More stories

  • in

    The F.T.C. Boosts Biden’s Fight Against Inflation

    The regulator’s move to block Kroger’s $25 billion bid for Albertsons could win the president points with voters squeezed by rising prices.Kroger’s “low prices” promise has come under fire after the F.T.C. and a number of states sued to block the supermarket giant’s $25 billion bid to buy Albertsons.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressKroger, Albertsons and the politics of inflation A paradox at the heart of the U.S. economy is that consumers are feeling squeezed even as growth indicators look strong — and are taking it out on President Biden’s approval ratings.So the White House probably cheered a move by the F.T.C. and several states on Monday to block Kroger’s $25 billion bid to buy Albertsons, arguing that the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history would raise prices and hit union workers’ bargaining power.The Biden administration has little influence over inflation, but it’s still getting heat. Consumers are spending the highest proportion of their income on food in 30 years, and an internal White House analysis found that grocery prices had the biggest impact on consumer sentiment.The Fed has jacked up interest rates to a 20-year-high in an effort to cool inflation, but progress on that has slowed in recent months.Biden is blaming big business. In a video released on Super Bowl Sunday, he went after “shrinkflation,” lashing out at companies for reducing packaging sizes and food portions without cutting prices. Biden is expected to reiterate that view in his State of the Union address next month.The president could point to the F.T.C.’s tough approach to M.&A. The agency operates independently, but Lina Khan, the F.T.C.’s chair, has taken the most aggressive and expansive antitrust enforcement stance in decades. That may help Biden’s message with voters that he’s fighting for their interests.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

  • in

    How Washington May Approach the Capital One-Discover Deal

    Regulators have been tough on big financial mergers, though there are nuances in Capital One’s $35.3 billion takeover bid for Discover.Capital One’s $35.3 billion bid for Discover is a bet that the movement to go cashless will continue to grow.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressChallenges, and opportunities, for a financial megadealCapital One’s $35.3 billion takeover to buy Discover Financial Services will create a colossus in the fast-growing credit card industry and a more powerful force in the payment networks that underpin the consumer economy.That will almost surely invite tough scrutiny from a Washington that is increasingly skeptical of big financial mergers. But continuing scrutiny of the two biggest payment networks in the U.S., Visa and Mastercard, may complicate the regulatory math.The deal: Capital One agreed to pay 1.0192 of its shares for each share of Discover, a roughly 26 percent premium to Friday’s trading prices. Discover’s shares were up more than 13 percent in premarket trading on Tuesday.If completed, the transaction would become a giant among credit card lenders, with Bloomberg estimating that the combined company would outstrip JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup in U.S. card loan volume. (That could ratchet up examinations over shrinking competition, and what that means for consumers.)Perhaps more important is the potential supercharging of Discover’s payment network, which has long lagged Visa, Mastercard and American Express. The Wall Street Journal reported that Capital One plans to switch some of its credit cards to the Discover network.The contrarian argument: This is good for Visa and Mastercard. The longtime giants of the payment network business have long been criticized for their fees, with Visa being investigated by the Justice Department. Monday’s deal could give them the opportunity to argue that they would face a newer, bigger competitor.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

  • in

    BlackRock, JPMorgan and State Street Retreat From a Climate Group

    BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and State Street are quitting or scaling back their ties to an influential global investment coalition.BlackRock, which has been criticized for its embrace of environmental considerations in investing, was among the firms that scaled back or withdrew from a climate coalition.Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesA $14 trillion exit Climate hawks have long questioned the financial industry’s commitment to sustainable investing. But few foresaw JPMorgan Chase and State Street quitting Climate Action 100+, a global investment coalition that has been pushing companies to decarbonize. Meanwhile, BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, scaled back its ties to the group.All told, the moves amount to a nearly $14 trillion exit from an organization meant to marshal Wall Street’s clout to expand the climate agenda.The retreat jolted the political landscape. Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who compared the coalition to a “cartel” forcing businesses to cut emissions, called for more financial companies to follow suit. And Brad Lander, New York City’s comptroller, accused the firms of “caving into the demands of right-wing politicians funded by the fossil-fuel industry.”The companies say they’re committed to the climate cause. JPMorgan said it had built an in-house sustainable investment team to focus on green issues. And BlackRock will maintain some ties to the coalition: It has transferred its membership to an international entity.A recent shift by Climate Action raised red flags. Last summer, the group shifted its focus from pressuring companies to disclose their net-zero progress to getting them to reduce emissions.State Street said the new priorities compromised its “independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company management.” And BlackRock, which has become a political lightning rod over its embrace of climate considerations in investing, said those tactics “would raise legal considerations, particularly in the U.S.” (Hence the transfer to an overseas division.)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

  • in

    A Hot CPI Report Forces a Rethink of Chances of a Soft Landing

    Worries of higher-for-longer interest rates have grown since Tuesday’s Consumer Price Index report.A hotter-than-expected inflation report has stoked new concerns that a “soft landing” may be out of reach.Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images“No landing” Markets are still on edge after Tuesday’s hot inflation report, as Wall Street suddenly and sharply discounted the odds of imminent interest rate cuts.It has also poured cold water on the belief among many investors that the U.S. economy will achieve a “soft landing.”Why so gloomy? The Consumer Price Index report, which came in above economists’ forecasts, is a stark reminder of the challenges that the Fed faces in bringing down inflation to its 2 percent target. Even after excluding volatile energy and food prices, inflation is holding roughly steady and is well above where the central bank feels comfortable.Shelter costs, including rents, also rose above expectations, and “supercore inflation,” a measure the Fed closely follows that includes common “services” expenditures — like haircuts and lawyer fees — rose 4.3 year-on-year, its highest level since May, according to Deutsche Bank data.Markets responded with a jolt. Investors dumped Treasury notes on Tuesday amid concerns that the Fed will keep borrowing costs higher for longer. That pushed the Russell 2000 down nearly 4 percent, its worst slide in 20 months. (That said, S&P 500 futures were rebounding slightly on Wednesday morning as dip-buyers returned, and Britain reported milder-than-expected inflation data that pushed up stocks in London.)The futures market on Wednesday is pricing in three to four interest rate cuts this year, down from the six to seven projected at the start of the year and all but silencing rate-cut bulls. Such predictions “made no sense in our view,” Mohit Kumar, an economist at Jefferies, wrote in a research note.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

  • in

    Latest CPI Report Is a Crucial Inflation Report Card

    Investors and the White House will pore over the latest Consumer Price Index report for clues on prices — and potential interest rate cuts.Wall Street and the White House will be looking for inflation clues as they tune in to today’s Consumer Price Index report.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesInflation back in the spotlight An S&P 500 on a five-week winning streak. A growing economy. Solid wage gains. And growing consumer and business optimism. These are the ingredients for an emerging Goldilocks scenario for the U.S. economy.What would help complete that recipe? Cooling inflation, which would stoke investor hopes that the Fed would soon lower borrowing costs. (That said, Fed officials continue to warn that it’s still too early to talk rate cuts.)The prospects of that economic ideal will be tested on Tuesday with the release of fresh Consumer Price Index data.Here’s what to expect: Economists have forecast a headline C.P.I. reading of 2.9 percent for January on an annualized basis, its smallest gain since April 2021. Core C.P.I., which strips out food and fuel prices, is expected to come in at 3.7 percent on an annualized basis, down from 5.6 percent in January 2023 — strong progress, but well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.There are reasons for caution, however. The slowdown has been driven by goods disinflation and lower energy prices. But economists are closely monitoring how attacks by Houthi rebels on ship traffic in the Red Sea could affect commerce costs and push up oil prices.The cost of crude oil has climbed since the start of the year, though it remains well below the levels hit in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks Oct. 7.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

