Connect with us

Business

Which Interest Rate Should You Care About?

Published

on

Which Interest Rate Should You Care About?

Watch out for interest rates.

Not the short-term rates controlled by the Federal Reserve. Barring an unforeseen financial crisis, they’re not going anywhere, especially not after the jump in inflation reported by the government on Wednesday.

Instead, pay attention to the 10-year Treasury yield, which has been bouncing around since the election from about 4.8 to 4.2 percent. That’s not an unreasonable level over the last century or so.

But it’s much higher than the 2.9 percent average of the last 20 years, according to FactSet data. At its upper range, that 10-year yield may be high enough to dampen the enthusiasm of many entrepreneurs and stock investors and to restrain the stock market and the economy.

That’s a problem for the Trump administration. So the new Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has stated outright what is becoming an increasingly evident reality. “The president wants lower rates,” Mr. Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business. “He and I are focused on the 10-year Treasury.”

Advertisement

Treasuries are the safe and steady core of many investment portfolios. They influence mortgages, credit cards, corporate debt and the exchange rate for the dollar. They are also the standard by which commercial, municipal and sovereign bonds around the world are priced.

What’s moving those Treasury rates now is bond traders’ assessments of the economy — including the Trump administration’s on-again, off-again policies on tariffs, as well as its actions on immigration, taxes, spending and much more.

Mr. Bessent, and President Trump, would like those rates to be substantially lower, and they’re trying to talk them down. But many of the president’s policies are having the opposite effect.

The president needs the bond market on his side. If it comes to disapprove of his policies, rates will rise and the economy — along with the fortunes of the Trump administration — will surely suffer.

Mr. Bessent may be focusing on Treasury rates, or yields, partly to relieve pressure on the Federal Reserve, which President Trump frequently berated in his first term and on the campaign trail.

Advertisement

The Fed’s independence is sacrosanct among most economists and many investors. During the campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly called on the Fed to lower rates. Yet any threat to the Fed’s ability to operate freely could panic the markets, which, clearly, is not what Mr. Trump wants.

To the contrary, when the markets are strong, he frequently cites them as a barometer of his popularity. In 2017, he boasted about the performance of the stock market an average of once every 35 hours, Politico calculated.

Shortly after the November election, I wrote that the markets might restrain some of Mr. Trump’s actions. But I wouldn’t go too far with this now. Few government departments or traditions seem to be off limits for the administration’s aggressive changes in policy or reductions in work force, masterminded by Mr. Trump’s sidekick, the billionaire disrupter-in-chief, Elon Musk. Just look at The Times’s running tabulation of the actions taken since Jan. 21. It’s dizzying.

Still, so far, at least, the administration has been remarkably circumspect when it comes to the Fed. That doesn’t mean President Trump has entirely constrained himself: He has continued to mock the Fed, saying in a social media post that it has “failed to stop the problem they created with Inflation” and has wasted its time on issues like “DEI, gender ideology, ‘green’ energy, and fake climate change.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Bessent said specifically that Mr. Trump “is not calling for the Fed to lower rates.” Instead, the Treasury secretary said, “If we deregulate the economy, if we get this tax bill done, if we get energy down, then rates will take care of themselves and the dollar will take care of itself.” The president has not contradicted him. So far, trying to control the Fed is a line that Mr. Trump hasn’t yet crossed. The bond market is another matter.

Advertisement

Treasury rates haven’t usually garnered the big headlines frequently devoted to the Federal Reserve.

The Fed is easier to explain. When it raises or lowers short-term rates, it’s clear that somebody took action and caused a measurable change.

In reality, when we report that the Fed is cutting or increasing rates, we mean that it is shifting its key policy rate, the federal funds rate. That’s what banks charge one another for borrowing and lending money overnight. It’s important as a signal — a red or green light for stock traders — and “it influences other interest rates such as the prime rate, which is the rate banks charge their customers with higher credit ratings,” according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “Additionally, the federal funds rate indirectly influences longer- term interest rates.”

What causes shifts in longer-term rates is much harder to pinpoint because they are set by an amorphous force: the market, with Treasuries at the core. Day to day, you won’t hear much about it unless you’re already a bond maven.

How does any market set prices? Supply and demand, the preferences of buyers and sellers, trading rules — the textbooks say these and other factors determine market prices. That’s true for tangible things like milk, eggs, gasoline, a house or a car. Treasury prices — and those of other bonds, which use Treasuries as a reference — are more complicated. They include estimates of the future of interest rates, of inflation and of the Fed’s intentions.

Advertisement

The Fed sets overnight rates, which are involved indirectly in bond rates for a simple reason. The interest rate for a 10-year Treasury reflects assumptions about many, many days of overnight rates, chained together until they span the life of whatever bond you buy. Inflation matters because when it rises more quickly than anticipated, it will reduce the real value of the stream of income you receive from standard bonds.

That happened in 2022. Inflation soared and so did yields, while bond prices, which move in the opposite direction, fell — creating losses for bond funds and for individual bonds sold under those conditions.

That’s why the increase in inflation in January, to an annual rate of 3 percent for the Consumer Price Index from 2.9 percent the previous month, immediately pushed up the 10-year Treasury yield, which stands above 4.5 percent. Trump administration policies are weighing on bond prices and yields, too.

Mr. Bessent has pointed out that oil prices are a major ingredient in inflation and, therefore, bond yields. But whether Mr. Trump will be able to bring down oil prices by encouraging drilling — while eliminating subsidies and regulations that encourage the development of energy alternatives — is open to question.

Some Trump policies being sold as promoters of economic growth — like cutting regulations and tax rates — could have that effect. But others, like reducing the size of the labor force — which his deportations of undocumented immigrants and restrictions on the arrival of new immigrants will do — could slow growth and increase inflation.

Advertisement

So could the tariffs that he has been threatening, delaying and, in some cases, already imposing. Expectations for future inflation jumped in the University of Michigan’s monthly survey in January. Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said that reflects growing concerns about the Trump tariffs among consumers.

“These consumers generally report that tariff hikes will pass through to consumers in the form of higher prices,” she wrote. She added that “recent data show an emergence of inflationary psychology — motives for buying-in-advance to avoid future price increases, the proliferation of which would generate further momentum for inflation.”

None of that augurs well for the 10-year Treasury yield. Nor does a warning issued by five former Treasury secretaries — Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H. Summers, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew and Janet L. Yellen — who served in Democratic administrations.

They wrote in The New York Times that incursions of Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting team into the Treasury’s payment system threaten the country’s “commitment to make good on our financial obligations.” They applauded Mr. Bessent for assuring Congress in writing that the Treasury will safeguard the “integrity and security of the system, given the implications of any compromise or disruption to the U.S. economy.”

But they decried the need for any Treasury secretary to have to make such promises in his first weeks in office.

Advertisement

Other potential flash points for Treasury yields loom. The Fed has in the past manipulated the market bond supply by buying and selling securities. It’s reducing its holding now, which could put upward pressure on interest rates — and make the Fed an irresistible Trump target. At the same time, Secretary Bessent is financing the government debt mainly with shorter-term bills but may not be able to avoid increasing the supply of longer-term Treasuries indefinitely, as the federal deficit swells. Yet Congress is reluctant to raise the debt ceiling, which will bite later this year.

These are difficult times. So far, the 10-year yield hasn’t shifted all that much. The markets, at least, have been holding steady.

Business

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

Published

on

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.

The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.

“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.

In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.

Advertisement

Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.

Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.

Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win

Published

on

Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win

This porn company made millions by shaming the little guys who downloaded its films. But now it’s going after Meta for copyright infringement.

It isn’t often that a lawsuit can make me smile, much less laugh out loud. The latest exception is Strike 3 Holdings vs. Meta Platforms, which is currently unfolding in San Jose federal court.

Two things are amusing about the case. One is that Meta, the giant social media company, is accused of copyright infringement for allegedly downloading 2,400 of the plaintiff’s movies to train its AI bots. If Meta loses, that would be a serious (and in my opinion, deserved) blow against AI companies that have used copyrighted materials without permission.

The second part of the joke is the identity of the plaintiff. Strike 3 Holdings, you see, makes porn. Moreover, for years it has pursued a plainly unscrupulous business model in which it sues individuals for allegedly downloading its movies without permission, and shames them into settling for a few thousand dollars at a pop.

While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible…that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person—or any combination of such persons—was responsible for that activity.

— Meta points the finger at others for a porn scandal

Advertisement

Whether or not Strike 3 has a legitimate claim for copyright infringement, it doesn’t deserve your sympathy. The firm was flayed in 2018 by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., for engaging in what he labeled a “high-tech shakedown … smacking of extortion.” Lamberth called Strike 3 a “copyright troll” and threw out its lawsuit against an unidentified internet user for having treated his court “not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.”

When I wrote about this scheme in 2023, I counted more than 12,440 lawsuits that the Los Angeles-based firm had filed in federal courts coast-to-coast. The latest count, according to a Lexis search a defense lawyer ran for me, is more than 21,000. The vast majority were settled and closed within a few months of their filing, an indication that they were never meant to go to trial.

Now Strike 3 appears to have hooked a big fish. In the first significant ruling in its lawsuit against Meta, the firm scored a surprise win: On June 11, federal Judge Eumi K. Lee of San Jose denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the case. Meta’s defense, she wrote, “strains credulity.”

Advertisement

More about that in a moment. First, a few words about the litigants. Meta needs no introduction: Formerly known as Facebook and based in Menlo Park, Calif., Meta recorded a profit of $60.5 billion last year on $201 billion in revenue.

Strike 3 portrays itself as an avatar of “Hollywood style and quality” in its adult films, which it distributes through its streaming websites such as Blacked, Tushy, Vixen and Wifey. It has described Greg Landry, its former owner and house auteur, as the porn industry’s “answer to Steven Spielberg.”

Neither Meta nor Strike 3 responded to my request for comment beyond the claims and defenses in court filings.

As I reported in 2023, Strike 3 has flooded federal courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with an internet connection. Its targets generally have been individuals with plenty to lose from being publicly outed as porn viewers.

“Given the nature of the films at issue,” a federal judge in Connecticut observed last year, “defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.”

Advertisement

Strike 3’s letters to its target defendants have warned that the statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement is $150,000, but offer to make the case go quietly away for a few thousand bucks, which would be a fraction of the cost of hiring a defense lawyer, not to mention the downside of exposing oneself as a porn fiend.

J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Ore., lawyer who won a case against Strike 3, estimated in 2023 that Strike 3 “pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits.” But financial data that could validate his estimate hasn’t surfaced in court records.

There’s nothing new about content owners’ aggressive pursuit of copyright infringers. The practice was pioneered by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, when the industry feared that unauthorized downloading of music through programs such as Napster threatened its very existence. From 2003 through 2008, the association sued some 35,000 alleged song pirates.

But it abandoned the strategy because its legal dragnet swept up sympathetic targets such as single mothers and teenage girls, creating a public relations disaster.

There followed the appearance of outright trolls such as Prenda Law Group, which posted porn films online as bait to attract downloaders, whom it then sued in what judges ultimately found to be sham lawsuits. Prenda principal John L. Steele even bragged publicly that Prenda had made nearly $15 million with its lawsuits. U.S. Judge Otis Wright II of Los Angeles put the kibosh to its practice by slapping the Prenda lawyers with stiff sanctions for contempt.

Advertisement

That brings us to Strike 3’s case against Meta, which it filed in July. Strike 3 hasn’t been accused of a Prenda-style fraud, since it does own the films at issue and its right to sue copyright infringers isn’t disputed. But its allegation that Meta downloaded its films to train its AI bots, rather than just for personal enjoyment, is a new wrinkle for an old issue.

Strike 3 says its lawsuit grew out of a separate case in which a witness testified that Meta had downloaded thousands of pirated books to train its LLaMA AI bots — that is, feeding the content into LLaMA for it to use to generate answers to user questions. (Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging similar infringement.)

Strike 3 says that case prompted it to look into whether Meta had downloaded any of its content. It says it discovered that 47 IP addresses owned by Meta — that is, digital identifiers of internet accounts — had downloaded its movies without permission.

In all, Strike 3 alleges, those Meta addresses downloaded at least 2,396 of its movies — almost its entire catalog — more than 6,000 times via BitTorrent. What’s more, Strike 3 says Meta then posted some of that content back onto BitTorrent to take advantage of BitTorrent’s “tit-for-tat” mechanism through which users can obtain faster download speeds by uploading content to the platform.

If Strike 3 were to prevail on all its claims for illicit downloading, it would be entitled to about $360 million in damages, observes Eric Fruits, an Oregon economist who has testified for the defense in some Strike 3 lawsuits.

Advertisement

One might ask why Meta might be downloading porn for any reason, bot-training or otherwise. Meta, in its defense filings, says Strike 3 has offered no proof that Meta, as a corporation, was responsible for the downloading. If it happened, Meta says, it would have been inadvertent.

“Tens of thousands of employees and innumerable contractors, visitors, and third parties access the internet at Meta every day,” it wrote in its motion to dismiss the case. “While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible … that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person — or any combination of such persons — was responsible for that activity.” The “sporadic downloads,” Meta says, “exhibit the hallmarks of personal use,” not corporate strategy.

This defense has borne fruit in other Strike 3 cases, in which defendants successfully argued simply having an IP address that was used to infringe wasn’t enough to prove they committed the infringements.

Strike 3 says it can show that the downloads weren’t the work of random users. Some downloads, it says, were coordinated among several Meta IP addresses, all based on the same algorithmic keywords and occurring simultaneously, suggesting that the infringements “took place within Meta’s walls.”

On Dec. 15, 2022, for instance, downloads apparently based on the keyword “teen” involved not only the movies “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Teen Titans Go to the Movies,” but also “Teen Sex Sessions 2” and “Teens love Tats XXX,” according to Lee’s ruling. Other simultaneous downloads swept up episodes of “The Big Bang Theory” and “Ted Lasso” out of order, though a putative human user would probably have downloaded them sequentially.

Advertisement

“It strains credulity,” Lee ruled, “to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections.” Rather, the use of an algorithm would account for “why pornography was downloaded alongside children’s cartoons and sitcoms. … The odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP addresses … coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief.”

The case is still at an early stage. For Strike 3, the lawsuit offers the potential of a big score. But Meta has signaled that it’s not inclined to roll over like a family man caught downloading skin flicks and worrying about his reputation at home and around town.

This time, Strike 3 may have a fight on its hands with a defendant that has money to burn.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin

Published

on

Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin

Rivian said it’s laying off hundreds of employees, or less than 2% of its workforce, as part of restructuring efforts aimed at making the company profitable for the first time.

The layoffs come one week after the Irvine-based electric vehicle maker began deliveries of its highly anticipated R2 SUV.

The company is hoping that the R2, which is currently only available as a performance version for $57,990, could attract more customers with its lower price tag.

But industry analysts said the performance R2 is still not affordable for many Americans, and investors reacted with disappointment to the first deliveries June 9, with shares falling 7% that day. On Wednesday, Rivian shares gained .33 points, or 2%, to close at $16.26.

The company said a standard version of the R2 starting at $44,990 will become available next year.

Advertisement

The layoffs took effect on Monday and affected Rivian’s service and customer organization employees, including sales and marketing teams. Rivian employed 15,232 people as of December.

“We recently restructured a handful of teams within Rivian as we work to profitably scale our ‌business,” a ⁠company spokesperson said.

The laid off employees have been provided with severance packages and are encouraged to apply for other open roles with Rivian, the company said.

Rivian may be trying to reach profitability by saving money on labor, said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.

“You have to wonder to what degree they do plan on replacing those people with some level of AI and automation,” he said.

Advertisement

Rivian, which is pouring money into autonomous vehicle efforts including a robotaxi partnership with Uber, has struggled to turn a profit with its luxury EVs.

The layoffs are likely not directly tied to recent reception of the R2, auto analyst Brian Moody said.

“I think that it’s declining interest in new electric cars, and maybe declining interest in expensive things,” he said. “We can surmise that [layoff] process began long before the R2 launch.”

The company lost $3.6 billion last year and recently said it is no longer expecting to meet its 2027 adjusted core profit target.

There has been a broad cooling of the EV market. Major automakers including Honda and Ford have cut back their EV options as excitement for the vehicles has fallen under the Trump administration. A $7,500 EV tax credit for new vehicles expired in September.

Advertisement

Rivian cut 4.5% of its workforce in October, or more than 600 jobs, following the expiration of the credit. The company also laid off about 200 employees in September.

In a recent turnaround, Rivian surprised the market with strong earnings results in February, reporting gross profits for 2025 of $144 million compared with a net loss in 2024 of $1.2 billion. Gross profit is revenue without subtracting the cost of production expenses.

In its earnings release, Rivian credited the swing to “strong software and services performance, higher average selling prices, and reductions in cost per vehicle.”

“The company has never posted a full year’s worth of profit, and this is the one lever they can pull to rightsize things,” Drury said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending