Yellen Meets Activists on Economy
McClatchy Washington Bureau - November 14, 2014 - Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen met Friday with leaders of groups that want a voice in the selection of future presidents at the Fed’s 12...
McClatchy Washington Bureau - November 14, 2014 - Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen met Friday with leaders of groups that want a voice in the selection of future presidents at the Fed’s 12 district banks.
“The focus was making sure that working families’ voices were heard,” Connie Paredes of Dallas, who represented the Texas Organizing Project, told McClatchy after meeting more than an hour with Yellen.
Paredes was one of 30 activists from the Center for Popular Democracy, a nationwide network of liberal and faith-based organizations who want more Fed attention on returning the nation to full employment, and for a more public process of selecting Fed presidents.
Unlike most central banks, the Fed has a dual mission. It must guarantee price stability, and it does that with the goal of keeping inflation in a range between 1 percent and 2 percent. But it also has the mission of promoting full employment, and that’s the string activists pulled on Friday.
“The Federal Reserve should publicly commit to building an economy with genuine full employment … promising to keep interest rates low until the economy has reached full speed and is producing millions of new jobs and higher wages for workers across the economic spectrum,” said The National Campaign for a Strong Economy, another group that met with Yellen and issued a statement afterwards.
A pressing concern for the activists was creating a mechanism by which ordinary people can have some input in the selection of presidents at the Fed’s 12 district banks. The presidents of the Philadelphia and Dallas district banks, Charles Plosser and Richard Fisher, have announced their retirement next year.
Traditionally, Fed presidents are appointed by the board of directors of each of the 12 banks, with the approval of Fed governors in Washington. The terms are for five years, and they can be reappointed. Critics of the Fed argue that Wall Street and Corporate America get unusual sway because they make up the boards of directors at the Fed banks, and there hasn’t historically been input from the public.
“We need a (Dallas) Fed president that is very aware of the community that he or she represents. Not just the corporate banking community but the entire community,” said Paredes, who applauded Philadelphia’s creation of a feedback process but still wanted more public participation in the Fed’s selection process.
The Fed had no immediate comment on Friday’s meetings.
Source
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/14/246944_yellen-meets-activists-on-e...Hundreds of New Yorkers gather at MOMA PS1 to raise money for Puerto Rico
Hundreds of New Yorkers gather at MOMA PS1 to raise money for Puerto Rico
The movement to help hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico continues. Hundreds of New Yorkers attended a fundraiser at MOMA PS1 in Long Island City Wednesday night.
According to organizers, all the...
The movement to help hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico continues. Hundreds of New Yorkers attended a fundraiser at MOMA PS1 in Long Island City Wednesday night.
According to organizers, all the money raised for the Hurricane Maria Community Relief and Recovery Fund will go towards relief work and supplies on the island.
Watch the video and read the article here.
A City Invokes Seizure Laws to Save Homes
The power of eminent domain has traditionally worked against homeowners, who can be forced to sell their property to make way for a new highway or shopping mall. But now the working-class city of...
The power of eminent domain has traditionally worked against homeowners, who can be forced to sell their property to make way for a new highway or shopping mall. But now the working-class city of Richmond, Calif., hopes to use the same legal tool to help people stay right where they are.
Scarcely touched by the nation’s housing recovery and tired of waiting for federal help, Richmond is about to become the first city in the nation to try eminent domain as a way to stop foreclosures.
The results will be closely watched by both Wall Street banks, which have vigorously opposed the use of eminent domain to buy mortgages and reduce homeowner debt, and a host of cities across the country that are considering emulating Richmond.
The banks have warned that such a move will bring down a hail of lawsuits and all but halt mortgage lending in any city with the temerity to try it.
But local officials, frustrated at the lack of large-scale relief from the Obama administration, relatively free of the influence that Wall Street wields in Washington, and faced with fraying neighborhoods and a depleted middle class, are beginning to shrug off those threats.
“We’re not willing to back down on this,” said Gayle McLaughlin, the former schoolteacher who is serving her second term as Richmond’s mayor. “They can put forward as much pressure as they would like but I’m very committed to this program and I’m very committed to the well-being of our neighborhoods.”
