November 23, 2024

Some Concern Abroad About U.S. Downgrade

While officials in both Europe and Asia had girded for such a possibility, the news that Standard Poor’s had lowered Washington’s AAA rating to AA+ was nonetheless received with a degree of concern in the corridors of power on the Continent.

The French finance minister, François Baroin, questioned the move Saturday, which he said appeared to be based on “nonconsensual figures.” The Obama administration had disputed the judgment, noting that Standard Poor’s had made a significant mathematical mistake and overstated the federal debt by about $2 trillion.

Standard Poor’s said the downgrade was based more on the view that the effectiveness, stability and predictability of American policymaking had eroded during the rancorous debate over lifting the debt ceiling. Mr. Baroin said he found it curious that neither Moody’s nor Fitch, the two other major ratings agencies, had reached a similar conclusion. Moody’s has said it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation’s debt, but that it might still lower it.

“We have total confidence in the solidity of the American economy,” Mr. Baroin said in an interview on French radio. Nonetheless, he added, the decision “confirms” that the world’s most developed economies are confronted with the same urgent priorities: to lift growth and reduce public and private debt.

The Australian prime minister also warned against overreacting to the downgrade.

Standard Poor’s “had been signaling for some time that unless they saw a certain figure of budget cutbacks out of the discussion that there’s been in Washington about the American budget and fiscal consolidation, that they were intending to do that downgrade,” Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, according to Agence-France Presse. “At the same time, the other two major ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, continue to have the American economy rated at AAA. So I think people just need to look at all of the facts.”

Japan’s reaction was also more muted, according to media reports. Officials in Tokyo said their trust in American Treasuries remained unchanged.

In Germany, however, commentators saw the downgrade as further evidence of the decline of American prestige.

The weekly newsmagazine Focus called the downgrade “a public humiliation.”

The magazine noted a scolding that the United States received from Chinese officials.

“Now the country must allow itself to be reprimanded and lectured before the eyes of the world,” Focus said, referring to the United states.

Group of 7 ministers could hold a telephone conference call Saturday night or Sunday, Reuters reported. A flurry of phone calls between European leaders to discuss Europe’s snowballing debt crisis continued on Saturday in the wake of the American downgrade, said one French official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The possibility that the Washington’s sterling sovereign rating would be tarnished, together with the dawning realization that the United States and Europe may be grappling with fundamental problems in their economies for years to come, stoked the worst global selloff in stocks this week since the financial crisis blew open in 2008.

Yet even with Standard Poor’s downgrade, American debt is still seen as one of the world’s safest investments. The action may lift borrowing costs on a variety of debt around the world, although perhaps not enough to do serious damage.

That is cold comfort to China, the largest foreign holder of American debt. The country has issued several warnings to Washington about the possibility of a downgrade. On Saturday, just hours after the downgrade, Beijing admonished the Obama administration to “cure its addiction to debts” and “live within its means.”

One senior European official who has been involved in debt crisis negotiations said Europeans were “not especially happy” about the downgrade decision, but there was a feeling the ratings agency was fair in its relative treatment of Europe and the United States.

“We all feel the consequences of the crisis on our public finances,” the official said, “and we all need to take serious action to restore their sustainability while being attentive to the strengthening of growth.”

While the political atmosphere in the United States has not been helpful in that regard, the official added, the ruling was unlikely to “aggravate things for us.”

Still, it confirms that sovereign risks are not totally risk free and that governments must prove that they are undertaking sounder governance and greater sustainability of public finances, the official added.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who spent hours on the phone Friday conversing with President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and the leaders of Italy and Spain, who are now in the eye of Europe’s debt storm, issued no statement Saturday.

But German newspapers summed up the general sentiment, with Die Welt calling the news a “thunderbolt” and saying Standard Poor’s was “brave” to downgrade the United States.

“This is not Spain or Ireland,” the normally pro-American Die Welt said.

“This is the debtor nation U.S.A., that in contrast to other countries has always fulfilled its obligations.”

The daily Süddeutsche Zeitung said that Germany might even profit from the downgrade, because money will flow to safe-haven investments like German Bunds. “This effect could become even stronger following the downgrade of the U.S.,” the newspaper said.

Phillip Rösler, the German economics minister, said he did not want to comment on decisions by ratings agencies. But he told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag, “It’s obvious that the competitiveness of the economies of other countries is also an important issue for us.”

Jack Ewing contributed reporting from Frankfurt

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/global/nations-react-to-downgrade-of-us-debt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

U.S. Housing Sales and Prices Remain Weak

A separate report on Tuesday showed home prices in major American cities rose for the second straight month in May. But after adjusting for seasonal buyers, prices actually fell in a majority of markets.

The Commerce Department said sales of new homes fell 1 percent in June to an annual rate of 312,000. That’s less than half the 700,000 new-home sales that economists say is typical in healthy markets.

Sales fell to record lows in the Northeast and West. The median price of a new home rose to $235,200 in June, up 5.8 percent from May, according to the Commerce Department report.

Last year was the worst for new-home sales on records dating back a half century, but through the first six months of this year, sales are lagging behind last year’s totals.

In June, new-home sales fell to record lows in the Northeast and West. The median price of a new home rose to $235,200 in June because of the influx of spring buyers. The median price is not adjusted for seasonal factors.

The Standard Poor’s/Case-Shiller home-price index said May prices increased in 16 of the 20 cities tracked for an average of 1 percent. Over the past 12 months, prices have fallen in 19 of the 20 cities tracked.

Housing remains the weakest part of the American economy. High unemployment, larger down payment requirements and tougher lending standards are preventing many people from buying homes. And some potential buyers who can clear those hurdles are holding off, worried that home prices have yet to bottom out.

Last year was the fifth straight year that new-home sales fell. That followed five straight years of record-high sales, when the housing market was booming.

Still, all home sales are weak. Sales of previously occupied homes fell for a third straight month in June and are lagging last year’s sales of 4.91 million homes sold last year, the fewest since 1997. In a healthy economy, people buy roughly 6 million existing homes annually.

While new homes represent less than one-fifth of the total housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each new home creates an average of three jobs and $90,000 in taxes, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=24e1a83fc84d01631d9f54bcab19a173

Dow Closes Below 12,000 for the First Time Since March

The drag on stocks is especially troubling because it suggests that one of the few bright spots for the United States economy may be starting to fade. Just six weeks ago, the Dow Jones industrial average seemed poised to break through the 13,000 mark, closing at 12,810 on April 29. But on Friday it fell 172.45 points, or 1.42 percent, to close at 11,951.91.

It had not been below 12,000 since March 18, and it has now suffered a loss for six consecutive weeks, its longest weekly slump since the fall of 2002.

“In general, we have had such a long string of disappointing economic data, not only domestically but to some extent globally as well, that people are perhaps at last shifting their outlook,” said Kathy Jones, fixed-income strategist at Charles Schwab.

The pressure points for the Dow’s slump included concern that China’s high-powered export economy could be slowing and a growing sense that Europe will be unable to reach a consensus on how to end the Greek debt crisis that has troubled markets for more than a year.

In the United States, a rash of sluggish indicators, especially related to the job market, manufacturing, consumer confidence and home sales, has economists worried about a stalled recovery. The nervousness was heightened this week by a downbeat assessment of the American economy from the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, as well as the continued political wrangling over the raising of the national debt ceiling.

Moody’s Investors Service said last week that it might downgrade the United States credit rating if lawmakers did not increase the nation’s debt limit “’in coming weeks.”

“The marketplace is spooked,” by the recent bad economic news, said Ciaran O’Kelly, head of equities at Nomura in the United States.

The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index fell 18.02 points, or 1.4 percent, to 1,270.98. The Nasdaq composite index was down 41.14 points, or 1.5 percent, to 2,643.73, and that exchange is down for the year.

“The markets on the whole are reacting to what we think is a slowdown period of both the U.S. and the broader economy,” Jason D. Pride, the director of investment strategy at Glenmede, said.

“And to put a cherry on top of the scenario, as far as downside pressures, you have this significant unease surrounding exactly what is going to come from the Greek debt issues.”

Mr. Pride said the financial markets were plowing through uncertain times.

“We are going through a period where the economic expansion is likely to be coming in a bit softer than in the past,” said Mr. Pride. “Anytime you have a slow period like this, the concern that we are going to have a relapse starts coming up in the minds of investors.”

While the Dow is now down seven of the last eight trading sessions, it is still up by nearly 3 percent from its lowest close this year, which was 11,613.30 on March 16.

In the United States on Thursday, stocks had risen after the nation’s trade data showed the highest exports on record, reaching $175.6 billion in April.

The gains that day ended a six-day losing streak and were the first time stocks rose in June.

But why such a poor showing on Friday? Phil Orlando, chief equity market Strategist at Federated Investors, said that the market was retracing Thursday’s rally as the weekend approached.

“The fact that today is a Friday might be significant,” he said. “Investors have a tendency to not want to be long over a weekend. And the reality is that this euro zone and sovereign debt issue is very much in play.”

As stocks fell, Treasury prices rose, partly riding the wave of recent strong sales of short and long bonds.

The Treasury’s 10-year note rose 7/32, to 101 10/32. The yield fell to 2.97 percent, from 3 percent late Thursday. 

“The bond market does look to be in a sound position with momentum on its side after the Treasury’s successful sale” this week, said Kevin H. Giddis, the executive managing director and president for fixed-income capital markets at Morgan Keegan Company.

Energy stocks led the declines on the broader equities market, falling 1.88 percent, after reports that Saudi Arabia would increase oil production.

Crude oil in New York fell $2.64 to close at $99.29 a barrel.

Exxon Mobil fell 1.72 percent to $79.78. Chevron was down 1.54 percent at $99.67; Schlumberger declined 2.54 percent to $83.66 and Halliburton was 2 percent lower at $48.

The S. P. was weak across the board, with consumer discretionary, industrials and materials among the sectors declining more than 1 percent.

Financials were also lower by more than 1 percent during the day, but closed down by about 0.7 percent.

“The banks have been a very weak sector over the course of the last few months, but particularly this month have moved down significantly in part because of capital-raising concerns,” said Keith B. Hembre, the chief economist and chief investment strategist at First American Funds.

“So that may be a lingering factor as well,” he said.

There was little relief in sight. Mr. Orlando said there were no economic reports due in the week ahead to give investors confidence. He said consumers were expected to “take a break” and retail sales for May, to be released next week, were forecast to reflect that.

If retail companies are taking a hit, he added, then so will manufacturers and the labor market.

“We have had a steady drumbeat of weak economic news,” he said. “There is really nothing on the horizon to suggest in the very near term that trend is going to change.”

Graham Bowley contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/business/11markets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Jobless Claims Dip Lower, But Show Less Momentum

The tepid fall in jobless claims signals companies may also be looking to limit hiring, raising the expectation that employment data due Friday will show that payroll gains moderated in May. Slowing job growth may cause households to further curb spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the American economy.

“The job market has clearly lost momentum,” said John Herrmann, a senior fixed-income strategist at State Street Global Markets in Boston. “Jobless claims remain elevated, and payrolls growth for May could come in at a level that’s worrisome. The gains in confidence may be short-lived. From here on, confidence surveys may begin to reflect the broader sense of uncertainty in the economy, the labor market and the stock market.”

Stocks fell on concern the economic recovery was slowing. The forecast for jobless claims was based on a survey of 50 economists. Estimates ranged from 400,000 to 440,000. The Labor Department revised the previous week’s figure to 428,000 from the 424,000 initially reported.

Among the economists surveyed by Bloomberg, the median forecast was that payrolls grew by 170,000 workers in May. Payrolls increased by 244,000 in April.

A report released Wednesday from ADP Employer Services showed companies added 38,000 workers last month, the fewest since September and less than the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey.

“The labor market is a little less robust than it was,” said Michael Feroli, chief United States economist at JPMorgan Chase in New York. “This is the eighth consecutive week of claims above 400,000, so it doesn’t look like the move up was an aberration.”

Robert Brusca, president of Fact Opinion Economics in New York, said, “There is nothing in this weekly survey that gives us any confidence things are getting better. There is really not much improvement in the economy.”

Other reports from Thursday showed worker productivity slowed in the first quarter and orders to factories dropped in April.

The measure of employee output per hour increased at a revised 1.8 percent annual rate after a 2.9 percent gain in the prior three months, the Labor Department said. Labor costs climbed at a 0.7 percent rate after dropping 2.8 percent the prior quarter.

Demand for manufactured goods dropped 1.2 percent in April, the most since May 2010, after climbing 3.8 percent the prior month, figures from the Commerce Department showed.

Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to rise as job growth — measured by the monthly nonfarm payrolls report — decelerates.

Lower gasoline prices may be giving households some relief. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline nationally dropped to $3.79 on May 29, down from $3.84 a week earlier, according to AAA, the nation’s largest auto club. It reached $3.99 on May 4, the highest since July 2008.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=cbd4c6c0ae3759e7e39e70a06227cb1a

Economix: Podcast: Jobs, Economics and a Retail Makeover

After the economic slowdown that showed up in the data for first-quarter G.D.P., Friday’s Labor Department report on jobs and unemployment was nervously awaited.

It wasn’t great news, but it was better than many economists had expected.

Motoko Rich covered the story for The Times, and she says in the Weekend Business podcast that the total number of jobs created in April — 244,000, up from 211,000 in March — suggests that the United States economy is clearly growing, even if at a modest pace. (It grew at only a 1.8 percent in the first quarter, according to the G.D.P. report.)

In April, the unemployment rate moved back up to 9 percent — a painfully high level — from 8.8 percent, and a much faster pace of hiring will be needed to bring the rate down significantly.

It’s quite possible that the American economy’s growth was impeded by what Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, has called “transitory” factors, like the supply-chain problems caused by the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan. In that case, Ms. Rich says, there may be faster growth in the United States later in the year.

Still, the economy has a long way to go before it is fully healed from the wounds inflicted in the financial crisis. How long will it take? In a separate conversation, Gregory S. Mankiw, the Harvard economist, confesses that he doesn’t know. In fact, he says, after many years of study, there is much he doesn’t understand about the economy — and that much in his field remains murky. In the Economic View column in Sunday Business, he elaborates on some of the current economic questions for which he sees no clear answers.

In another podcast discussion, David Gillen and Stephanie Clifford chat about the efforts of Richard A. Baker to refurbish Lord Taylor and the Hudson’s Bay Company, two of North America’s grandest retail operations. That is also the subject of a Sunday Business article by Ms. Clifford and Peter Lattman.

Also on the podcast, Gretchen Morgenson talks about Wal-Mart’s executive pay — the focus of her Sunday Business column. The company’s same-store sales have been lagging — and it has removed same-store sales as a criterion for compensation.

You can find specific segments of the podcast at these junctures: the employment picture (30:24); news headlines (23:42); changes at Lord Taylor (20:15); Wal-Mart executive pay (14:11); Gregory Mankiw (8:35); the week ahead (2:21).

As articles discussed in the podcast are published during the weekend, links will be added to this posting.

You can download the program by subscribing from The New York Times’s podcast page or directly from iTunes.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2a305aa25a83ea6d768589e76677cb9a

Economix: When Hard Times Led to a Boom

Book Chat

Alexander J. Field, an economist at Santa Clara University, is the author of “A Great Leap Forward,” which argues that the terrible years of the Great Depression actually set the stage for the post-World War II boom. Mr. Field discussed his ideas at a recent book-signing party. The book will be officially released next week.

Alexander J. Field, author of Valerie Wolk Alexander J. Field, author of “A Great Leap Forward.”

Our conversation follows.

Q. You make the novel claim that the Great Depression years were good — or at least important — for the American economy. How so?

Mr. Field: In 1941, the U.S. economy produced almost 40 percent more output than it had in 1929, with virtually no increase in labor hours or private-sector capital input. Almost all of the increase in output per hour is attributable to technological and organizational advance. As I said in the title of my 2003 American Economic Review article, the 1930s were indeed the most technologically progressive decade of the century.

The conventional wisdom is that the war somehow magically transformed the doom and gloom of the Depression into the U.S. standing like a colossus astride the world in 1948. My counterargument is that potential output expanded by leaps and bounds between 1929 and 1941, and it was this expansion in capacity that both helped us win the war and established the foundations for postwar prosperity.

Q. I would not have guessed that the economy was 40 percent larger in 1941 than in 1929, given how much it shrunk in the early 1930s. When did all the growth happen?

Mr. Field: There was a very strong recovery following Roosevelt’s election, interrupted only temporarily by the 1937 recession. Real G.D.P. almost doubled between 1933 and 1941 (90 percent increase).

An important point to understand, however, is that we’re not dealing in these years simply with the closing of an output gap (the difference between actual and potential). Rather, we are dealing with a moving target, as productivity increased, thus increasing potential, under the combined influences of big increases in R.D. investment, new products and processes, spillovers from the build-out of the surface road network, and in some sectors, creative responses to adversity. That’s part of the explanation for why unemployment was still close to 10 percent in 1941.

Yale University Press

Q. What were the key innovations of the 1930s?

Mr. Field: What’s notable about the Depression years is the very broad range of advance. One can’t point to a single or even a few innovations that somehow defined the era. Nonetheless, notable new products included the DC-3, a plane introduced in 1936 that revolutionized commercial aviation; television, developed with venture capital funding during the 1930s and rolled out at the 1939-40 World’s Fair; and nylon stockings, introduced in May 1940, with 63 million pair sold the first year.

A number of products available in the 1920s moved from low-penetration boutique goods to mass-produced commodities. Case in point: mechanical refrigerators. Less than 3 percent of U.S. households had them in 1929, and they were expensive and unreliable, requiring extensive after-market service. In 1941, 44 percent of households had mechanical refrigeration, including 56 percent of urban households.

Automobiles saw major refinements in the 1930s. Heaters, radios, low-pressure balloon tires, and four-wheel hydraulic brakes all became standard. The decade saw the development of options we often consider standard today — power steering, automatic transmission, front-wheel drive, and V-8 engines. Aside from product innovation, significant process innovation occurred across the industrial sector.

And in contrast to the 1920s, advance was not limited almost entirely to manufacturing. Highway design in the 1930s excited engineers as much as did the information “superhighway” in the 1990s. The U.S. route system, built almost entirely during the Depression, represented a huge improvement over what had preceded it, with big benefits for transportation and distribution.

Organizational innovation also played a role. In railroads, treaties now allowed unlimited freight interchange. Rolling stock — railroad cars — from one road could move onto tracks owned by another, and while there, discharge and pick up cargo, and even be repaired in a “foreign” yard. The agreements and uniform tariff schedules that permitted this were critical in enabling U.S. railroads to carry more freight and almost as many passengers in 1941 as they did in 1929, using many fewer employees, cars, and locomotives.

Q. I think you’re saying that the Depression itself was not the fundamental reason for the innovation boom in the 1930s — the time just happened to be right. Or did the downturn itself play a role? And, in that case, is there any reason to hope that our current slump is laying the groundwork for future progress?

Mr. Field: On the one hand, it would be disingenuous to try and console those out of work with the thought that their sacrifices are laying the foundation for a better tomorrow. On the other hand, there is evidence that for some organizations and industries, just as for some individuals, adversity summons reservoirs of initiative and creativity that have long-term positive consequences. And based on Depression experience, we can be optimistic that when exciting technological paradigms are ripe for exploitation, work will continue on them, slump or no slump.

In thinking about the future, however, we should not overlook the important role played by the government. Federal spending was too small prior to the war to compensate for the decline in private sector capital formation and thus close the output gap. But it had big benefits on the aggregate supply side, as it complemented private sector initiative in expanding potential output.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9e4931061b1a46274c19a7724594872c