November 22, 2024

Low Expectations for Debt Deal, but Fears Remain

But that does not mean failure will be met with a shrug.

At stake is not simply the country’s fiscal health, but also what remains of the government’s credibility. Without an agreement in sight, investors, business leaders and consumers, already worried about the deepening crisis in Europe, have begun to brace for the possibility of yet another blow to a fragile recovery, this time from Washington.

 “The decision of the supercommittee goes beyond just the budget. It’s become a symbol now of the ability of our elected representatives to get something done,” said Frank Newport, the editor in chief of Gallup, which tracks public opinion of politics and the economy. “And if the supercommittee fails, I think the reaction of the public, based on the data, will be even more negative, not just about the government but their confidence in the economy in general.”

  As if to underscore this point, the committee’s deadline arrives in perfect alignment with the holiday shopping season. Consumer confidence, which collapsed under the threat of a government default this summer, has just begun to convalesce. Business leaders have grown increasingly pessimistic since the summer, with many chief executives pleading for bold action to lower the deficit.

 The debt woes now infecting even the larger economies in Europe should serve as a wake-up call in the United States, James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, said on Thursday.

 Despite those warnings, the special committee has been unable to make much progress. If it fails, $1.2 trillion in cuts will begin to take effect. That outcome was built into the law in the summer, after the debate over raising the debt ceiling brought the country uncomfortably close to default, and was meant to pressure the committee into a resolution.

Lately, there has been talk of a possible two-step solution that merely sets goals for revenue and spending and leaves the details to be worked out later.

Pessimism is running so high, and public approval of Congress is so low, it is not clear that such an outcome would be perceived as a success.

“They’re going to agree on anything just to pacify everything for the next six months or a year,” said Tim Scott, 56, who owns a construction company in Washington State.

“All they’re doing is putting a Band-Aid on everything.” Mr. Scott said he had bought land for a new house but had put off building until the economy’s direction became clear.

A weak agreement could send the wrong signal to skittish investors. “That would introduce uncertainty, and demonstrate the inability of Congress to make decisions,” said Zane E. Brown, the fixed-income strategist at asset management firm Lord Abbett. “That supports S. P.’s contention behind why they downgraded us in the first place and perhaps justifies in their minds an additional downgrade. That is a risk few investors are anticipating.”

In August, Standard Poor’s, the ratings agency, cited political brinksmanship in Washington when it downgraded the country from AAA, the agency’s top credit rating.

While few analysts actually expect more reductions in the credit rating of the United States, the agencies have left open that possibility.

In mid-September, S. P. warned of a one-in-three chance that the rating would be cut again within the next two years. The agency has said it will be watching the committee’s deliberations.

Moody’s confirmed the top rating for American government debt over the summer but with a negative outlook. Even if the committee does not reach an agreement, Moody’s said it would probably not lead to a downgrade if the automatic spending cuts went into effect. Some Republicans, though, have promised to prevent the cuts if no agreement is reached.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d727b7304a75f5b64353c2c2f993891b

Murdochs Caught a Break at Hearing, Stock Analysts Say

Instead of finding a signal that this was the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch’s run at the helm of his company, analysts stressed that there was no single revelatory moment during the proceedings. If the Murdochs seemed at times distant, even oblivious, to what was going on in their own company, there were no obvious admissions of wrongdoing or glaring contradictions in their testimony, analysts said.

“This was the best day these guys have had in a really long time,” said David Bank, media analyst for RBC Capital Markets. “No shoe dropped, no smoking gun was found, it all sort of sounded kind of contained.”

After losing billions of dollars in market value, the News Corporation’s stock recovered a significant chunk of its value on the Nasdaq, rising almost 6 percent during the day to close at $16.25 a share. And after Mr. Murdoch and his son James concluded two hours of often tense testimony to a House of Commons committee, there was little of the widespread scorn that has greeted almost everything the Murdochs have said and done in the more than two weeks since the most recent voice mail hacking scandal at News Corporation’s British newspaper operation erupted.

Summing up the high stakes and low expectations surrounding the hearing, another analyst, Thomas Eagan of Collins Stewart, noted: “Neither Rupert nor James did any damage to the company.”

Inside the company, executives seemed relieved at how relatively smoothly the process went.

“No one is despondent, no one thinks this went poorly,” said one person briefed on Tuesday’s events who asked not to be identified revealing private conversations. “I wouldn’t bet against those two.”

The day was not without its moments of anxiety for News Corporation executives and the team of outside personnel who spent the weekend preparing the Murdochs for their testimony. Both men expected to deliver opening statements. But just minutes before the hearing began, they were informed that no such remarks would be permitted.

The elder Murdoch’s headline remark from the hearing — that Tuesday was “the most humble day of my life” — was actually part of the scripted statement he had hoped to make. The News Corporation released the statement while Mr. Murdoch was still testifying. And Mr. Murdoch spoke it in full at the very end of the hearing.

Mr. Murdoch did appear to be thrown off in the beginning, struggling to complete his thoughts and pausing often as he spoke — a loss of orientation that some in his inner circle attributed to his surprise over not being allowed to deliver introductory remarks. But as the afternoon wore on, he appeared more collected. The same was true of his son.

Analysts noted that the market was watching James in particular, looking for signs of whether the man who is presumed to be the chief executive heir apparent was up to the task.

“It was a credibility-building day for James,” Mr. Bank said. “I don’t know that it makes succession by him any more definite, but it prevented what could have been the event of making it far less likely.”

And the market appeared to like what it saw. “Every time James spoke, the stock ticked up,” Mr. Bank added.

The elder Murdoch was being carefully watched by analysts who had been critical of his recent decisions at News Corporation and who have argued that he should step down as chief executive to remove the financial drag his leadership is causing the stock. Instead, Mr. Murdoch took the opportunity to reassert his control of the company.

When he was asked by Louise Mensch, a Conservative lawmaker, if he had ever considered resigning. “No,” he said emphatically.

“Because I feel that people that I trusted let me down, I think that they behaved disgracefully,” he said. “Frankly, I am the best person to clean this up.”

Even the attack by a pie-wielding assailant on the elder Murdoch seemed to work in his favor. After a 15-minute break in which the assailant was taken away by the police, Rupert Murdoch reappeared at the witness table in shirtsleeves and the dynamic in the room and on the cable channels covering the hearing live shifted in his favor.

The company still faces a reckoning on multiple fronts — in the British and American legal systems, on Wall Street and in the court of public opinion — that threatens its reputation and certainly its future in the newspapers. Reuters reported Tuesday night that the company’s independent directors had hired two prominent lawyers, former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Mary Jo White, a former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, to advise them.

Though Mr. Murdoch may have outperformed many expectations on Tuesday, he showed signs of strain at times.

Martin Dunn, a former News Corporation executive who most recently edited a rival newspaper, The Daily News in New York, said the elder Mr. Murdoch seemed tired, stressed and “a little beaten up” by the hearing process.

“It must be very hard, at 80 years of age, after spending four decades building up a company, to find yourself under attack in what is an unprecedented way,” Mr. Dunn said of the elder Mr. Murdoch. “I think that showed.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=73e84cb4c615a398732f991031890b08