(NEW YORK) — Roku plans to lay off another 200 workers, or 6% of its workforce, the video-streaming company said in a government filing on Thursday, just months after a prior round of layoffs in the fall that slashed 200 jobs.
The company’s revenue surged during the pandemic when customers stuck indoors came to rely on at-home entertainment.
However, the return of consumer habits more closely resembling pre-pandemic life has posed a challenge for the San Jose, California-based company.
The round of layoffs, which the company described as a “restructuring plan,” aims to “lower the Company’s year-over-year operating expense growth and prioritize projects that the Company believes will have a higher return on investment,” the government filing said.
The layoffs will cost the company between $30 and $35 million due to severance payments and other employee benefits, the filing said.
The company’s revenue stood essentially unchanged over the last three months of 2022 compared with the same period a year ago, according to an earnings report released last month.
Roku had previously warned of a difficult business environment expected at the end of last year due to a slowdown in ad spending and the adverse effects of inflation.
Shares of Roku ticked up about 1.5% in early trading on Thursday.
(NEW YORK) — Artificial intelligence-driven language models have garnered millions of users in recent months, instantly whipping up viral sensations like a biblical verse about how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR.
However, the AI-enhanced chat bots pose significant dangers that far outweigh the benefits, according to a group of tech leaders, including entrepreneur Elon Musk, who signed an open letter on Wednesday calling for a six-month pause in the development of AI systems and a major expansion of government oversight.
“AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity,” the letter said.
“Recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control,” the letter added.
Earlier this month, artificial intelligence company OpenAI released the latest version of ChatGPT, the AI-powered language model that became an internet sensation late last year.
GPT-4, the latest model, can understand images as input, meaning it can look at a photo and give the user general information about the image; and it can write code in all major programming languages, among other advances.
The open letter released on Wednesday calls on AI labs to immediately pause the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
In addition to Musk, prominent figures signed onto the letter include Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Marc Rotenberg, the president of the nonprofit Center for AI and Digital Policy.
In all, the letter features more than 1,000 signees, including professors, tech executives and scientists.
The letter arrives roughly a month after Microsoft released a newly AI-enhanced version of its search engine Bing for some users.
Microsoft declined to comment on the letter. Open AI did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
Describing conversations with the chatbot that lasted as long as two hours, some journalists and researchers warned that the AI could potentially persuade a user to commit harmful deeds or steer him or her toward misinformation.
In a series of blog posts, Microsoft acknowledged unexpected results and placed limits on the tool.
“We’ve updated the service several times in response to user feedback, and per our blog are addressing many of the concerns being raised, to include the questions about long-running conversations,” a Microsoft spokesperson previously told ABC News.
In January, Microsoft announced it was investing $10 billion in OpenAI, the artificial intelligence firm that developed Chat GPT.
The move deepened a longstanding relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI, which began with a $1 billion investment four years ago.
The open letter called on AI developers to work with policymakers to improve oversight of artificial intelligence technology, and called on the industry to shift its priorities as it works to enhance AI.
“AI research and development should be refocused on making today’s powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal,” the letter said.
(WASHINGTON) — Starbucks’ former CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday denied breaking the law in response to sharp criticism from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who accused the company of “the most aggressive and illegal union busting campaign in the modern history of our country.”
In response to questions from Sanders during a Senate hearing, Schultz affirmed the right of workers to choose whether to unionize and defended the company’s actions.
Starbucks “has not broken the law,” Schultz said. “Let me set the tone for this very early on.”
Schultz, who served as Starbucks CEO for over 20 years across three stints, said Starbucks has negotiated in “good faith” with employees as they’ve sought to unionize and obtain collective benefits.
More than a dozen decisions from federal officials have found that the company violated labor law in its response to a wave of union campaigns at its stores, according to the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency.
Roughly 290 of almost 9,000 company-owned stores in the U.S. have voted to unionize. However, workers have yet to sign a union contract at a single location.
Earlier this month, an administrative judge ruled that Starbucks had committed “egregious and widespread misconduct” in its effort to prevent unionization at some of its stores.
The judge, Michael A. Rosas, mandated the company reinstate several workers and Schultz read a notice to employees, among other remedies.
More than 500 formal allegations of labor law violations have been filed against Starbucks with regional offices of the NLRB, the agency said this month.
In all, 13 decisions have ordered remedies for unfair labor practices committed by Starbucks, including the reinstatement of 22 employees, the NLRB said. Some of those decisions have been appealed, the agency added.
Schultz characterized the findings against Starbucks as “allegations,” adding that the company is “confident that those allegations will be proven false.”
Workers United, the labor organization organizing Starbucks workers, said in a statement that it welcomed the Senate hearing as a venue for Schultz to face accountability for his response to the union campaign.
“We’re hopeful for change,” a Workers United spokesperson said. “We’re hopeful that this hearing moves the needle forward for baristas and workers all across the country.”
“We look forward to Howard Schultz being held accountable for his actions and being forced to answer to his unprecedented union-busting campaign under oath,” the spokesperson added.
Starbucks workers achieved an unprecedented wave of unionization at the company last year but the pace of union victories fell significantly over the course of last year.
Over the first half of 2022, the National Labor Relations Board received union election petitions from an average of 47 Starbucks stores per month; but over five months ending in November, that election rate dwindled to 11 stores per month, according to data from the NLRB.
(WASHINGTON) — When Starbucks’ most famous former CEO, Howard Schultz, appears Wednesday before a Senate committee to face questioning from Bernie Sanders over the company’s response to a unionization push — including what a labor judge found to be union-busting practices — he’ll look to paint Starbucks as a “different kind of public company” that “balances profitability with social conscience.”
According to Schultz’s prepared testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reviewed by ABC News, he’ll argue that Starbucks has negotiated in “good faith” with employees as they’ve sought to unionize and obtain collective benefits.
“Starbucks respects the right of all partners to make their own decisions about union representation, and Starbucks is committed to engaging in good faith collective bargaining for each store that has a union. I embrace these commitments,” Schultz will say. “At the same time, our business requires speed and flexibility, both on the job and when operating more than 9,000 U.S. company-operated stores of every shape and size while addressing ever-changing customer preferences.”
Schultz is also set to defend Starbucks’ negotiation tactics and allege wrongdoing by union organizers — a view starkly at odds with the Seattle-based company’s pro-union employees.
“We have been arranging more than 350 bargaining sessions involving more than 200 sets of negotiations — each relating to a single store — and Starbucks representatives have been physically present at more than 85 sets of negotiations,” Schultz plans to say. “However, union representatives have improperly demanded multi-store negotiations, delayed or refused to attend meetings, and insisted on unlawful preconditions such as ‘virtual’ bargaining and participation by outside observers, among other things.”
Committee Chairman Sanders, I-Vt., has for months been working to haul Schultz before his committee to answer for Starbucks’ behavior related to a union push among its hundreds of thousands of employees.
“Despite being the face of the company, Starbucks partners are underpaid, forced to run perpetually understaffed stores, and don’t have consistent schedules they can rely on,” one Starbucks Workers Union email stated amid a “Red Cup Rebellion” in November.
Michelle Eisen, a worker from the first unionized Starbucks store in the U.S. at Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, New York, wrote in the email that workers are “organizing for a voice on the job and a true seat at the table.”
In a previous statement announcing Schultz’s testimony on Wednesday, Sanders said Starbucks must do more for its workers.
“Let’s be clear. In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining to improve their wages and working conditions. Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr. Schultz’s leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening,” Sanders said in the statement. “Despite the fact that over 280 Starbucks coffee shops have successfully voted to form a union over the past year, Starbucks has refused to negotiate in good faith to sign a single first contract with their employees.”
During Wednesday’s hearing, Schultz will claim that much of his company’s problematic union conduct occurred before he was at the helm.
In his opening remarks, he plans to say that prior to his taking the helm as interim CEO last April, it was clear the company had “lost its way.”
Schultz served as Starbucks’ leader for more than 20 years across three stints, most recently stepping down last week.
He’ll also highlight changes he made at the company and social programs that Starbucks has extended to its partners and employees — including opportunities for stock ownership, the company’s college achievement plan, paid sick and parental leave and mental health programs.
“Our board and our leadership are in complete agreement that a direct relationship with our partners, where we have the flexibility to implement improvements quickly in wages and benefits and share success in the future, as we have in the past, is the right path forward for Starbucks, our partners and all company stakeholders,” he’ll say.
(NEW YORK) — Social media app TikTok faces mounting bipartisan hostility in Washington D.C., where Biden administration officials and lawmakers are weighing a possible ban of the platform.
The app, which counts more than 150 million U.S. users each month but is owned by a China-based parent company, has faced growing scrutiny from government officials over fears that user data could fall into the possession of the Chinese government and the app could be weaponized by China to spread misinformation.
However, there is no evidence that TikTok has shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or that the Chinese government has asked the app to do so, cybersecurity experts told ABC News.
Still, there’s reason to believe that the Chinese government could compel the company to share data on U.S. users or manipulate content on the app to forward a pro-China agenda, considering the nation’s authority over domestic companies and previous misleading statements made by TikTok on related issues, the experts added.
“We don’t have smoking-gun evidence,” Sarah Bauerle-Danzman, a professor who specializes in national security and business investment at Indiana University, told ABC News. “But we do know that if the [Chinese government] asks TikTok for any data, they would be compelled to provide it and we also probably wouldn’t know if they did.”
In a statement, TikTok cited Project Texas, an initiative that the company says keeps all U.S. user data on servers within the country.
“The whole point of Project Texas is to put TikTok U.S. user data and systems outside the reach or influence of any foreign government,” the company said in a statement to ABC News.
“Today, all new protected U.S. user data is stored exclusively in infrastructure in the United States, and today all access to that environment is managed exclusively by TikTok U.S. Data Security, a team led by Americans, in America,” the company added.
Here’s what we know and don’t know about the national security threat posed by TikTok.
No evidence that TikTok has shared US user data with the Chinese government
A key fear among lawmakers and other government officials is that TikTok could share sweeping data on U.S. users with the Chinese government or the Chinese government could force the platform to manipulate the content displayed to U.S.-based users.
But there is no evidence available that suggests TikTok has shared U.S. user data or altered content for U.S. users at the behest of the Chinese government, cybersecurity experts said.
“We actually lack any evidence that China is regularly or systematically collecting TikTok data,” Ahmed Ghappour, a professor at Boston University who focuses on computer security and criminal law, told ABC News.
“We lack any evidence that China has attempted to compel TikTok to manipulate user recommendations or user data in any way that would rise to the level of a national security threat,” he added.
TikTok CEO Shou Chew pointed to the lack of evidence during roughly five hours of testimony before a House committee on Thursday.
“I think a lot of risks that are pointed out are hypothetical and theoretical risks,” Chew responded. “I have not seen any evidence.”
“I’m eagerly awaiting discussions where we talk about evidence,” he added.
In fact, some House members critical of TikTok acknowledged the lack of evidence.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, closed the proceeding with a line of questions focused on potential data sharing between TikTok and the Chinese government.
“Maybe you haven’t done it yet,” Crenshaw said, addressing Chew. “But my point is that you might have to.”
“If you want to know why Democrats and Republicans have come together on this,” Crenshaw added. “That’s why.”
Despite a lack of evidence for the national security threat posed by TikTok, it remains a legitimate theoretical concern, since China has shown a previous willingness to exploit user data and wields extensive authority over domestic companies, cybersecurity experts said.
“We know that China is very aggressive when it comes to spying,” James Lewis, a data security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News. “TikTok hasn’t been caught. The Chinese have been caught.”
For instance, in 2015, hackers working on behalf of China broke into the computer system of the Office of Personnel Management, a federal agency, compromising the data of as many as 4 million federal employees, the Washington Post reported.
Last month, the U.S. military shot down a Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina, ending days of travel that took the balloon across the continental United States.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken postponed a trip to Beijing just hours before he was set to depart. Blinken called the balloon a “clear violation” of U.S. sovereignty and international law. Days later, China accused the U.S. of flying spy balloons into its airspace without permission more than 10 times since the start of 2022 — an allegation that the U.S. denied.
Meanwhile, China’s use of digital surveillance on its own residents is well-documented, including the deployment of app-based data to spy on residents as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under Chinese law, the government could force TikTok-parent company ByteDance to turnover U.S. user data and manipulate content displayed on the app, cybersecurity experts said, noting that a lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine whether such a request has taken place.
“There wouldn’t be a paper trail necessarily that would be available to the public to see if this were to occur,” Bauerle-Danzman said.
TikTok has repeatedly denied sharing U.S. user data with the Chinese government or receiving a request along those lines.
However, the company has previously provided misleading information on related issues, some experts said.
TikTok engineers based in China gained access to intimate information on U.S. users between September 2021 and January 2022, even after a TikTok executive told the Senate in sworn testimony in October 2021 that a “world-renowned, US-based security team” determined which employees accessed such data, BuzzFeed reported in June.
“TikTok has a documented history of saying one thing and not always being accurate about that information,” Bauerle-Danzman said.
In response to concerns about U.S. user data, Chew has touted Project Texas, an ongoing effort that he says keeps all data on U.S. users within the country through a partnership with Oracle. During his testimony before the House, Chew said ByteDance remains capable of accessing user data but will no longer be able to do so after TikTok completes Project Texas.
Chew also said the company would welcome information security controls approved by a U.S. government monitor and enforced by a third party.
“Trust must be earned through action, not words,” Chew said.
ABC News’ Britt Clennett, Karson Yiu and Morgan Winsor contributed reporting.
(WASHINGTON) — The country’s top banking regulators faced a grilling from lawmakers Tuesday about who was responsible for the the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.
The Senate Banking Committee heard testimony from officials at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury Department in its first hearing about the overnight collapses of the institutions.
“Did the Fed drop the ball because it didn’t see the risks that were building?” chairman Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, asked as he kicked off the proceedings.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., argued “warning signs should have been flashing red and SVB should have stood out as it was: absolutely a problem child.”
“I hope to learn how the Federal Reserve could know about such risky practices for more than a year and failed to take definitive corrective action,” Scott added, pointing to testimony that supervisors flagged weaknesses as early as 2021. “By all accounts, our regulators appear to have been asleep at the wheel.”
Michael Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, pushed back that it was the job of bank managers to resolve issues stemming from their unique business models.
“The bank failed because its management failed to appropriately address clear interest rate risk and liquidity risk,” Barr said, going on to describe the actions of executives a “textbook case of bank mismanagement.”
Barr testified alongside Nellie Liang, the undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department, and Martin Gruenberg, who chairs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Barr and Gruenberg signaled they have tools to reprimand bank executives — including civil money penalties, the payment of restitution or ban from the banking industry — pending the findings of investigations.
“We retain this authority even after a bank fails, and we stand ready to use this authority to the fullest extent based on the facts and circumstances,” Barr said.
President Joe Biden has called on Congress to make it easier to punish failed bank executives, including clawing back their compensation. Gruenberg stated Tuesday the FDIC didn’t have explicit authority to claw back pay but could go after executives in these other ways.
Biden also called for stricter banking rules to prevent more collapses.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Tuesday hammered regulators on their commitment to tightening banking rules in the wake of these failures.
One after another, all three officials said they agreed banking rules should be strengthened.
“Each of you at this table has authority that you could exercise right now to strengthen rules for big banks and to ensure that our banking system and our economy are safer,” Warren said. “I urge you to use that authority, and I urge my colleagues here in Congress to do our part to protect American families and small businesses from yet another banking crisis.”
Barr and other officials faced questions about whether recent changes to regulation and supervision, including the Trump-era rollbacks of the Dodd Frank Act, contributed to the banks’ implosions.
“If it’s the regulator’s fault, it better be fixed. If it’s the regulation’s fault, it better be fixed,” Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said. “If it’s something else, I hope there’s a report to this committee saying, ‘You know what guys, this can happen again unless this happens.'”
But Republicans, who are generally opposed to more regulation, questioned if bank regulators already had the appropriate tools but decided not to use them.
Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, a chief architect of the 2018 legislation, said it still allowed the Fed to use its discretion to impose stricter standards on individual institutions.
“You are not using the tools in your toolbox,” said Alabama Sen. Katie Britt. “That is what people hate about Washington.”
Barr agreed the Federal Reserve is granted “substantial discretion” under that law, and that would be “one of the areas we’ll be looking at in our review.”
The Federal Reserve is looking into the bank failures and their practices, with reports expected by May 1. Barr vowed “transparency” and said the Federal Reserve welcomes independent investigations.
Regulators also defended the decisions they made in the days after the collapse, including the decision to protect all deposits, citing the risk of contagion for smaller and regional banks.
“The situation demanded a swift response. In the days that followed, the federal government took decisive action to strengthen public confidence in the U.S. banking system and to protect the U.S. economy,” Liang said.
(NEW YORK) — Embattled crypto executive Sam Bankman-Fried now faces an additional criminal charge of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to a superseding indictment unsealed Tuesday in the Southern District of New York.
The new charge brings to 13 the total number of counts Bankman-Fried faces, all stemming from alleged corruption in the operations of the crypto companies he founded: FTX and Alameda Research.
Bankman-Fried allegedly agreed to pay $40 million in cryptocurrency to foreign officials in China so they would unfreeze certain trading accounts on two of China’s largest crypto exchanges that belonged to Alameda, according to the superseding indictment.
The accounts had been frozen in 2021 by Chinese authorities as part of an investigation of a certain Alameda trading counterparty.
“After the accounts were frozen, Samuel Bankman-Fried, the defendant, and others operating at his direction, considered and tried numerous methods to unfreeze the accounts,” the indictment said. “After months of failed attempts to unfreeze the accounts, Samuel Bankman-Fried, the defendant, discussed with others and ultimately agreed to and directed a multi-million dollar bribe to seek to unfreeze the accounts.”
The alleged bribe payment was carried out in November 2021, at which time the accounts were unfrozen, prosecutors said, and Bankman-Fried resumed trading with the estimated $1 billion that remained in those accounts.
Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to eight criminal charges. He has yet to enter a plea on this newest count and four others unsealed in a previous superseding indictment in late February.
Bankman-Fried has been free on a $250 million personal recognizance bond and under court orders to live with his parents. On Thursday, the judge overseeing the case will consider additional restrictions on Bankman-Fried’s bail after federal prosecutors raised concerns about his internet activities and his contact with current and former FTX employees.
According to a new court filing, Bankman-Fried’s parents have agreed to not allow him to use their phones and laptops and to install monitoring software on those devices that will photograph the device’s user every five minutes.
If the judge agrees, Bankman-Fried will not be allowed to contact current or former FTX and Alameda employees, use Signal or other encrypted messaging apps or use a VPN to access the internet.
He will be given a new laptop configured to allow access only to pre-approved websites, which are necessary for the preparation of the defense or for personal use, and do not pose a risk to the community.
(LOS ANGELES) — Taylor Swift fans will get their day in court on Monday, months after the botched release of tour tickets prompted widespread outcry.
A federal court in Los Angeles will hear arguments in a case brought by fans who allege that Live Nation — and subsidiary company Ticketmaster — violated antitrust and consumer protection laws.
The fall release of tickets for Swift’s “New Era” tour, her first in five years, prompted government scrutiny of antitrust laws, including a Senate hearing in January at which Live Nation president and Chief Financial Officer Joe Berchtold apologized for the fiasco.
The lawsuit, filed in December, claims that the 2010 merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally stamped out competition in live events ticketing, allowing the company to charge exorbitant prices for tickets.
In a court filing last month, Live Nation tried to end the court proceedings and force the dispute into private arbitration, claiming that ticket buyers had agreed on multiple occasions over the course of online shopping to resolve any claims through arbitration.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
“We are not going to just settle,” Julie Barfuss, a lead plaintiff, told ABC News’ Good Morning America. “We want to see some change.”
Fans of Swift are expected to hold a rally outside the courthouse on Monday.
Days after the tickets were released, in November, Swift spoke out about the difficulty faced by ticket purchasers.
“There are a multitude of reasons why people had such a hard time trying to get tickets and I’m trying to figure out how this situation can be improved going forward,” she said.
(NEW YORK) — First Citizens Bank will buy about $72 billion in assets from the failed Silicon Valley Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said.
Silicon Valley Bank, a regional lender with about $210 billion in assets, collapsed earlier this month. The bank had been the 16th largest bank in the country.
“Today’s transaction included the purchase of about $72 billion of Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, National Association’s assets at a discount of $16.5 billion,” FDIC officials said in a press release.
Seventeen former Silicon Valley Bank branches will open their doors on Monday as First Citizens Bank branches, the FDIC said.
About $90 billion of Silicon Valley Bank’s assets will remain in receivership with the FDIC, the regulator said.
(NEW YORK) — The banking crisis that erupted earlier this month elicited some predictions of a halt in interest rate hikes, since previous borrowing cost increases garnered blame for the financial distress.
Instead, the Federal Reserve on Wednesday imposed another hike, extending a yearlong blitz of rate increases that risks further banking woes and squeezes a different group: consumers in need of a loan.
The supercharged rate hikes have ballooned loan costs for mortgages, car loans and credit cards, weighing on the budgets of U.S. households or forcing them to delay buying big-ticket items.
However, some loan costs have ticked down slightly since the onset of the banking crisis in response to renewed recession fears, suggesting that relief for borrowers could arrive in the coming months but alongside a possible economic downturn, experts told ABC News.
“For ordinary families who need a new car or need to move, when the Fed hits the brakes hard and loan rates go up, that really constrains them,” Andrew Levin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and a former Federal Reserve Board special adviser, told ABC News.
The Fed has put forward a string of borrowing cost increases as it tries to slash inflation by slowing the economy and choking off demand. That means borrowers face higher costs for everything from car loans to credit card debt to mortgages.
The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate stands at 6.6%, a sharp increase from a year ago, when it registered at 4.6%, a Bankrate analysis found.
Each single percentage point increase in a mortgage rate can add thousands or tens of thousands in additional cost each year, depending on the price of a house, according to Rocket Mortgage.
Consumers tempted to offload heightened costs onto a credit card have encountered skyrocketing rate increases for that debt, too.
The average credit card interest rate offered in the U.S. over the last three months of 2022 stood at 21.6%, according to WalletHub, a jump from 18.2% a year prior.
“Higher interest rates mean you really can’t spend as much on big-ticket items,” Derek Horstmeyer, a finance professor at George Mason University’s School of Business, told ABC News. “There’s a direct connection.”
To be sure, the Fed has raised interest rates as part of an assault on sky-high inflation, a separate source of financial angst for U.S. households.
Inflation has fallen significantly from a summer peak, though it remains more than triple the Fed’s target of 2%.
“When you raise rates a lot it can feel like slamming the brakes and be pretty uncomfortable for passengers,” Levin said.
“On the other hand, families have been hit really hard in recent years by high inflation,” he added. “Passengers don’t want to go down a mountain at high speed either.”
While loan costs remain well above where they stood a year ago, the recent banking crisis has delivered a burst of unexpected relief, experts said.
Mortgage rates inched downward for the second week in a row, according to data released by Freddie Mac on Thursday.
The fall in mortgage rates owes to a quirk in the relationship between interest rates and home loan costs.
Mortgage rates track closely with rates for 10-year treasury bonds, which themselves correlate with expectations for the Fed’s benchmark interest rate over the next few years, Levin said.
If investors think interest rates will soon reverse downward, a drop in mortgage rates often precedes the interest rate pivot.
The financial distress has heightened recession fears, prompting investors to expect a significant lowering of interest rates over the next 12 to 18 months, which in turn has pushed down mortgage rates, Levin said.
“If that expectation continues, then the 10-year treasury rate will drop quite a bit,” Levin said. “Then it pulls down mortgage rates and that improves the affordability of families looking to move or first-time homebuyers looking to buy a house.”
Car loans will likely experience a trajectory similar to that of mortgage rates, though credit card costs should lag behind, Levin said.
“There might be a glimmer of hope,” he added.
Tempering such optimism, however, is the economic force that would push down interest rates: a recession.
“This crisis where we broke a few banks – that’s probably going to push us into a recession,” Horstmeyer said, noting that the adjoining job losses and decline in demand should bring down inflation and allow the Fed to ease interest rates.
“That kind of did the Fed’s job for it,” he added.
