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

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Published

on

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Retired nurse Nancy Reed has been through the ringer trying to get insurance for her home next to a San Diego County nature preserve.

First, she was dropped by her longtime carrier and forced onto the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which offers basic fire policies — something thousands of residents have experienced at the hands of fire-leery insurance companies.

But what she didn’t expect was how hard it would be to find the extra coverage she needed to augment her FAIR Plan policy, which doesn’t cover common perils such as water damage or liability if someone is injured on a property.

She secured the “difference-in-conditions” policies from two insurers, only to be dropped by both before finally finding another for her Escondido home.

“I’ve lived in this house for 25 years, and I went from a very fair price to ‘we’re not insuring you anymore’ — and I’ve had three different difference-in-conditions policies,” said Reed, 71, who is paying about $2,000 for 12 months of the extra coverage. “And I’m holding my breath to see if I will be renewed next year.”

Advertisement

Now, a Department of Insurance regulation that would have required the FAIR plan to offer that additional coverage has been blocked by a state appeals court — leaving the plan’s customers to find that insurance in a market widely considered dysfunctional.

The court ruled earlier this month that the order would have forced the plan to offer liability insurance, which was not the intent of the Legislature when it established the plan in 1968 to offer essential insurance for those who couldn’t get it.

“We appreciate that the court confirmed the California FAIR Plan is designed and intended to operate as California’s insurer of last resort, providing basic property coverage when it cannot be obtained in the voluntary market,” said spokesperson Hilary McLean.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said he is “looking at all available options” following the decision. “I’ve been fighting so people can have access to all of the coverage the FAIR Plan is required by law to provide,” he said in a statement.

Lara has faced criticism from consumer advocates who’ve called for his resignation over his response to the state’s ongoing property insurance crisis.

Advertisement

A FAIR Plan policy covers fires, lightning, smoke damage and internal explosions, as well as vandalism and some other hazards at an additional cost. But in addition to water damage and liability protection, it doesn’t cover such common perils as theft and the damage caused by trees falling on a house.

The demand for the additional coverage — commonly referred to as a “wrap-around” policy — has become even greater than in 2021 when Lara issued the order overturned on appeal.

The FAIR Plan at the time had about 160,000 active dwelling policies following a series of catastrophic wildfires, including the 2018 fire that nearly destroyed the mountain town of Paradise. By September, that number had grown to 646,000.

The insurance department lists less than two dozen companies that offer wrap-around policies, including major California home insurers such as Mercury and Farmers and a a number of smaller carriers.

Broker Dina Smith said that to find the coverage for her home insurance clients she needs to place about 90% of them with carriers not regulated by the state — with the combined coverage typically costing at least twice as much as a regular policy.

Advertisement

“The [market] is very limited,” said Smith, a managing director at Gallagher.

Safeco has not written California wrap-around coverage since the beginning of the year and will begin non-renewing existing policies next month. Smith also said carriers are being selective, with the ones that offer the coverage often demanding exclusions, such as for certain types of water damage.

“If I’ve got a newer home with no prior claims … for liability losses, it’s going to be easy to write. If I get a home that is built in the 1950s that might still have galvanized pipes … that’s going to be a tough one,” she said.

Attorney Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco consumer group, said the difference-in-conditions, or DIC, market is getting just as problematic for homeowners as the overall market.

“The market is not as strong as it needs to be … given how many people are in the FAIR Plan, and there aren’t as many DIC options — with the DIC companies being just as picky as the primary insurers,” she said.

Advertisement

There is also confusion about the policies, she said. Her group is considering pushing for a law next year that would clearly label the coverage so consumers better understand what they are buying.

Continue Reading

Business

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

Published

on

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

The Trump administration will begin to garnish the pay of student loan borrowers in January, the Department of Education said Tuesday, stepping up a repayment enforcement effort that began this year.

Beginning the week of Jan. 7, roughly 1,000 borrowers who are in default will receive notices informing them of their status, according to an email from the department. The number of notices will increase on a monthly basis.

The collection activities are “conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans,” according to the email, which was unsigned.

The announcement comes as many Americans are already struggling financially, and the cost of living is top of mind. The wage garnishing could compound the effects on lower-income families contending with a stressed economy, employment concerns and health care premiums that are set to rise for millions of people.

The email did not contain any details about the nature of the garnishment, such as how much would be deducted from wages, but according to the government’s student aid website, up to 15 percent of a borrower’s take-home pay can be withheld. The government typically directs employers to withhold a certain amount, similar to a payroll tax.

Advertisement

A borrower should be sent a notice of the government’s intent 30 days before the seizure begins, according to the website, StudentAid.gov.

The administration ended a five-year reprieve on student loan repayments in May, paving the way for forced collections — meaning tax refunds and other federal payments, like Social Security, could be withheld and applied toward debt payments.

That move ushered in the end of pandemic-era relief that began in March 2020, when payments were paused. More than 9 percent of total student debt reported between July and September was more than 90 days delinquent or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, only one-third of the 38 million Americans who owed money for college or graduate school and should have been making payments actually were, according to government data.

“It’s going to be more painful as you move down the income distribution,” said Michael Roberts, a professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. But, he added, borrowers have to contend with the fact that they did take out money, even as government policies allowed many to put the loans at the back of their minds.

After several extensions by the Biden administration, payments resumed in October 2023, but borrowers were not penalized for defaulting until last year. About five million borrowers are in default, and millions more are expected to be close to missing payments.

Advertisement

The government had signaled this year that it would send notices that could lead to the garnishing of a portion of a borrower’s paycheck. Being in collections and in default can damage credit scores.

The government garnished wages before the pandemic pause, said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, which provides free advice for borrowers. But the 2020 collections pause was the first she was aware of, she said, and that may make the deductions more shocking for people who have not had to pay for years.

“There’s a lot of defaulted borrowers that think that there was a mistake made somewhere along the line, or the Department of Education forgot about them,” Ms. Mayotte said. “I think this is going to catch a lot of them off guard.”

The first day after a missed payment, a loan becomes delinquent. After a certain amount of time in delinquency, usually 270 days, the loan is considered in default — the kind of loan determines the time period. If someone defaults on a federal student loan, the entire balance becomes due immediately. Then the loan holder can begin collections, including on wages.

But there are options to reorganize the defaulted loans, including consolidation or rehabilitation, which requires making a certain number of consecutive payments determined by the holder.

Advertisement

Often, people who default on debt owe the smallest amounts, said Constantine Yannelis, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge who researches U.S. student loans.

“They’re often dropouts or they went to two-year, for-profit colleges, and people who spent many, many years in schools, like doctors or lawyers, have very low default rates,” he said.

This year, millions of borrowers saw their credit scores drop after the pause on penalties was lifted. If someone does not earn an income, the government can take the person to court. But, practically speaking, a borrower’s credit score will plummet.

Dr. Yannelis added that a common reason people default was that they were not aware of the repayment options. There are plans that allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of their income rather than having 15 percent garnished, for example.

The whiplash policy changes around the time of the pandemic were “a terrible thing from a borrower-welfare perspective,” Dr. Yannelis said. “Policy uncertainty is really terrible for borrowers.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

Published

on

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

In the midst of attempting to complete filming on his western anthology ”Horizon: An American Saga,” Kevin Costner is facing another legal dispute over the production.

On Monday, Western Costume Co. sued Costner and the production companies behind the epic western, claiming unpaid costume fees and damages to some of the clothing during the filming of the series’ second episode.

“The costumes are costly to replace if damaged or not returned,” states the complaint, which included copies of invoices for about $134,000 in costume rentals. “Without a reasonable basis for doing so and/or with reckless regard to the consequences, defendants failed to pay for the rented costumes and failed to return the costumes undamaged.”

Western Costume, the iconic business based in North Hollywood, is seeking to recover roughly $440,000, including legal fees, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A spokesperson for Costner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and financial problems that have dogged the sprawling western drama, which Costner directed, co-wrote, starred in and partially funded.

In May, United Costume Corp., sued the production, claiming $350,000 in unpaid fees for the first two chapters of “Horizon.” Two months later, the costume firm filed to dismiss the suit with prejudice.

In May, Devyn LaBella, a stunt performer on “Chapter 2,” sued the production for sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation in Los Angeles Superior Court. LaBella alleged an unscripted rape scene was filmed without the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

In a motion filed in August to get the suit tossed, Costner said he had reviewed LaBella’s complaint and was “shocked at the false and misleading allegations she was making.”

In October, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The judge also denied LaBella’s claim that Costner had interfered with her civil rights through the use of intimidation or coercion with respect to her participation in the filming of a rape scene, but allowed several of her other claims to proceed.

Advertisement

The case is pending.

The production is also facing an arbitration claim for alleged breaches in its co-financing agreement with its distributor New Line Cinema and City National Bank, “Horizon” bondholder, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

In June 2024, “Chapter 1” of the planned four-part series was released in theaters followed by a streaming broadcast on HBO Max, but it was largely panned by critics.

In its review, The Times described “Horizon” as “a massive boondoggle, a misguided and excruciatingly tedious cinematic experience.”

It failed at the box office, grossing just $38.8 million worldwide, on a reported $100 million budget.

Advertisement

“Chapter 2” premiered at the Venice International Film Festival last September, but its theatrical release was pulled and remains indefinitely delayed, while the final two chapters remain in production or development, according to IMDb.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending