Connect with us

Uncategorized

Yellen Warns Next Crisis Could Come From ‘Shadow Banks’ And Regulators Must Act

Yellen Warns Next Crisis Could Come From ‘Shadow Banks’ And Regulators Must Act

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Treasury…

Published

on

Yellen Warns Next Crisis Could Come From 'Shadow Banks' And Regulators Must Act

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Thursday said banking rules may need to be tightened after the recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank, while warning of structural vulnerabilities that must be addressed in the “shadow bank” sector that includes things like hedge funds and money market funds.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testifies before the Senate Finance Committee in on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on March 16, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In remarks prepared for delivery to the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), Yellen said that banking regulation and supervisory rules need to be reexamined in the wake of the twin collapses of SVB and Signature, which were sparked by bank runs.

“Anytime a bank fails, it is cause for serious concern. Regulatory requirements have been loosened in recent years. I believe it is appropriate to assess the impact of these deregulatory decisions and take any necessary actions in response,” Yellen said.

Yellen said a 2018 roll-back of bank capital requirements and stronger supervision for smaller and mid-size banks with assets below $250 billion should be reevaluated.

She added that regulatory reforms put in place after the 2008 financial crisis have helped the U.S. financial system cope with shocks, but that gaps remain and there’s scope to bolster resiliency.

“But the failures of two regional banks this month demonstrate that our business is unfinished,” Yellen said, adding that the U.S. financial system is now considerably more robust to shocks than it was during the previous crisis a dozen or so years ago.

This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that we’ve seen relative stability in the overall banking sector this month, even as concerns grew about specific institutions,” she said.

Smaller community and regional banks have seen a rise in deposit outflows following the failures of SVB and Signature while big banks seen as “too big to fail” and more likely to be bailed out have been the beneficiaries. This has led to concerns that as deposits flee local banks, their provision of credit will dwindle, with negative economic impacts, especially on small businesses.

Yellen said it was important for regulators to assess whether the current supervisory and regulatory regimes are adequate for the risks that banks face and, if not, then policymakers “must act.”

While she made no specific proposals for tighter regulatory and supervisory standards, she said any next steps must take into account the “health and competitiveness of our vibrant community and regional banking institutions,” which could face an outsized impact from more regulations.

She acknowledged that more regulation means bigger and costlier burdens on banks in general, but that such costs “pale in comparison to the tragic costs of financial crises.”

Shadow Banks in Crosshairs

In her speech, Yellen called for tighter regulation of the growing non-bank or “shadow bank” sector, which includes money market funds, hedge funds, and crypto assets.

In the traditional banking sector, there are rules and measures in place to reduce the risk of bank runs. Alongside capital and liquidity requirements for banks, there are also deposit guarantees provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which all reduce the likelihood that depositors will rush to withdraw their savings at the first sign of trouble.

“Yet the financial stability risks posed by money market and open-end funds have not been sufficiently addressed,” Yellen cautioned.

Money market funds, in particular, are vulnerable to runs and fire sales, Yellen said, in part due to the so-called “first-mover advantage” that established an incentive for investors to redeem “at the whiff of a problem.”

The first-mover advantage in context of money market funds means that the first redeemers can exit the fund at $1 per share, while those who wait may be subject to a reduced market value and so take a haircut. This creates an incentive for investors to redeem at the first sign of a problem, which can lead to runs and panic sales that pose a risk to financial stability.

During the 2008 financial crisis, expected losses on Lehman Brothers commercial paper led to a run on the $62 billion Reserve Primary Fund, which in turn sparked concerns about commercial paper issued by other banks and led to runs on other money market funds.

The first-mover advantage was also at play in March 2020 amid the pandemic shock, when a record $255 billion flowed out of bond mutual funds, Yellen noted.

This and other structural vulnerabilities regarding money market and open-end funds aren’t new, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has, over the past two years, sought to address them through new regulatory proposals.

In particular, the SEC’s proposals would reduce the first-mover advantage and also require new liquidity management tools and mandate that these funds provide investors and the SEC with more comprehensive and timely information.

‘Negative Spiral of Margin Calls’

Hedge funds, meanwhile, which had nearly $10 trillion in gross assets in 2021, face leverage risks, Yellen said.

“Leverage can support economic growth, but excessive leverage is dangerous. It can add fuel to fire sales by triggering a negative spiral of margin calls and rapid asset liquidations,” she said. These fire sales can transmit stress to other market participants, including large, systemically important banks.

Post-crisis banking regulations have helped reduce the potential of spillovers to the banking system. But spillovers from these fire sales to other market participants remain a risk,” Yellen said.

Yellen said that, in an effort to address these risks, the multi-regulator Financial Stability Oversight Council’s restored Hedge Fund Working Group will continue to monitor them and develop policy recommendations.

Also on the Treasury secretary’s radar for systemic vulnerabilities that could seed a financial crisis are digital assets. Of particular concern are stablecoins, which could also be forced into asset fire sales in times of stress.

“A run on one stablecoin can lead to panicked runs on other stablecoins—causing even broader selloffs,” Yellen said, adding that Congress should pass legislation to establish a comprehensive prudential regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers and for other digital assets.

Yellen said the Biden administration is studying the potential for systemic risks from digital assets.

“And we are also exploring broader policy issues around the future of money and payments, including the possibility of a central bank digital currency,” Yellen said.

Meanwhile, global banking regulators have been discussing stepping up scrutiny of how risks from systemically important shadow banks could destabilize lenders.

Pablo Hernández de Cos, chair of the global Basel Committee, which writes bank capital rules that are applied across the world, said in a speech last week that additional guidance for managing shadow bank risks should be rolled out sometime this year.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/31/2023 - 15:47

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending