Stocks and Bonds

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      New Questions on How a Key Agency Shared Inflation Data

      by

      A government economist had regular contact with “super users” in finance, records show, at a time when such information keenly interests investors.The Bureau of Labor Statistics shared more information about inflation with Wall Street “super users” than previously disclosed, emails from the agency show. The revelation is likely to prompt further scrutiny of the way the government shares economic data at a time when such information keenly interests investors.An economist at the agency set off a firestorm in February when he sent an email to a group of data users explaining how a methodological tweak could have contributed to an unexpected jump in housing costs in the Consumer Price Index the previous month. The email, addressed to “Super Users,” circulated rapidly around Wall Street, where every detail of inflation data can affect the bond market.At the time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the email had been an isolated “mistake” and denied that it maintained a list of users who received special access to information.But emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency — or at least the economist who sent the original email, a longtime but relatively low-ranking employee — was in regular communication with data users in the finance industry, apparently including analysts at major hedge funds. And they suggest that there was a list of super users, contrary to the agency’s denials.“Would it be possible to be on the super user email list?” one user asked in mid-February.“Yes I can add you to the list,” the employee replied minutes later.A reporter’s efforts to reach the employee, whose identity the bureau confirmed, were unsuccessful.Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said that the agency did not maintain an official list of super users and that the employee appeared to have created the list on his own.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

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      China Sets Economic Growth Target of About 5%

      by

      Premier Li Qiang targets growth of about 5 percent this year but signals continued reluctance to use deficit spending for economic stimulus.China’s top leaders on Tuesday set an ambitious target for economic growth but they signaled only modest stimulus measures, not the aggressive support for China’s domestic economy that many analysts believe is necessary to halt a steep slide in the housing market and ease consumer malaise and investor wariness.Premier Li Qiang, the country’s No. 2 official after Xi Jinping, said in his report to the annual session of the legislature that the government would seek economic growth of “around 5 percent.” That is the same target that China’s leadership set for last year, when official statistics ended up showing that the country’s gross domestic product grew 5.2 percent.The country’s program for state spending showed little change. Mr. Li said that the central government’s deficit would be set at 3 percent of economic output, but that the government was ready to issue another $140 billion worth of bonds to pay for unspecified projects of national importance. The more the government borrows, the more it can spend on initiatives that could boost the economy.China had also set the deficit at 3 percent early last year, before raising it in October to 3.8 percent when the government approved $140 billion in additional bonds to pay for disaster relief and prevention measures after severe summer flooding.Conspicuously missing from the premier’s agenda for this year was a move to shore up the country’s social safety net or introduce other policies, like vouchers or coupons, that would directly address Chinese consumers’ very weak confidence and unwillingness to spend money.“There’s a lot of positive noises for the economy, but not a lot of concrete proposals for how to resolve the country’s growth difficulties,” said Neil Thomas, a fellow at the Center for China Analysis of the Asia Society.

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

      China consumer confidence index
      Source: China National Bureau of StatisticsBy The New York TimesWe 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

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      At BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, Millions of Investors Are Getting a Voice

      by

      BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard have opened up voting on environmental, social and management issues. It’s not true shareholder democracy, but it’s progress.Index fund investing has swept the world. In December, for the first time, U.S. investors entrusted more money to index funds than actively managed funds, in which a manager picks stocks or bonds for you.There’s a good reason for the index funds’ popularity. For most people, owning a little piece of the entire market, which you can do at low cost with an index fund, has been more profitable than buying and selling securities, either on their own or through a manager.But the relentless growth of index funds has come at a cost. One significant problem is that the most diversified funds own shares in every publicly traded company in the market, and if you don’t like a company, or its specific policies, you’re stuck. You couldn’t even exercise your vote on issues you thought were important because until recently, the fund managers insisted on doing that for you.Well, that’s been changing in a big way.BlackRock announced this month that it was expanding an experimental program to give investors six flavors of policy choices — like a focus on climate change or a preference for religious values — in votes on corporate issues. State Street already has a similar program underway, and Vanguard is tiptoeing into this kind of voting choice, too.All told, the three giant fund companies have given scores of millions of investors, with $4.6 trillion in assets, a way of expressing their views on corporate issues. This is certainly an improvement. And it could eventually lead to profound changes throughout corporate America, even as it eases some ticklish problems for the big index fund companies.The ProblemsIn the view of scholars like John Coates, the author of “The Problem of 12: When a Few Financial Institutions Control Everything,” the growth of index funds has had the unintended consequence of diminishing shareholder democracy.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      January Was Awesome for Stock Pickers, but Can They Keep It Going?

      by

      Most active fund managers beat the market at the start of the year. But history suggests that they’re not likely to keep doing so for long.Over the last 20 years, stock pickers have had a dismal record. Most haven’t come close to beating the overall stock market.But occasionally, there are exceptions. In some periods, stock pickers rule, and the start of this year was one of those times.In fact, it was the best January for actively managed stock mutual funds since Bank of America began compiling data in 1991. It wasn’t just that they turned in handsome returns for investors. The entire stock market did that. The S&P 500 and other stock indexes set records during the month.It was that active stock funds did even better, though not by much, beating various market indexes by less than a percentage point, on average. Still, it was the best single month for these funds — in which managers buy and sell individual stocks whenever they choose to do so — since 2007. That happened to be the best calendar year for stock pickers in decades.There’s no way of knowing how long this streak of outperformance will go on, or why, exactly, it has existed in the first place. But it’s quite possible that it will continue for the balance of the year, and that buying the average actively managed fund will look like a brilliant move. Index funds that mirror the entire market could well lag behind.That said, I think the active fund managers are unlikely to prevail over the long run. The reason is that history shows it’s just too hard to beat the market.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

      Stocks Sink as Stubborn Inflation Resets Fed Rate Forecasts

      by

      Stock markets tumbled on Tuesday as investors slashed their bets on the Federal Reserve taking the brakes off the economy in the coming months, after hotter-than-expected inflation data led traders to expect interest rates will remain higher for longer.The benchmark S&P 500 stock index fell over 1 percent in early trading. The index has only suffered such a large loss on one other day this year, with bullishness about the resilience of the economy and corporate profits continually pushing stocks to new highs.Investors still expect the Fed to pull inflation back to manageable levels without inflicting too much pain on the broader economy. But that forecast was put under pressure on Tuesday by a consumer inflation report that showed prices rising more quickly than had been forecast.The consumer data “came in stronger than either the Fed or the market wanted or expected,” said Greg Wilensky, head of U.S. fixed income at Janus Henderson Investors.The longer inflation remains elevated, the longer the Fed is likely to push off rate cuts, turning the screws on an economy that is already starting to show some signs of weakness, and tempering enthusiasm on Wall Street.Stuart Keiser, an equity analyst at Citi, said the inflation data was “not a game-changer” but that it was likely to drive a short-term retrenchment in the stock market as investors dial back hopes for rate cuts. “Today’s print was clearly not a good one,” he said.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Moody’s Downgrades Israel’s Credit Rating, Citing Toll of War With Hamas

      by

      Moody’s on Friday became the first major rating agency to downgrade Israel’s creditworthiness, citing the prolonged war with Hamas and the toll it is taking on the country’s finances.Moody’s, one of three major rating agencies alongside S&P Global Ratings and Fitch, lowered Israel’s rating from A1 to A2. Credit ratings range from a low of D or C (for S&P and Moody’s scales) to AAA or Aaa for the most pristine borrowers. A rating of A2 is still a high rating, but Moody’s also noted that the outlook for the country was negative, dented by the social, political and economic risks arising from the conflict with Hamas. The rating agency had put Israel on review after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks, in which more than 1,200 people were killed, according to Israeli officials, and more than 250 taken hostage. Both S&P and Fitch also began to reassess Israel’s credit rating in November but have yet to take any action as a result. In a statement announcing the decision, Moody’s said that it downgraded Israel because “the ongoing military conflict with Hamas, its aftermath and wider consequences materially raise political risk for Israel as well as weaken its executive and legislative institutions and its fiscal strength, for the foreseeable future.”Moody’s said it expected Israel’s military spending to double 2022’s outlay by the end of this year. That means more debt to fund the increase in spending.It is typical for rating agencies to reassess a country’s creditworthiness after a major event that is likely to affect its ability to repay its lenders. Credit ratings are required by many investors who buy the debt of companies and countries as an indicator of the likelihood that they will get back the money they lent out. S&P, which has also been re-evaluating Israel’s credit rating since October, has planned an update to the country’s credit rating for May 10. The rating agency noted in a report in November that Israel’s diversified economy and strong tech sector should give its finances ballast during the war, though it warned that a further escalation of the conflict to regions outside Gaza could strongly affect its decision-making. “We could lower the ratings on Israel if the conflict widens materially, increasing the security and geopolitical risks that Israel faces,” S&P’s analysts noted. “We could also lower the ratings in the next 12-24 months if the impact of the conflict on Israel’s economic growth, fiscal position and balance of payments proves more significant than we currently project.” More