellow Republicans in the state Legislature balked.
A Long Shot, But …
And that’s why I know this is a long shot. The two main political parties are as polarized as ever. The odds of a breakthrough that leads to anything more than a last-second deal that kicks the debt ceiling can down the road remain pretty low – and even that seems in doubt.
But this is about more than the debt ceiling. The U.S. faces a long list of problems big and small, from high inflation and a banking crisis to the war in Ukraine and climate change.
Americans need and deserve leaders who will tackle these issues by working together toward a more creative outcomes.
The US debt limit is the total amount of money the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing obligations. These include interest on debt, Social Security, military costs, government payroll, utilities, tax refunds, and all costs associated with running the country.
The debt limit is not designed to authorize new spending commitments. Its purpose is to provide adequate financing for existing obligations that Congress, through the years, has approved. While taxes provide revenue to the US Treasury Department, taxation has not been adequate since the mid-1990s to satisfy US spending. This borrowing cap, the so-called debt ceiling, is the maximum congressional representatives have deemed prudent each year, and has always been raised to avert lost faith in the US and its currency.
Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – which has never happened before. Default would bring about another financial crisis and threaten the financial well-being of American citizens. Since a default would be much more costly than Congress meeting to approve a bump up in the borrowing limit, which the President could then sign, it is likely that any stand-offf will be resolved on time.
Congress has always acted when called upon to raise the debt limit. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt.
How Does this Apply Today?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax receipts through April have been less than the CBO anticipated in February. The Budget Office now estimates that there is a significantly elevated risk that the US Treasury will run out of funds in early June 2023. The US Treasury Secretary has even warned that after June 1, the US will have trouble meeting its obligations. The implications could include a credit rating downgrade in US debt which could translate to higher interest rates. If US Treasury obligations, the so-called “risk free” investments, does not pay bondholders on time (interest), then the entire underpinning of an economy that relies on the faith in its economic system, could quickly unravel.
What Took Us Here?
On January 19, 2023, the statutory limit on the amount of debt that the Department of the Treasury could issue was reached. At that time, the Treasury announced a “debt issuance suspension period” during which, under the law, can take “extraordinary measures” to borrow additional funds without breaching the debt ceiling.
The Treasury Dept. and the CBO projected that the measures would likely be exhausted between July and September 2023. They warned that the projections were uncertain, especially since tax receipts in April were a wildcard.
It’s now known that receipts from income tax payments processed in April were less than anticipated. Making matters more difficult, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is quickly processing tax return payments.
If the debt limit is not raised or suspended before the extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will ultimately be unable to pay its obligations fully. As a result, the government will have to delay making payments for some activities, default on its debt obligations, or both.
What Now?
The House of Representatives passed a package to raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion in late April. The bill, includes spending cuts, additional work requirements in safety net programs, and other measures that are unpopular with Democrats. To pass, the Senate, which has a Democratic majority, would have to pass it. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer described the chances as “dead on arrival.”
House Speaker McCarthy has accepted an invitation from President Biden to meet on May 9 to discuss debt ceiling limits. The position the White House is maintaining is that it will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. The President’s party is looking for a much higher debt ceiling that allows for greater borrowing powers.
In the past, debt ceiling negotiations have often gone into the night on the last day and have suddenly been resolved in the nick of time. Treasury Secretary Yellen made mention of this and warned that past debt limit impasses have shown that waiting until the last minute can cause serious harm, including damage to business and consumer confidence as well as increased short-term borrowing costs for taxpayers. She added that it also makes the US vulnerable in terms of national security.
Expect volatility in all markets as open discussions and likely disappointments will heat up beginning at the May 9th meeting between McCarthy and Biden.
Elon Musk Unveils How He Expects to Approach Artificial Intelligence
The CEO of SpaceX, Twitter, Tesla, as well as the founder of The Boring Company , and Neuralink, says he wants to do something to serve humanity. Elon Musk has been concerned that artificial intelligence may have the propensity to turn against mankind. He said the best way to avoid the problem is to make artificial intelligence curious. “I’m going to start something which I call ‘TruthGPT’ or a maximum truth-seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of the universe,” Musk said in an interview with Tucker Carlson. The billionaire thinks that an AI that cares about understanding the universe is “unlikely to annihilate humans” as we’re an “interesting part of the universe, hopefully.” During the discussion, he emphasized the project will differ from competitors, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard, by caring about understanding the universe.
This ambitious new goal of Musk’s was introduced with few details about the project, so it remains unclear how, exactly a machine becomes curious. He did repeat that he considers AI dangerous if mismanaged, with a “potential for civilizational destruction.” In fact, he called for some level of government oversight over AI projects. Musk isn’t new to the technology; he is actually one of the co-founders of OpenAI, the company that has been making headlines with its AI chatbot named ChatGPT.
The new technology would likely compete with AI efforts by Sam Altman-led OpenAI, which as mentioned was initially funded by Musk, Google’s DeepMind, and other AI initiatives around the world.
Regulating A.I.
Musk told Carlson he envisions a regulatory agency that “initially seeks insight into AI, then solicits opinion from industry, and then has proposed rule-making,” something like the Federal Aviation Administration and how it interacts with aviation and aerospace companies. Once agency and industry-accepted rules in place, “I think we’ll have a better chance of advanced AI being beneficial to humanity,” Musk said. Musk signed a letter calling for a pause on advanced AI research because he is part of a group of signers that believe it can potentially harm society.
“Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?” the letter stated.
Part two of the interview is scheduled to air at 8 PM ET April 18 on Fox News.
The March FOMC Minutes Show the Fed is Less Aligned
We may be entering a period when we have a Federal Reserve that is split on the direction of monetary policy. This could be the case as early as the May 2-3 FOMC meeting. At least, that is one indication that arose from the just-released minutes of the Committee from the March 21-22 meeting. U.S. economic activity was strong leading up to the meeting, then the collapse of two banks occurred. The concerns that followed prompted several Federal Reserve officials to consider whether the central bank should pause its aggressive pace of hiking interest rates.
Split Federal Reserve
The minutes offer insight into what may follow this year. Over the past ten sessions, the FOMC minutes showed the central bank’s focus has been on quickly tightening policy to squelch persistent inflation. Now after nine consecutive interest-rate hikes and quantitative tightening, the conversation has shifted from wondering how fast they can move to whether and when the Fed should pause. At least, it has for some of the Committee members. Soft landings are seldom successfully orchestrated by monetary policy changes; more often, they set the stage for a recession.
In public addresses since the March meeting, Fed officials have appeared to be somewhat split on the way forward. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee, for example, said on April 11 that the Fed needs to be cautious. “We should gather further data and be careful about raising rates too aggressively until we see how much work the headwinds are doing for us in getting down inflation,” Goolsbee said.
Less concerned about a recession and more concerned about winning the war on inflation, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester said last week she believes the correct move is for the Fed to continue tightening “a little bit higher” before pausing as the economy and inflation adjusts.
Bank Failure Considerations
The March monetary policy meeting was surrounded by uncertainty for both Fed watchers and some FOMC members. The meeting took place only days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Other indicators of a strong economy pointed to an aggressive move from the voting members. But, with the banking sector wounded or perhaps worse, it remained a nailbiter up until 2 pm on March 22 when the Federal Open Market Committee announced a quarter-point interest-rate hike.
While all has since been quiet related to U.S. banks, at the time, the extent of the problem was far from known. The potential economic impact it could have, led Fed staff to project a mild recession starting later in 2023, according to the minutes. This tells financial markets and others impacted by Fed moves that some Fed officials were seriously considering holding steady on rates.
The minutes show, the combination of “slower-than-expected progress on disinflation,” a tight labor market, and the view that the new emergency lending programs had stabilized the financial sector, allowed the central bank to again raise rates. The minutes indicated, “Many participants remarked that the incoming data before the onset of the banking sector stresses had led them to see the appropriate path for the federal funds rate as somewhat higher than their assessment at the time of the December meeting.” Reading on, the minutes said, “After incorporating the banking-sector developments, participants indicated that their policy rate projections were now about unchanged from December.”
Take Away
Although they are released several weeks after each meeting, the Fed minutes are always closely watched for clues as to how central-bank officials are feeling and where monetary policy is likely heading over the next several weeks or months. The indication from these minutes, behind a backdrop of Fed regional president addresses, indicate a less than unified Fed. Unless there is a good deal of unexpected trouble within the banking sector or economy or a clear tick up in economic measures such as employment, the May 3 post-meeting announcement on policy will be tough to forecast.
