4 Reasons the Fed Won’t Raise Interest Rates in June

4 Reasons the Fed Won’t Raise Interest Rates in June

By Jia Liu, American Institute for Economic Research

It is no surprise that the Fed didn’t take action on interest rates at the April Federal Open Market Committee meeting. The question of interest to the market is whether the Federal Reserve has revealed some clear signal in its statement about the timing of the future rate increase. Even though the Fed did not change its forward guidance on rate increases from the March statement, we can discern what the Fed has on its plate. Four aspects of the economy stand out:

Related: Bernanke Was Right—Interest Rates Aren’t Going Anywhere

  • The latest GDP data show worse-than-expected growth at an annualized 0.2 percent during the first quarter of 2015, compared to 2.2 percent in the last quarter of 2014.
  • The strong U.S. dollar has continued to weigh on exports. Net exports in the first quarter stayed unchanged (0.0 percent growth) year-over-year, compared with 18.6 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 2014. 
  • Inflation has continued to stay way below the central bank’s 2 percent target. The price index for personal consumption expenditure (PCE), the measure of inflation preferred by the Fed, showed a 0.3 percent year-over-year increase in the first quarter, much lower than the growth rate of 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. Core PCE inflation, which excludes volatile prices of food and energy, reached 1.3 percent, compared with 1.4 percent in the last quarter.
  • The improvements in the labor market, the other mandate of the Federal Reserve besides inflation, also slowed. Only 126,000 employees were added to nonfarm payrolls in March, compared to 264,000 in February and 201,000 in January.

Related: Fed’s Downgrade of Economic Outlooks Signals Later Rates Lift-Off

In all, the U.S. economy is growing more slowly than anticipated with some headwinds that may last for a while, such as the strong dollar. Both measures of the Fed’s dual mandate, price stability and maximum employment, remain below the Fed’s target. Normally this would call for an accommodative monetary policy, postponing the rate increases until later in the year. Rather than starting rate increases at the June FOMC meeting, the liftoff in September instead is more likely.

This story originally appeared at the American Institute for Economic Research.

Which Would You Rather Have Stolen: Your Naked Photos or Your Financial Data?

iStockphoto
By Beth Braverman

Given the choice, more than half of Americans would prefer to have naked photos of themselves leaked online than have their financial information stolen, according to a new report by MasterCard.

The study finds that more than three-quarters of Americans are anxious about their financial information and social security numbers being stolen or compromised. That makes it a worry for more Americans than having their email hacked (62 percent) or their home robbed (59 percent).

Still, most Americans aren’t properly safeguarding their data. Although more than 90 percent of those surveyed said that they take precautions to protect their financial information, 46 percent rarely or never change their passwords, and 44 percent use the same password for multiple online accounts.

Related: Expert Tips to Reduce Your ID Theft Risk

The two post popular passwords found on the Internet last year were (once again) 123456 and “password,” according to a separate report by password management provider SplashData.

In addition to changing your password and using multiple, strong passwords for various accounts, consumers can protect their data by avoiding public WiFi for purchases and shopping online only on secure sites.

There’s good reason to be cautious. Last year, 2.5 times more consumers were notified that their personal information had been compromised in a data breach than in 2013, according to Javelin.

If you are worried that you have been the victim of ID theft, report it immediately to your credit card issuer, bank, and other financial institutions. Sign up for a fraud alert and check your credit reports regularly for suspicious activity.

One Woman Gets Revenge on Unrelenting Telemarketers

		<p>35% said these are disappearing</p>
Getty Images
By Millie Dent

We all hate telemarketers, just as much as we hate cable companies. Put them together and it’s a lethal combination. One woman got her revenge from both yesterday when a judge ordered Time Warner Cable to pay her $229,500 after the company harassed her with 153 computer-controlled “robocalls.”

Even after Texas resident Araceli King requested and then demanded that the company stop contacting her, she received 74 more calls from Time Warner in less than a year. The company was actually leaving messages for Luiz Perez, an individual who once had her same phone number. But even after she explained her identity to a company representative the calls kept coming and King filed the lawsuit. The calls began in the summer of 2013 and King filed her lawsuit in March 2014.

Related: 18 Companies Americans Hate Dealing with Most

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Time Warner Cable violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which stipulates that consumers can sue for $500 for every unwanted call received. The judge tripled the penalty to $1,500 in this case because of the enormous number of calls.

Time Warner Cable countered that since the company believed it was calling Perez, who had consented to the calls, it was not responsible to King under the Act.

According to a telemarketer, before the National Do Not Call Registry came into effect in 2004 as an amendment to the Act, more than 137 annual calls were directed – on average -- at a single individual.  

And as we all know, they usually came at dinner time or early on a Saturday morning when all you wanted to do was sleep.

One Woman’s $229,000 Revenge on Unrelenting Telemarketers

Time Warner Cable office is pictured in San Diego
MIKE BLAKE
By Millie Dent

We all loathe telemarketers, probably even more than we hate cable companies. Put them together, though, and you reach a whole new level of consumer fustration. But one woman got a little bit of vindication from both entities when a judge on Wednesday ordered Time Warner Cable to pay $229,500 after the company harassed her with 153 computer-controlled “robocalls.”

Even after Texas resident Araceli King requested that the company stop contacting her, she received 74 more calls from Time Warner Cable in less than a year. The company was leaving messages for Luiz Perez, an individual who once had her same phone number, even after she explained her identity to a company representative and filed the lawsuit. The calls began in the summer of 2013 and King filed her lawsuit in March 2014.

Time Warner Cable countered that since the company believed it was calling Perez, who had consented to the calls, it was not responsible to King under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which stipulates that consumers can sue for $500 for every unwanted call received.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Time Warner Cable violated the Act. The judge tripled the penalty to $1,500 in this case because of the enormous number of calls.

The Hole Truth: Celebrating a Huge Day in Doughnut History

20th Century Fox Television
By Suelain Moy

Whether you’re a Dunkin’ devotee or are crazy for Krispy Kremes, July 9 is a date you should celebrate.

On that date back in 1872, the doughnut took a big step toward becoming the billion-dollar business it is today: John F. Blondel of Thomaston, Maine received a patent for a “new and useful” improvement in doughnut-cutters that would speed the production and consumption of the humble pastry in the United States.

The device described in Patent No. 128,783 was intended to automate the process of cutting those dastardly doughnuts — holes and all — as efficiently as a hole punch. The desired edge could be plain or scalloped. This ingenious contraption would push the dough out of the center tube, leaving it free for making the next doughnut.

Related: Made in the USA: 24 Iconic American Foods

But as Art Cashin — the director of floor operations for UBS Financial Services who regularly sprinkles historical tidbits into his commentary — pointed out in a note Wednesday, before you can talk about Blondel’s doughnut innovation, you have to know the story of one Hanson Crockett Gregory, the young genius who forever changed what you and I get when we order our plain, glazed or chocolate with sprinkles. While the history of the doughnut is disputed, Gregory claimed to have invented “the first doughnut hole ever seen by mortal eyes” as a 16-year-old sailor on a lime-trading ship and then taught the technique to his mother, Elizabeth Gregory.

In case you’re still hungry for more doughnut history, this Friday, July 10, Krispy Kreme is celebrating its 78th birthday by offering a sticky sweet deal at participating locations: Buy any dozen doughnuts at regular price and get a second dozen for 78 cents.

Oh, and if you want to purchase those pesky doughnut holes that get unceremoniously shoved from the middle? You can buy those, too. They’re simply called Doughnut Holes, and they can be bought by cup or box in assorted flavors of Original Glazed, Dipped Chocolate, Powdered, Chocolate Cake, Blueberry Cake and Plain Glazed Cake.

Hanson Crockett Gregory would no doubt be amazed. 

Are Internet Ads Gender Biased?

Flickr/Daniel Oines
By Millie Dent

In the most-watched soccer game in U.S. history, the U.S. trounced Japan in a 5-2 victory in the Women’s World Cup final. The U.S. team will receive $2 million from FIFA for the win. Last year, the German men’s team, which won the World Cup, collected a cool $35 million.

While FIFA is notorious for sexism among other dubious behaviors, a Carnegie Mellon University study confirms that other companies are also biased about women—especially when it comes to money. One troubling example: female job seekers on Google were less likely to be shown ads for high paying jobs than male job seekers. 

Using an automated tool called AdFisher, researchers explored how Google’s automated ad server reacted when users with identical profiles--except for their gender--interacted with Google’s ads. The technology found that males were shown ads for a career coaching service for “$200k+” executive positions 1852 times, but the female group was shown those highly paid positions a mere 318 times. While the premier career coaching service ads were the top ads shown to males, the top ads shown to females were a regular job posting service and an auto dealer. 

Google allows its advertisers to target a particular audience, so any company is allowed to promote different ads based on gender. In addition, the survey wasn’t able to pinpoint the source of the discrimination, whether it was Google, the advertiser, both of them, or the algorithm that was tracking the user behavior. Regardless of the cause, the research proves the inherent perils of customization and targeted ads.

The study was released just before a wave of criticism hit the tech industry, which was accused of gender bias in hiring practices. In general, at major companies like Facebook, Yahoo and Google, women hold few leadership posts and make up around 30 percent of employees. 

To be fair, women have not exactly flocked to get degrees in computer science and related math and science areas. Those are the jobs tech companies value most since all new digital products require coding skills.