Despite rising home prices in many parts of the country, including California, roughly half of all homeowners with mortgages in Richmond are underwater, meaning they owe more — in some cases three or four times as much more — than their home is currently worth. On Monday, the city sent a round of letters to the owners and servicers of the loans, offering to buy 626 underwater loans. In some cases, the homeowner is already behind on the payments. Others are considered to be at risk of default, mainly because home values have fallen so much that the homeowner has little incentive to keep paying.
Many cities, particularly those where minority residents were steered into predatory loans, face a situation similar to that in Richmond, which is largely black and Hispanic. About two dozen other local and state governments, including Newark, Seattle and a handful of cities in California, are looking at the eminent domain strategy, according to a count by Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor and one of the plan’s chief proponents. Irvington, N.J., passed a resolution supporting its use in July. North Las Vegas will consider an eminent domain proposal in August, and El Monte, Calif., is poised to act after hearing out the opposition this week.
But the cities face an uphill battle. Some have already backed off, and those that proceed will be challenged in court. After San Bernardino County dropped the idea earlier this year, a network of housing groups and unions began working to win community support and develop nonprofit alternatives to Mortgage Resolution Partners, the firm that is managing the Richmond program.
“Our local electeds can’t do this alone, they need the backup support from their constituents,” said Amy Schur, a campaign director for the national Home Defenders League. “That’s what’s been the game changer in this effort.”
Richmond is offering to buy both current and delinquent loans. To defend against the charge that irresponsible homeowners who used their homes as A.T.M.’s are being helped at the expense of investors, the first pool of 626 loans does not include any homes with large second mortgages, said Steven M. Gluckstern, the chairman of Mortgage Resolution Partners.
The city is offering to buy the loans at what it considers the fair market value. In a hypothetical example, a home mortgaged for $400,000 is now worth $200,000. The city plans to buy the loan for $160,000, or about 80 percent of the value of the home, a discount that factors in the risk of default.
Then, the city would write down the debt to $190,000 and allow the homeowner to refinance at the new amount, probably through a government program. The $30,000 difference goes to the city, the investors who put up the money to buy the loan, closing costs and M.R.P. The homeowner would go from owing twice what the home is worth to having $10,000 in equity.
All of the loans in question are tied up in what are called private label securities, meaning they were bundled and sold to private investors. Such loans are generally the most unfavorable to borrowers and the most likely to default, Mr. Gluckstern said. But they are also the most difficult to modify because they are controlled by loan servicers and trustees for the investors, not the investors themselves. If Richmond’s purchase offer is declined, the city intends to use eminent domain to condemn and buy the loans.
The banks and the real estate industry have argued that such a move would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. But Mr. Hockett says that all types of property, not just land and buildings, are subject to eminent domain if the government can show it is needed to promote the public good, in this case fighting blight and keeping communities intact. Railroad stocks, private bus companies, sports teams and even some mortgages have been subject to eminent domain.
Opponents, including the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors and some big investors have mounted a concerted opposition campaign on multiple levels, including flying lobbyists to California city halls and pressuring Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration to use their control of the mortgage industry to ban the practice.
Tim Cameron, the head of Sifma’s Asset Management Group, said any city using eminent domain would make borrowing more expensive for everyone in the community and divert profits from the investors who now own the loan to M.R.P. and the investors financing the new program. “Eminent domain is used for roads and schools and bridges that benefit an entire community, not something that cherry-picks who the winners are and who the losers are,” he said.
Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, has introduced a bill that would prohibit Fannie, Freddie and the F.H.A. from making, guaranteeing or insuring a mortgage in any community that has used eminent domain in this way. Eminent domain supporters say such limits would constitute a throwback to the illegal practice called redlining, when banks refused to lend in minority communities.
Opponents have also employed hardball tactics. In North Las Vegas, a mass mailer paid for by real estate brokers warned that M.R.P. had “hatched a plan to make millions of dollars by foreclosing on homeowners who are current on their payments.”
In a letter to the Justice Department, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California complained that the opposition was violating antitrust laws and that one unnamed hedge fund had threatened an investor in the project.
But not all mortgage investors oppose the plan. Some have long argued that writing down homeowner debt makes sense in many cases. “This is not the first choice, but it’s rapidly becoming the only choice on how to fix this mess,” said William Frey, an investor advocate.
Mr. Frey said that the big banks were terrified that if eminent domain strategies became widespread, they would engulf not only primary mortgages but some $450 billion in second liens and home equity loans that are on the banks’ balance sheets. “It has nothing to do with morality or anything like that, it has to do with second liens.”
Many of the communities considering eminent domain were targeted by lenders who steered minority families eligible for conventional mortgages into loans with higher interest rates and ballooning payments. Robert and Patricia Castillo bought a three-bedroom, one-bathroom home in Richmond because their son, who is severely autistic, would anger landlords with his destructive impulses. They paid $420,000 for a home that is now worth $125,000, Mr. Castillo, a mechanic, said.
They have watched as their daughter’s playmates on the block have, one by one, lost their homes. But they are reluctant to walk away from the house in part for the sake of their son.
“We’re in a bad situation,” Mr. Castillo, 44, said. “Not only me and my family, but the whole of Richmond.”
Source:
Zara accused of creating culture of customer discrimination in new report
Black customers at Spanish fashion retailer Zara’s New York stores have been disproportionately identified as potential thieves, a significant proportion of employees surveyed by the Center for Popular Democracy have claimed in a new report released on Monday.
A survey of 251 employees and a round of focus groups conducted by the union-allied workers’ rights campaign group claims there is a practice within Zara to label suspicious customers or potential thieves with the code words “special orders”. Once a “special order” was identified and his or her location radioed to employees’ headsets, an employee would follow that customer around, the report claims.
Forty-three percent of the respondents did not answer questions referring to “special orders” or said they did not know the term.
But out of the 57% that did respond to that question, 46% claimed black customers were called special orders “always” or “often”, compared with 14% who said the same about Latino customers and 7% about whites.
Employees quoted in the survey claimed special orders were identified by “dressing a certain way” and were “mostly African American”, according to the CPD. One employee told the group he felt “that black customers were targeted when it came to stealing”, the report said.
One black employee claimed that when he had come in to pick up a check one day wearing a hooded jacket he was identified as a special order and prevented from entering a back office.
Connie Razza, CPD’s director of strategic research, said the code words used at Zara had now changed from “special orders” to a request for “customer service” to go to the location of the suspicious customer.
The report also claims that employees of color face unequal conditions within the company’s eight New York City stores.
“I was expecting some level of discrimination, but the degree of disparity with workers getting raises and hours that vary so dramatically was surprising,” said Razza.
The report claims:
Black employees are more than twice as dissatisfied with their hours as white employees.
Darker-skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers.
Lighter-skinned employees of color and white employees experienced better treatment within the company, with higher status assignments, more work hours and a stronger likelihood of being promoted.
Many of the employees interviewed felt there was favoritism within the company based on race.
Razza said that while the retail industry was known for unpredictable working schedules and low wages, the situation was “even worse for black employees”.
The report, compiled from surveys conducted between February and April, claimed employees said that managers showed favoritism, and “many of the employees interviewed felt that favoritism is based on race”.
Such favoritism, they said, can have an impact on promotions, the distribution of work hours and management evaluation and treatment, the report claimed.
Of the 251 employees surveyed, 130 identified as Hispanic, 59 as black, 34 as white, 12 as Asian and 11 as mixed race. Employees were also identified by their skin color on a scale of one to four, with one indicating very light skin and four indicating dark skin. There are approximately 1,500 Zara employees in New York, suggesting one-sixth were surveyed.
“We found darker skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers,” Razza said.
In some instances, the report claims, managers told employees not to take the survey. On at least one occasion, managers called the police on one of the employees taking the survey, the CPD claims.
A spokesperson for Zara USA denied any of the claims were accurate.
“Zara USA vehemently refutes the findings of the Center for Popular Democracy report, which was published without any attempt to contact the company,” the spokesperson said in a statement to the Guardian.
“The baseless report was prepared with ulterior motives and not because of any actual discrimination or mistreatment,” the statement went on. “It makes assertions that cannot be supported and do not reflect Zara’s diverse workforce. Zara USA believes that the report is completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,500 Zara employees in New York City.
