Monday, June 03, 2024

Fed study offers new clues that help explain America’s gloomy mood

An enduring oddity of Joe Biden's presidency is that consumer confidence is weak and Biden’s approval ratings poor, despite record job gains and solid economic growth.

So, what’s going on? A new Federal Reserve analysis of household finances offers some clues.

In its annual survey of consumers, the Fed found that 72% said they were doing "at least OK" with their finances, meaning people were either "living comfortably" (33%) or "doing OK" (39%).

That's close to 2022's level of 73%, but is down sharply from 78% in 2021 and matches a low reached in April 2020. The last full year of data that saw this portion of consumers say they were doing "at least OK" was 2016.

And the portion of Americans who feel worse off than they did a few years ago — even if this rises by a little — could determine whether voters in this year’s presidential election think Biden deserves another term.

Here are four insights from the Fed’s latest analysis.

As noted previously, the best level of financial fitness consumers reported during the last 11 years came in 2021, when 78% said they were doing at least OK. The second-best level came in July 2020 at 77%. But it wasn't because the economy was booming.

In 2020, the COVID pandemic was raging and many Americans were locked down at home. Things were better in 2021, after vaccines started rolling out, but the economy didn’t fully recover from the COVID setback until deep into 2022.

Here's what else was going on in 2020 and 2021: Americans received massive amounts of stimulus money, including checks from the government, aid to businesses, tax breaks for parents, and suspended payments for student loan borrowers.

President Joe Biden speaks about the PACT Act at the Westwood Park YMCA, Tuesday, May 21, 2024, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Joe Biden speaks about the PACT Act at the Westwood Park YMCA, Tuesday, May 21, 2024, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Those programs are now basically over. Many Americans banked extra money during the pandemic, but economists think those “excess savings” are now fully depleted.

What consumers may really be saying is that they feel worse off now compared with the COVID years, when unprecedented amounts of federal aid produced an abnormal and temporary bubble of financial security.

The problem for Biden is a recency bias from voters, meaning a lot of folks won’t do an apples-to-apples comparison of their well-being now compared with pre-COVID levels.

They’ll simply feel the deterioration from the days when "stimmy checks" beefed up their bank balances, and blame the guy in charge.

One notable group that has been doing worse during the last year is parents.

The portion that said they’re "doing OK" financially dropped to 64% in 2023 from 69% in 2022. All others, excluding parents, stayed the same at 75%.

From 2021 to 2023, the portion of parents that said they’re "doing OK" dropped by 11 percentage points. Among the group representing everybody else, it dropped by just four points.

That could reflect one stimulus measure that substantially boosted the child tax credit, but expired at the end of 2021.

Census Department data shows the child poverty rate plunged to 5.2% in 2021 from 9.7% in 2020 — then jumped all the way up to 12.4% in 2022.

Most experts think these huge variations come from on-and-off COVID stimulus, including the child tax credit expansion. Biden and many Democrats want to make that expansion permanent, but they haven’t been able to get the votes in Congress.

Drop Rick Newman a notefollow him on Twitter, or sign up for his newsletter.

In the Fed's survey, 35% of respondents cited inflation as a problem, and the Fed highlighted food prices as a particular concern.

"When describing challenges related to inflation, many people mentioned the cost of food and groceries," the report explains. That’s similar to the findings of a November Yahoo Finance-Ipsos survey in which 67% of respondents said food inflation was hurting them the most. Gasoline came second, at just 15%.

Food prices have moderated, with the year-over-year inflation rate now just 1.1%.

As most consumers know, however, food prices are up 21% during the last four years, and they're likely not going back down. Consumers are largely stuck paying those higher prices.

The biggest improvement from 2022 to 2023 was an increase among non-retirees who say their retirement savings plan is on track. That rose to 34% from 31%, and it’s probably higher now, given the stock market rally of the last six months.

As for retirees, they’re doing pretty well, with 80% saying they’re doing OK financially. That's the best of any demographic group in the study.

If they were the only ones voting in 2024, Biden might be in pretty good shape.

US federal budget crosses grim

milestone as interest payments 

overtake defense spending




Rick Newman
·Senior Columnist

The United States has long had the world’s biggest defense budget, with spending this year set to approach $900 billion.

Yet this spending is rapidly being eclipsed by the fastest-growing portion of federal outflows: interest payments on the national debt.

For the first seven months of fiscal year 2024, which began last October, net interest payments totaled $514 billion, outpacing defense by $20 billion. Budget analysts think that trend will continue, making 2024 the first year ever that the United States will spend more on interest payments than on national defense.

Just two years ago, interest payments were the seventh-largest federal spending category, behind Social Security, health programs other than Medicare, income assistance, national defense, Medicare, and education.

Interest is now the third-biggest expenditure after Social Security and health. And not because any of the other programs are shrinking. While most government expenditures grow modestly from year to year, interest expenses in 2024 are running 41% higher than in 2023.

Interest payments are ballooning for two obvious reasons.

The first is that annual deficits have exploded, leaving the nation with a gargantuan $34.6 trillion in total federal debt, 156% higher than the national debt at the end of 2010.

In the 1990s, the average federal deficit was $138 billion per year. In the 2000s, it was $318 billion. In the 2010s, it was $829 billion. Since 2020, the annual deficit has swelled to $2.24 trillion, largely due to pandemic-related stimulus measures in 2020 and 2021. The projection for 2024 is a $1.5 trillion shortfall.

As a percentage of GDP, the annual deficit has nearly doubled in just 10 years, from 2.8% in 2014 to a projected 5.3% in 2024. So there's just a lot more borrowing to pay interest on.

The government is also paying more to borrow as interest rates have shot up over the last two years. Like consumers buying homes and cars, Uncle Sam benefits from cheap money when rates are low and bears a heavier burden when rates are high.

From 2010 through 2021, the average interest rate on all Treasury securities sold to the public was just 2.1%, which helped keep total interest payments manageable.

But in 2022, the Federal Reserve started jacking up rates to tame inflation, and the government now pays an average interest rate of 3.3%. So, the amount of borrowed money keeps going up, and the cost of borrowing that money is rising too.

More taxpayer money going to interest expenses will eventually leave less money for everything else, and at some point, the Treasury won’t be able to borrow its way out of the problem anymore.

It's an unsustainable situation, which could lead investors to lose faith in the government’s creditworthiness and demand even higher rates to buy Treasurys.

Drop Rick Newman a notefollow him on Twitter, or sign up for his newsletter.

The urgency of the problem, however, is open to debate.

At the recent Milken Institute conference in Los Angeles, luminaries such as billionaire investor Ken Griffin and former House Speaker Paul Ryan warned of a looming debt crisis if the government’s interest costs continue to mushroom. But many prominent financiers also touted the United States as the best destination in the world for investment, despite all its problems.

And many predictions of a debt crisis when interest expenses were a lot lower have so far turned out to be wrong.

Soldiers stand in front of an U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter jet during a briefing in a hangar at the U.S. Spangdahlem Air base, Germany September 3, 2015.  REUTERS/Ina Fassbender
Soldiers stand in front of an U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter jet during a briefing in a hangar at the U.S. Spangdahlem Air base, Germany September 3, 2015. (REUTERS/Ina Fassbender) (REUTERS / Reuters)

Two people who seem unperturbed by America’s debt burden are President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the two leading candidates in this year’s race for the White House. Neither is making deficit reduction a focus of his presidential campaign.

Biden does have a plan of sorts. He’d raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy and use some of that revenue to trim annual deficits. But Biden also wants to spend more on social programs, which could offset any savings.

Trump says he’d encourage more oil and natural gas drilling, which would somehow produce a windfall of tax revenue that would pay down the debt. But there’s no obvious way that would happen, no matter how much drilling takes place.

Besides, both men have presided over a huge run-up in the national debt.

The national debt rose by $7.8 trillion during Trump’s four years as president and $6.8 trillion during Biden’s first three years and four months.

Earlier this year, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget helped Yahoo Finance analyze who’s responsible for the national debt, and the blame falls more or less equally on administrations of both parties borrowing to finance wars, tax cuts, spending programs, and stimulus measures during recessions.

When the time does arrive to fix the debt, the inevitable solution will be a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes that will make a lot of people unhappy.

Which reveals the real reason no politician wants to address the problem — everyone hopes it'll be the guy after them.


Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @rickjnewman.

Despite A 12% Rise, 49% Of Americans Believe Stocks Are Down. Why?

Adrian Volenik
Mon, Jun 3, 2024,

Despite A 12% Rise, 49% Of Americans Believe Stocks Are Down. Why?

A recent Harris Poll conducted for the Guardian reveals that 49% of respondents believe the U.S. stock market index is down for the year. This perception persists despite a significant 12% rise in the S&P 500 this year, which reached a record high on May 21.

The same poll reveals that 67% of Republicans, 53% of Independents, and 49% of Democrats wrongly believe the U.S. is in a recession. Similarly, 55% of poll respondents think the economy is contracting.

These results reveal that it isn’t a partisan issue — people across the board don’t feel the effects of the rising stock market. That discrepancy should raise some eyebrows in Washington, especially since many Americans connect the state of the economy to the Biden administration. Notably, 58% of those surveyed blame mismanagement by the current administration for worsening economic conditions.

Despite positive economic indicators, such as GDP growth and a low unemployment rate under 4% for the 27th straight month — a nearly 50-year low, public perception remains pessimistic. These metrics should inspire confidence in the economy’s resilience and potential for additional growth, yet they clearly don’t.

The rising cost of living is a significant factor behind this pessimism. Despite a decline in inflation, prices remain higher than they were a few years ago, causing people to experience the strain of higher costs. This financial pressure likely shapes people’s views of the economy, making them more pessimistic.

Misinformation also influences public perception. The economy is complex, and mixed messages from different sources can confuse people. They hear different things from different sources, making it hard to know what’s happening. For some, this confusion can change the economy and what they think is happening.

Lastly, we shouldn’t overlook the emotional impact of past economic problems. After experiencing high inflation and interest rates, people are cautious and worried about the future. This nervousness is reflected in a University of Michigan survey, which showed that consumer confidence fell to its lowest point in six months in May.

As Election Day nears, this ongoing economic pessimism will likely affect voter attitudes, and persuading voters to adopt a more positive outlook could be difficult for Biden.


Tech companies bet on carbon removal startups as AI tests climate goals


Akiko Fujita
·Host
Mon, Jun 3, 2024,

Carbon removal technologies are becoming increasingly important for companies, particularly for tech giants locked in a fierce battle to become the leader in artificial intelligence.

Once considered a diversion for the critical work of cutting emissions, carbon removal projects that extract and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere — such as direct air capture facilities or reforestation efforts — are now seen as a necessary step to hit key climate change targets.


“There are some portions of company emissions that you will just never abate,” Karan Mistry, managing director and partner for Boston Consulting Group, told Yahoo Finance. “[Companies are] recognizing that they have a net zero target and they want to actually get to zero and honor their very public commitments, they have to invest in some sort of removal technology.”

Frontier Fund, a consortium of investors that includes Alphabet (GOOG), JPMorgan (JPM), and Meta (META), has purchased contracts to remove more than 510,203 tons of carbon to date.

The fund made one of its biggest commitments last year when it committed to paying $57.1 million to enhanced rock weathering startup Lithos Carbon to remove 154,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

"All of these frontrunners in the carbon market, they’re not just interested in what they can buy today," Henry Liu, head of engineering at Lithos Carbon, told Yahoo Finance. "They’re investing in the future of the carbon dioxide removal market. [With] the scale of the market, they recognize that investment is needed. So they’re looking to support pathways.”

A bank of fans draws air through specialized filters at Climeworks' Mammoth carbon removal plant on May 24, 2024, in Reykjavik, Iceland. (John Moore/Getty Images) (John Moore via Getty Images)
Tech buys into carbon removal

Although the number of companies making net-zero commitments has continued to grow, so have overall global emissions. And emerging technologies are making achieving those commitments more difficult.

The scale and speed of data processing needed for AI technology require so much energy, the International Energy Agency recently warned that consumption from data centers, AI, and the cryptocurrency sector could double by 2026.

That realization has led to a surge in investments in carbon removal startups. Direct air capture firms and those utilizing nature-based carbon removal methods raised more than $1 billion combined in 2023, according to PitchBook data. The number of carbon removal credits sold jumped more than 650% from the previous year, according to CDR.fyi.

The energy, manufacturing, and transportation sectors are leading those investments, but some of the biggest tech companies in the world are also investing in carbon removal to tackle emissions.

Microsoft (MSFT), a key player in the AI race, is one of the largest buyers, with more than 7.6 million purchases of carbon credits since 2020.

The company has already seen its carbon emissions jump 30% from 2020, according to its sustainability report. Four years ago, the company set out to become carbon negative by the end of the decade, calling it the company’s moonshot.

Microsoft CEO Brad Smith speaks at the Mobile World Congress (MWC) on Feb. 26, 2024, in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. (Kike Rincon/Europa Press via Getty Images) (Europa Press News via Getty Images)

In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Microsoft president Brad Smith admitted the goal would be harder to reach with the company’s AI ambitions.

“In many ways, the moon is five times as far away as it was in 2020, if you think of our own forecast for the expansion of AI and its electrical needs,” he said.
Challenges in the fledgling market

While carbon credits have largely been limited to voluntary markets, companies are planning for the increasing possibility of regulation mandating purchases to reach net-zero goals. The problem is that demand is expected to outstrip supply, even with hundreds of startups working to remove carbon, on behalf of emitting companies.

BCG analysis estimates an annual demand for durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to reach 40 million to 200 million tons of CO2 by the end of this decade. Supply is projected to be 15 million-32 million tons.

Companies are looking to get ahead of that crunch by investing in nascent technologies with clear processes for monitoring, reporting, and verifying the quality of carbon removed.

However, impact is still hard to quantify, depending on the removal process. Companies that offer what is considered some of the highest integrity offsets remain among the most expensive, largely because the technology has not scaled.

“If you want someone to buy a CDR offset or a carbon offset, you want them to feel good that they actually bought what they said they did,” Mistry said.

Saplings grown at the nursery of the nonprofit environmental group Rioterra, await planting to restore areas of a nearby rainforest in Itapua do Oeste, Brazil, Feb. 18, 2020. (REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini) (REUTERS / Reuters)

Direct air capture (DAC) has the simplest measuring system, according to Mistry, whose firm has invested in a handful of DAC companies, including Climeworks. But it requires building large factories that can suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and it costs $600 to $1000 to capture a ton of carbon.

Methods that rely on agricultural waste are considered cheaper, but they require a lot of land. Planting trees may be among the most economical, but Mistry argues that carbon storage isn’t as permanent.

“You can estimate how much carbon is in the tree, but there are questions like, what happens if it gets cut down? What happens if there’s a forest fire?” Mistry said.

These questions over credibility have hampered the market recently, with studies showing that many carbon offsets haven't led to the kind of carbon removal they promised.

However, the carbon market did receive a vote of support from the Biden administration last Tuesday when it unveiled a framework for using voluntary carbon offsets, an admission that the country will not achieve its net-zero goal by 2050 through emissions reductions alone.

“​​We need to use all the tools at our disposal — creatively, thoughtfully, and at scale,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, praising the role of carbon removal technology in helping companies achieve their climate goals. Though she stressed: “Corporate buyers should prioritize reducing their own emissions, particularly through transition planning.”