Banking and Financial Institutions

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      China’s Lackluster Growth Continues, Signaling Why Beijing Acted on Economy

      by

      Falling prices, weak consumer spending and a housing market crash help to explain why the Chinese government is taking steps to stimulate the economy.The Chinese economy continued to grow at a lackluster pace over the summer, according to data released on Friday, underscoring the urgency of the government’s recent attempts to bolster the economy.Construction has slowed because of a housing market meltdown. Millions of young college graduates have been unable to find work. Many local governments have run out of money to build roads or even pay the salaries of teachers and other workers.Looming over it all are falling prices across the Chinese economy, from apartments to cars to restaurant meals. Broadly falling prices, a phenomenon called deflation, make it hard for companies and families to earn enough to pay their mortgages and other debts.China’s economy grew 0.9 percent in July through September over the previous three months, China’s National Bureau of Statistics said. When projected out for the entire year, the economy grew at an annual rate of about 3.6 percent in the third quarter.The growth in part reflected an official revision on Friday to show that the second quarter was even weaker than previously acknowledged. Growth then was at an annual pace of 2 percent, and not the previously reported pace of 2.8 percent.Beijing has announced a series of measures since Sept. 24 to address the lingering troubles that became clear in the numbers released on Friday. The central bank has cut interest rates and minimum down payments for mortgages. The finance ministry promised the sale of more bonds to raise money for local governments to pay municipal salaries and buy vacant apartments for conversion into affordable housing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Trump Trade Back?

      by

      Market observers see signs that investors increasingly believe Donald Trump will win the election, but there may be alternate explanations for a shift in sentiment. A rally in some stocks, cryptocurrencies and Donald Trump’s social media company are some signs of investors betting on the former president to win in November.Brendan Mcdermid/ReutersA trade makes a comeback The election polls may be deadlocked. But in the markets, some investors are indicating that they see Donald Trump as increasingly likely to win the White House, a belief that seems to mirror a swing in the prediction markets.Market observers see the return of the so-called Trump trade, which posits that certain industry sectors and financial assets — think oil drillers and cryptocurrencies — would benefit from the former president bringing in lower taxes and less regulation.The signs that the Trump trade is gaining steam: Stanley Druckenmiller, the billionaire financier, told Bloomberg yesterday that over the past 12 days, markets appeared “very convinced Trump is going to win.” (It’s worth noting that Druckenmiller said he didn’t plan to vote for either candidate.)Among the evidence Druckenmiller pointed to:A rally in bank stocks, which are up 8.5 percent over the past two weeks. (That said, banks have so far reported better-than-expected earnings.)Shares in Trump Media & Technology Group, the former president’s unprofitable social media company, have soared since late September, adding nearly $2 billion to its market value. But the stock’s volatile trading hasn’t always correlated with polls or prediction markets, and it’s unclear whether the company would draw more advertisers if Trump won. Some companies might flock to the platform to curry political favor; others might stay away.Bitcoin has risen about 13 percent in the past week. The cryptocurrency world has largely bet on a second Trump administration being friendlier to digital assets, though Vice President Kamala Harris has made appeals to the industry.Also, the dollar approached a two-and-a-half month high this morning as currency traders appear to be pricing in a Trump victory, betting that his economic policies would drive up inflation, lower the price of bonds and strengthen the dollar. (That said, Trump wants a weak greenback.)But there are potential pitfalls to betting on Trump. “It is a thing in the financial markets,” Holger Schmieding, the chief economist at Berenberg, a German bank, said of the Trump trade.He told DealBook: “I don’t agree with it in the long run. Higher tariffs and less immigration would hurt U.S. vitality.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Profits Leap at Goldman Sachs as Banks See Steady Economy

      by

      The investment bank earned more than expected in the latest quarter, a theme for other big banks, too.Goldman Sachs on Tuesday reported a monster jump in its third quarter earnings, reaping $3 billion in profits — far higher than what Wall Street analysts had expected.How did the investment bank do it? The steadying economic environment helped — but so did a financial maneuver employed by Goldman’s chief executive, David M. Solomon, a few weeks ago.In early September, Mr. Solomon publicly sounded the alarm, saying many aspects of the bank’s business were stumbling in the third quarter. He warned that the bank’s upcoming earnings might disappoint.They didn’t — not at Goldman nor the two other major banks that reported results on Tuesday.Up first, a billion-dollar beatGoldman pulled in nearly $13 billion in revenue during the third quarter, over $1 billion more than projections. The bank’s $3 billion in quarterly profit was roughly equal to what it pulled in during the previous quarter, despite Mr. Solomon’s warning last month that profits might not hold up as well as they had in the first half of the year.A bank executive, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, said that trading activity — a core part of any investment bank — came in stronger than expected in September, the same period that the Federal Reserve announced a large cut in interest rates.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      China Stocks Surge After Government Measures to Boost Economy

      by

      The government has fired up investors by encouraging banks to lend more to buyers of stock and real estate, but economists say more stimulus is needed.Share prices surged as trading resumed on Tuesday in mainland China following a weeklong national holiday, as investors rushed in to make bullish bets that Beijing’s leaders are committed to providing stimulus for the faltering Chinese economy.Before the break, the Chinese government jolted stock markets sharply higher with a package of measures aimed at halting the cycle of falling real estate prices and weakening consumer confidence.The central bank and other top financial agencies announced on Sept. 24 that they were cutting interest rates, reducing the minimum down payments for mortgages, and encouraging banks to lend more money for investors to buy shares.Two days later, the ruling Politburo issued an uncommonly blunt call for more to be done to help the economy. Several municipal governments soon followed by trimming or dismantling their restrictions on real estate purchases as a way to stabilize the housing market in their cities.

      .dw-chart-subhed {
      line-height: 1;
      margin-bottom: 6px;
      font-family: nyt-franklin;
      color: #121212;
      font-size: 15px;
      font-weight: 700;
      }

      China’s CSI 300 Index
      As of Oct. 8, 2024 9:43 a.m. local time.Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesThe CSI 300, an index of large companies traded in Shanghai and Shenzhen, soared 25 percent in heavy trading over the five sessions before the holiday. Market operators tested their systems on Monday in anticipation of another influx of activity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Victims of Stanford Financial’s Fraud Scheme May Soon Be Paid. Some Already Sold Their Claim.

      by

      Not having much insight into what may happen next in the case of a fraud orchestrated by Robert Allen Stanford, many of the victims sold the rights to any future payout.It’s been 15 years since Thomas Swingle first learned that about $1 million of his family’s savings had gone up in smoke, after the financier Robert Allen Stanford was exposed for having sold billions in fraudulent certificates of deposit to investors around the world.The memory of those days is still painful.“It was literally a life-changing event,” Mr. Swingle, 72, said of the $7 billion scheme that unraveled in early 2009. “It is like someone hit you in the chest with a sledgehammer.”Now, victims of Mr. Stanford’s company, Stanford Financial, are on the verge of recouping some of their losses, but Mr. Swingle and his wife, Cindy Finch, have to contend with another decision they made: In 2021, they agreed to sell their claim to any future settlement to an investment fund for around $60,000.That means they won’t get a penny of the funds that are about to be disbursed. Instead, it’ll all go to the claim buyer.It’s a decision fraud victims have to agonize over in the wake of a big financial scam: Large investors offer them cash in exchange for the rights to any future payment. Many small investors who don’t have much insight into what might happen next may feel they don’t have a choice but to settle for a quick lump sum, rather than wait for a future payment that may never come.When Mr. Swingle and Ms. Finch sold their claim, he said, it appeared Stanford’s defrauded customers were unlikely to get anything back at all. Had the couple held on to the rights, they might be able to claim as much as $350,000.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Huge Civil Fraud Penalty Draws Skepticism From Appeals Court

      by

      A five-judge New York appellate panel questioned both the size and validity of a judgment of more than $450 million against Donald J. Trump at a hearing.A New York appeals court expressed skepticism on Thursday about a civil judgment of more than $450 million that a trial judge had ordered former President Donald J. Trump to pay after finding that he had fraudulently inflated his wealth.At a hearing in Manhattan, members of a five-judge panel questioned both the size of the judgment and the validity of the case, which New York’s attorney general brought against the former president and his family business two years ago.While some of the judges appeared to acknowledge the substance of the attorney general’s case, several of the panel’s questions suggested concern about whether the office had exceeded its jurisdiction. And the tenor of many of their questions indicated the possibility that the court could whittle down the huge judgment and potentially deal a blow to the attorney general, Letitia James.Justice Peter H. Moulton, who seemed unswayed by many of the arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, nonetheless said that “the immense penalty in this case is troubling.”The trial judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, found Mr. Trump liable for civil fraud last year, concluding that he had lied about his wealth to secure favorable loan terms and other financial benefits. The judge imposed the judgment against the former president in February after a lengthy bench trial.Judith N. Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, had barely begun addressing the court before one of the judges, David Friedman, interrupted her to cast doubt on the lawsuit. Other members of the panel inquired about possible “mission creep” by the attorney general’s office. They also questioned what “guardrails” might have ensured that Ms. James did not overstep her authority by second-guessing the net worth estimates that Mr. Trump had provided to lenders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      F.D.I.C. Says Banks Need to Keep a Record of Their Fintech Customers

      by

      Banks holding customer funds for money management apps should keep track of customers’ identities and balances, the agency says.When a banking software company collapsed this spring, thousands of people keeping cash in online money management apps found themselves cut off from their own money for months. On Tuesday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposed new rules designed to prevent that from happening again.Customers often choose to put money they would otherwise hold in a bank checking account into an online app. Some apps offer higher interest rates on deposits than traditional banks do, while others offer customers new saving and investing plans or small loans ahead of their paydays.But money that customers send to online financial companies almost always ends up in a brick-and-mortar bank — and sometimes it is pooled into a single account. Customers often do not know which bank has their money.Banks are under no obligation to keep track of the identity of fintech customers. The federal bank regulator’s proposal would require the banks to pay more attention.Traditional banks holding funds for fintech customers would have to know each person’s identity and keep daily tabs on their balances. They would have to make sure that, no matter what happened to the other companies in the chain linking customers to their funds, the banks had a record of those funds and could share their identities and balances with regulators.This change would also help if a bank at the end of one of those long chains of software companies were to fail, the regulators said on Tuesday. At present, it is hard for the F.D.I.C. to determine whose money is covered by the $250,000 deposit insurance guarantee.Senior F.D.I.C. officials said in a briefing held for journalists on Tuesday that while they had been contemplating such rules for years, the collapse this spring of Synapse Financial Technologies, which operated banking software for online lenders, provided a good real-world example of how customers could be harmed.When Synapse filed for bankruptcy and shut down its services, it said it had only $2 million in cash on hand. But customers who had funds at the online lenders Synapse supported were collectively cut off from $300 million of their own money. The F.D.I.C. said it had received more than 1,000 customer complaints related to Synapse since May.The banks that take deposits from fintech customers are often small institutions trying to grow. Their managers could complain about having to meet new record-keeping requirements. Regulators said on Tuesday that any new requirements would apply narrowly to banks taking the kinds of deposits that could get lost in a chain of software companies.There are other methods smaller banks use to swap deposits and increase their customers’ deposit insurance coverage that would not be affected by the new proposal, the regulators said.The proposal made Tuesday was the first step toward putting the new rules in place. Regulators now want banks and other members of the public to provide feedback to help shape it. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      $50 Billion in Aid to Ukraine Stalls Over Legal Questions

      by

      U.S. and European officials are struggling to honor their pledge to use Russian assets to aid Ukraine.A long-awaited plan to help Ukraine rebuild using Russian money is in limbo as the United States and Europe struggle to agree on how to construct a $50 billion loan using Russia’s frozen central bank assets while complying with their own laws.The fraught negotiations reflect the challenges facing the Group of 7 nations as they attempt to push their sanctions powers to new limits in an attempt to punish Russia and aid Ukraine.American and European officials have been scrambling in recent weeks to try to get the loan in place by the end of the year. There is added urgency to finalize the package ahead of any potential shifts in the political landscape in the United States, where support for Ukraine could waver if former President Donald J. Trump wins the presidential election in November.But technical obstacles associated with standing up such a loan have complicated matters.Group of 7 officials grappled for months over how to use $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets to aid Ukraine. After European countries expressed reservations about the legality of outright seizing the assets, they agreed that it would be possible to back a $50 billion loan with the stream of interest that the assets earn.The solution was intended to provide Ukraine with a large infusion of funds without providing more direct aid from the budgets of the United States and European countries. It also allowed western allies to make use of Russia’s assets without taking the step of actually spending its money, which many top officials in Europe believed would be illegal.But differences in the legal systems in the United States and in Europe, which both plan to provide the money up front, have made it difficult to structure the loan.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More