“We are an equal opportunity employer, and if there are individuals who are not satisfied with any aspect of their employment, we have multiple avenues for them to raise issues that we would immediately investigate and address.”
Referring to the claims about black customers being disproportionately identified with the code words “special orders”, it said: “We are a global multicultural company serving valued customers across 88 countries, and do not tolerate discrimination of any form.”
In a later statement, a Zara USA spokesperson added: “The expression ‘special order’ is a term used to designate a common situation in which associates are requested to enforce customer service and zone coverage on the floor. It does not designate a person or group of people of any category.”
Referring to claims about discrimination in promotions, the spokesperson said: “In its most recent round of internal promotions at Zara USA, approximately half were Hispanic or African American employees. In addition, approximately half of all hours are regularly allocated to Hispanic or African American employees. These facts clearly demonstrate that diversity and equal opportunity are two of the company’s core values.”
According Zara, approximately half of all Zara USA’s employees are Hispanic or African American.
The report arrives on the heels of a $40m discrimination lawsuit filed earlier this month by Ian Miller, who was general counsel for Zara USA Inc from 2008 until this March. According to the lawsuit, Miller – who is Jewish, American and gay – said he was excluded from meetings, given smaller raises than co-workers and subjected to racist, homophobic and antisemitic remarks because he did not fit the company’s “preferred profile” of Christian, Spanish and straight.
Miller also claimed his harassers were protected from punishment by company founder Amancio Ortega Gaona. He sued Zara, his former supervisor Dilip Patel and former Zara USA CEO Moíses Costas Rodríguez, under various New York state and city laws prohibiting pay discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation and hostile work environments.
Razza claimed discrimination pervaded the whole company.
“It’s a corporate culture that’s very problematic,” she said. “The lawsuit brings to light the depth that discrimination pervades Zara USA. Given the revelations of the lawsuit, we felt it was very important to reflect that it happens across all levels.”
The lawsuit and report follow a number of occasions during which Zara was criticized for selling items with racially insensitive designs. A bag embroidered with swastikas was pulled from stores after customers complained in 2007. In 2013, Zara sold necklaces with figurines in blackface.
Last August, the retailer was the subject of a backlash from customers for two different shirt designs — one striped and emblazoned with a gold star that resembled uniforms worn by Jewish victims in Nazi concentration camps and the second a white T-shirt displaying the words “White is the New Black”.
There is a recent history of controversies over alleged racism in the New York retail sector. In 2013, Macy’s and Barneys, two of New York’s most famous department stores, faced investigation from the state attorney general after several customers accused the stores of racially based discrimination.
Macy’s and Barneys both came to settlements for $650,000 and $525,000, respectively, in August 2014.
Razza said the CPD focused on Zara because of the company’s concentration in New York City and recent organization efforts by workers for fair wages at Zara.
Source: The Guardian
Video: Mas de 30,000 empleados de Toys “R” Us piden su Indemnizacion
Video: Mas de 30,000 empleados de Toys “R” Us piden su Indemnizacion
Esta demanda se está llevando a cabo gracias a una campaña que cuenta con el apoyo del grupo activista Center for Popular Democracy. Más de 50,000 personas han firmado una petición reclamando a la...
Esta demanda se está llevando a cabo gracias a una campaña que cuenta con el apoyo del grupo activista Center for Popular Democracy. Más de 50,000 personas han firmado una petición reclamando a la compañía este derecho monetario.
Mira el video aquí.
Fed Up Panels Solve Wage Stagnation Puzzle: Corporate Power Makes Markets Uncompetitive
09.23.2018
JACKSON HOLE, WY — Today, experts on our economy came together in Jackson Hole, Wyoming to...
09.23.2018
JACKSON HOLE, WY — Today, experts on our economy came together in Jackson Hole, Wyoming to talk about how market power keeps wages down and what the Federal Reserve can do to address it. Though Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said the reason for stagnant wages was “a puzzle.”
The panel, called “Putting the Puzzle Together: How Market Concentration Explains Slow Wage Growth and What the Fed Can Do About it” was organized by Fed Up. Panelists, including Roosevelt Institute Research Director and Fellow Marshall Steinbaum, Open Markets Institute Policy Counsel Sandeep Vaheesan, retail worker Nick Gallant, and labor studies and employment relations doctoral student Phela Townsend, discussed how an analysis of the role of market power in our economy would shift the Federal Reserve’s directive.
This year, the theme of the Federal Reserve’s economic symposium is “Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy.” According to panelists, market consolidation means that the Fed needs to fundamentally shift the assumptions on which their monetary policy models rest.
Setting the scene for the panel, Fed Up Campaign Director Shawn Sebastian said, “The reason for stagnant wages is actually not a hard puzzle to solve. The data is right in front of us. The difficulty for the Fed is not in figuring out what the impact of increased market power is on wages -- consolidation keeps wages low by decreasing worker power. What’s hard for the Fed is giving up outdated frameworks from the 1980s that are not relevant to the economy today.”
Retail worker Nick Gallant spoke about his experience as a retail worker. He said:
“I can’t go to school because I have no control over my schedule and I need to work full time to pay rent and survive. I live on paycheck to paycheck and sometimes I don’t have enough money to buy bare necessities and I have to come up with creative ways to eat because desperate times call for desperate measures. If I left this job, I would simply be looking at another job like this. This is being a retail worker in America.”
Economic policy and labor experts added:
“When the economy grows, it doesn’t benefit everyone -- only major shareholders and CEOs,” said Marshall Steinbaum, Research Director and Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. “Market power makes the economy grow less because companies don’t invest or hire workers. They pay out to the wealthiest stakeholders. And with fewer corporations dominating labor markets, they are able to keep wages down.”
“The economy is a construct of law and politics,” said Sandeep Vaheesan, Policy Counsel at the Open Markets Institute. “Our current predicament wasn’t inevitable -- it is the result of decades of prioritizing corporate and investor interests over those of working people. This is far from a puzzle. It’s straightforward decision making by those in power -- and these choices can be changed. In understanding the economy and making decisions on monetary and regulatory policy, the Fed needs to realize that markets just plain aren’t competitive but defined by employer power and worker weakness. They need models that reflect our economic reality.”
“This is not really new. As we look at the trajectory of what has happened in recent decades and what has happened to wages historically, we are really talking about how workers’ power has been weakened through the decline of unions and the erosion of other workers protections and rights. This has severely diminished workers’ ability to have a voice and a say over economic and other working conditions, or to find a job elsewhere with better conditions,” said Phela Townsend, doctoral student in Labor Studies and Employment Relations at the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers-New Brunswick. “Unleashed corporate power, on top of weakened worker power, silences workers and keeps them from advocating for the wages that many of them need to survive.”
The panel comes the day before the Federal Reserve hosts a number of panels on the subject of market power. During the economic symposium, working people from across the country will host educational sessions and discuss how the Federal Reserve has ignored the needs of working people.
You can access a recording of the panel here.
###
Media Contact: Lia Weintraub, lweintraub@populardemocracy.org
The Activists Who Helped Shut Down Trump’s CEO Councils
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15...
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15 press conference where the president praised some of the participants of last week’s white supremacist rampage in Charlottesville, Virginia.
But many of the CEOs on these councils had been under heavy pressure to disavow Trump’s agenda of hate and racism even before Charlottesville. That pressure came from grass-roots activists.
The Center for Popular Democracy, Make the Road New York, New York Communities for Change and several other immigrant and worker advocates had led that activist campaign, targeting the leaders of nine major corporations affiliated with the Trump administration. The campaign, working through a website called Corporate Backers of Hate, detailed the connections between the nine companies and the Trump administration and encouraged people to send emails to both the CEOs involved and members of their corporate boards.
Read the full article here.
The Fair Workweek Initiative Takes on Abusive Scheduling Practices on Aljazeera America
Aljazeera America - July 24, 2014 - The Center for Popular Democracy's Fair Workweek Initiative Director Carrie Gleason joins Aljazeera America to discuss how unfair work scheduling impedes low-...
Aljazeera America - July 24, 2014 - The Center for Popular Democracy's Fair Workweek Initiative Director Carrie Gleason joins Aljazeera America to discuss how unfair work scheduling impedes low-wage workers from dignity and justice on the job.
Activists Rally in Front of Federal Reserve, Calling for End to ‘Economic Racism’
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an...
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an organizer for Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.
In St. Louis, the unemployment rates for the black community remains triple the rate of white residents, 14.1 percent compared to 5.7 percent for whites, he said. However, some economists claim that the economy is rapidly approaching full employment.
“Is there only one set of the population that matters?” he said. “And if they are alright, we’re all alright? That’s something we can’t accept.”
Today (March 5,) activists attempted to ask James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, those same questions. At noon, a coalition of community-based organizations, faith leaders, elected officials, labor unions, and service organizations gathered in front of the bank in downtown St. Louis City, as a part of the national Fed Up Campaign (whatrecovery.org). They pointed to a new report released this month that details the difficulties for African-American families to find living wage employment. The report is titled, “Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate.”
In response to the protest, a St. Louis Fed spokewoman stated in an email to the St. Louis American: “We are aware of the protest at the St. Louis Fed and respect people’s right to protest peacefully.”
The coalition asked Bullard to prioritize full employment and rising wages for all communities. Laney said as the economy starts to recover, some are calling for the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent wages from rising – which would severely impact families still struggling to recover from the Great Recession. Tomorrow, the St. Louis Fed will release new numbers regarding unemployment, and in mid-March its leaders will meet to discuss its policies. Laney said they hoped the action today will help “shape those discussions.”
The report emphasizes that the Federal Reserve is responsible for keeping inflation stable, regulating the financial system and ensuring full employment.
“These mandates reflect the tension between the interests of Wall Street on the one hand and Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the other,” the report states. “As a general matter, corporate and finance executives want to limit wage growth— or, as they call it, ‘wage inflation’—and to maximize their future profits from lending money.”
The report argues that in past decades, the Federal Reserve resolved this tension in favor of banks and corporations, intentionally limiting wage growth and keeping unemployment excessively high.
“The Fed’s policy choices over the past 35 years have led to increased inequality, stagnant or falling wages, and an American Dream that is inaccessible to tens of millions of families—particularly Black families,” it states.
Since the Ferguson movement began, local and national leaders have emphasized the need to address the “structural racism” in the region.
“Economic racism cannot be delinked from racism by law enforcement and other governmental entities,” according to the coalition’s statement. “However, James Bullard has been silent on issues of economics and their impacts on communities of color in the region over the past seven months. Today, we are bringing these issues to his front door.”
Source
Five things to watch for as the Federal Reserve makes its rate hike decision
The typical Federal Reserve monetary policy announcement has all the drama of a traffic signal.
Officials provide enough hints beforehand that there's little surprise when the news comes...
The typical Federal Reserve monetary policy announcement has all the drama of a traffic signal.
Officials provide enough hints beforehand that there's little surprise when the news comes about whether they have given the green light to an interest rate change.
That's not the case Thursday.
Nearly a decade after the last increase in the benchmark federal funds rate — and after almost seven years of keeping it at the unprecedented level of near-zero — central bank policymakers will announce if the time has come for an increase.
Analysts said the potential for a rate hike is too close to call as the Federal Open Market Committee on Thursday wraps up its most eagerly awaited meeting in years.
There have been fewer than normal signals from Fed policymakers, including an unusual two months of public silence from Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen.
And the turmoil in financial markets that began in late August has dampened expectations that the Fed would raise the target level for the rate by 0.25 percentage point this month.
Here are five things to watch for when the Fed makes its announcement at 11 a.m. Pacific time, followed 30 minutes later by a news conference with Yellen.
One and done
In June and July, Yellen said she expected a rate hike this year, and most analysts put their money on September.
But that was before China devalued its currency late last month. The move, a signal that the Chinese economy was slowing, roiled financial markets. Many fear a Fed rate hike could add to the volatility.
The 0.25 percentage point increase in itself is minor.
"If the Fed moves the rates a quarter of a point, it probably isn’t going to have a significant impact in how CEOs invest and hire over the next 12 months," AT&T Inc. Chief Executive Randall Stephenson said this week.
But the expectation has been that once the Fed started raising the rate, it would continue with 0.25 percentage point increases at just about every meeting for the near future.
That would be part of a long, slow climb back to about the 3% level the rate averaged from 2001 to 2007.
If the Fed goes ahead with a rate hike Thursday, it could try to soften the impact by signaling there won't be another increase for a while.
Some analysts have called that a "one and done" rate hike.
Policymakers could indicate that approach in their policy statement. They also could show that in their estimations in the accompanying quarterly economic projections, which contain each member's evaluation of where the federal funds rate would be at the end of the year.
Or Yellen could simply state it when she addresses reporters after the meeting.
Split the baby
If Fed officials are torn between a 0.25 percentage point rate hike or no rate hike at all, some think they could split the difference with a mini-hike of 0.125 percentage point.
The Fed frequently moved the rate by increments of an eighth of a point in the 1970s and '80s. But it hasn't made such a minor move since 1989.
It's unclear whether a mini-hike would make everyone happy. It could end up upsetting both those wanting a rate hike and those opposed to one.
But don't be shocked if the rate moves up by less than 0.25 percentage point.
All aboard
On a major policy decision like the first rate hike since 2006, Yellen will strive for consensus.
Recent Fed history shows that will be difficult to obtain.
Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., one of the 10 voting members of the FOMC, could be a dissenter if the committee votes to hold the rate steady.
He said this month that "it's time to align our monetary policy with the significant progress we have made."
On the other side, John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, warned this month of "pretty significant" headwinds for the U.S. economy that have "grown larger" recently.
And the committee's vice chair, William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said late last month that the case for a September rate hike had become "less compelling" amid concerns about the global economy.
Dudley, a close ally of Yellen's, is unlikely to dissent if the rate is raised. But Williams could.
Yellen probably will try for a unanimous vote to send a clear signal to financial markets about the Fed's view of the economy. Getting such a vote could be a big accomplishment.
Market reaction
The lack of clear signals from the Fed about what it will do Thursday could translate into a wild ride on Wall Street and in financial markets abroad after the news breaks.
By one indicator based on federal funds futures, investors believe there is only about a 30% chance of a rate hike. So if the Fed increases the rate, markets would be expected to nosedive.
Adding more volatility to an already roiled financial marketplace is a reason some analysts believe Fed policymakers will wait to increase the interest rate.
In addition to its dual mandate of maximizing employment and keeping inflation in check, the Fed has had an unwritten third mandate since the Great Recession: financial stability.
"The worry surrounding a rate hike really centers around how it might affect financial markets abroad, especially in emerging market countries such as China," said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Capital Markets Research Group.
"They probably don’t want to go ahead and add to financial market volatility at this point in time," he said.
But survey results Wednesday from CNBC showed 49% of the 51 economists, money managers and strategists the business news network polled think the Fed will increase the rate.
About 43% think the hike will come later, with the rest undecided.
That would point to a market decline if the Fed doesn't act.
But some argue removing the questions about when the Fed would raise the rate would do more for financial stability, particularly in the long-term, than holding steady.
"It’s this deep uncertainty surrounding the conduct of monetary policy that is exacerbating swings in financial markets," said Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury official who is president of the Center for Financial Stability think tank.
Political fallout
The Fed's decision will reverberate around the globe. But some of the biggest reactions could come from within Washington.
Liberals have been calling for Yellen and her colleagues to delay a rate increase, arguing the economy still is too weak.
Fed Up, a coalition of 25 labor, community and liberal activist groups plan a news conference Thursday morning in front of the building where Yellen will meet with reporters. The group plans to make its case that the Fed should wait until there is more improvement in the jobs market.
Liberal activists pushed for Yellen to be made Fed chair over former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, and they'll be upset with a rate increase this month.
Summers recently said that a rate increase now would be "a serious mistake." His comments echoed warnings from the World Bank.
But holding the rate steady carries its own political risks.
Many Republicans have been highly critical of the Fed's actions since the Great Recession. They've pushed to change the law to allow for audits of the Fed's monetary policy decisions and require the central bank to set rules for adjusting the federal funds rate.
"Our economy would be healthier if the Federal Reserve were more predictable in its conduct of monetary policy and more transparent about its decision-making," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Whichever way the Fed goes Thursday, Yellen will face heat for the decision the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.
Source: Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
4 days ago