  • in

    The Super Bowl Could Make Mint for the NFL

    An overtime classic, featuring appearances by Usher and Taylor Swift, could make this year’s Super Bowl a hugely profitable money-maker for the N.F.L.Did the Taylor Swift effect vault this year’s Super Bowl into the record books?John G Mabanglo/EPA, via ShutterstockThe N.F.L. scores bigIn many ways, the N.F.L. couldn’t have asked for a better outcome for the Super Bowl. It got a thrilling overtime victory that cemented the Kansas City Chiefs as the league’s latest dynasty; a well-reviewed halftime show by Usher; a full roster of pricey ads; and, of course, Taylor Swift in person.It was a powerful reminder of the Super Bowl’s singular perch in America’s cultural landscape, and how that can translate into billions for a juggernaut sports league.The game was a place to see and be seen. Yes, Swift arrived in time from Japan to cheer on her boyfriend, the Chiefs star Travis Kelce. And A-list celebrities like Jay-Z, Beyoncé and LeBron James were spotted at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.Also in attendance were corporate moguls including Elon Musk — who touted a surge in activity on his X social network during the game — Tim Cook of Apple and the Twitter and Block co-founder Jack Dorsey, who was wearing a crypto in-joke T-shirt.The game could set a record. The broadcast, perhaps aided by an army of Swift fans, may surpass the 115 million viewers who tuned in last year, making that the most-watched show in U.S. history. (Viewership for N.F.L. games has rebounded strongly in recent years; the A.F.C. and N.F.C. championship matches on Jan. 28 accounted for nearly 39 percent of national linear TV viewing.)That would help explain why advertisers were still willing to fork over $7 million for a 30-second spot during last night’s broadcast. (More on the ads later.) “In this era of fragmentation, the Super Bowl is what television used to be,” Brad Adgate, a veteran media analyst, told The Times.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

  • in

    The Decline of the N.R.A.

    The group once seemed like an unstoppable force in American politics. What went wrong?A decade ago, the National Rifle Association seemed like an unstoppable force in American politics. A shooter had killed 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. Democrats and Republicans in Congress appeared ready to pass new restrictions on guns. The N.R.A. called on its members to contact their representatives and voice their opposition, and the bills died.Today, the N.R.A. has shed hundreds of thousands of members and large sums of money. It is standing trial for fraud and self-dealing in New York. “The N.R.A. is little more than a shell of itself after hemorrhaging hundreds of millions in legal fees,” Joshua Powell, a former top N.R.A. official who settled with the state before the trial, told The Times. The organization’s fall is not a death knell for Second Amendment advocates, but it is a blow.Today’s newsletter will explain what went wrong with the group.Loss of trustThe N.R.A.’s troubles began with a feud with its advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen.The agency was effectively the public face of the N.R.A. for decades, spearheading the group’s online channel NRATV and campaigns like “I am the N.R.A.” But the relationship between the company and its client deteriorated. They disagreed about political messaging. At one point, N.R.A. leadership accused Ackerman McQueen of trying to oust the group’s leader, Wayne LaPierre.Wayne LaPierreHaiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe N.R.A. and Ackerman McQueen fought out their differences in court and settled in 2022.But the infighting drew government officials’ attention. After an investigation, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit in 2020. She has cited exorbitant spending by the N.R.A.’s leaders, particularly LaPierre’s use of the nonprofit’s funds to cover millions of dollars in expensive clothes, travel and other luxuries.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

  • in

    A Guide to the Super Bowl

    We explain the teams, the halftime show, the prop bets and more.Nothing brings together more Americans — not awards shows, not television series finales, not even presidential debates — than the Super Bowl.Will this year’s game, between the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Francisco 49ers, be the most watched ever? By one measure — the total number of people watching — it seems likely to be. Last year’s game set the record, with 115 million viewers in the U.S., and it did not have Taylor Swift.Swift’s expected presence at the game, to cheer on her boyfriend, the Chiefs’ tight end Travis Kelce, has the potential to help it break the 1982 record for the highest proportion of Americans who watched: 49 percent.In the rest of today’s newsletter, we’ll tell you what you need to know about this year’s Super Bowl; the teams, the strange bets, the halftime show and more.The teamsKansas City Chiefs: If you’re someone who watches football only on Super Bowl Sunday, it may seem unremarkable that the Chiefs are playing today. They’ve reached the Super Bowl in four of the past five seasons. Yet this season was not a great one for the Chiefs. They lost six games, the most they have since Patrick Mahomes took over as starting quarterback. Their offense struggled with turnovers and dropped passes. Kelce’s performances seemed to falter even as his celebrity grew; he failed to score a touchdown in the final six games of the regular season.Since the playoffs began, though, the team has looked more like the Chiefs of old. Kelce has scored three touchdowns in the past two games. And the defense has been excellent all season.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