Latest news with #BankRate
Miami Herald
03-06-2025
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
The 10 most reliable car brands in 2025 according to Consumer Reports
Fast facts: The top six most reliable auto brands are all Japanese. No American car brands made the top 10 in terms of reliability. Only two non-Japanese brands made the top 10. Both are German. Aside from a house, a car is probably the most expensive - and important - product an average consumer owns. Most working people rely on their cars almost daily, and when they break down or require maintenance, costly repairs can dig deep into savings that could otherwise be invested or saved for emergencies. Choosing which vehicle to buy is one of the most high-stakes purchasing decisions a person can make, especially if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, which, according to BankRate, over a third of Americans are. Unexpected maintenance and repair costs can easily burn through savings, and missed time at work can lead to loss of crucial income. That's why, beyond all other characteristics, reliability is the most important factor when choosing a vehicle. The more reliable a car is, the less likely it is to break down (with proper maintenance), even as it ages. Some car brands have reputations for longer-lasting vehicles and fewer breakdowns, and whether you're shopping new or used, buying a car from an automaker known for reliability is always a smart move when it comes to the ongoing costs associated with vehicle ownership. While there are a number of authorities in automotive research and journalism - including household names like Car and Driver, Kelley Blue Book, and Edmunds - Consumer Reports may be the source with the most comprehensive data when it comes to reliability. Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization that has been advocating for American shoppers and testing vehicles (and other products) for almost a century. Funded by grants and member donations, the org is well known for its unbiased research and reporting. In fact, it purchases all of the products it tests anonymously and at full price to avoid any conflicts of interest or preferential treatment from automakers. Related: The cheapest new car of 2025: Everything you need to know In addition to testing vehicles at its private Connecticut driving course and auto testing facility, Consumer Reports also surveys its millions of members annually about their own cars, gathering data on each model year after year. Members report any problems they had with their vehicles, along with the necessary repairs and how much they cost. By collating this data for each model (and model-year) over time, CR is able to evaluate the average short and long term reliability of each model - and car brand at large. The organization then assigns each model (and automaker) an average reliability score on a scale of 100. Related: Consumer Reports: The product-testing nonprofit explained For its 2025 reliability rankings, Consumer Reports evaluated hundreds of thousands of car owner reports about vehicles with model years ranging from 2000 to 2025. Its survey asks about 20 different potential "problem areas," including key components like engines, brakes, and transmissions. Here are the 10 most reliable automakers - according to Consumer Reports' member data - as of 2025. Hyundai 10. Hyundai Hyundai is a Japanese automaker known for making relatively affordable alternatives to popular American and Japanese cars and providing competitive warranties on new vehicles. The brand's most popular model is the Hyundai Tucson: 2025 base price: $28,705Combined MPG: 26 Kia 9. Kia Kia is a Japanese brand whose vehicles are known for their safety features and competitive pricing. Interestingly, Hyundai has a 33.8% ownership stake in Kia. The brand's most popular model is the Kia Sportage: 2025 base price: $27,390Combined MPG: 25 BMW 8. BMW BMW is a German automaker whose cars are known for their quality engineering, timeless design, and luxury features. This reputation comes at a cost, however. BMW cars tend to be significantly more expensive than comparable models made by other automakers. The brand's most popular model is the BMW 3 Series: 2025 base price: $45,950Combined MPG: 29 Audi 7. Audi Audi, another German automaker, also stands out as a luxury car brand. Recently, Audi has built a reputation for its high-end sports models, its line of electric vehicles, and its high-performance all-wheel drive system. The brand's most popular model is the Audi Q5: 2025 base price: $45,400Combined MPG: 24 Mazda 6. Mazda Mazda is a Japanese automaker whose vehicles are known for their sporty aesthetics and responsive handling. The brand's most popular model is the Mazda CX-5: 2025 base price: $28,770Combined MPG: 24 Related: The best 2025 cars under $25k based on Consumer Reports data Acura 5. Acura Acura is the luxury imprint of Japanese automaker Honda; as such, many Acura vehicles have parts in common with Honda vehicles. Acura's cars are known for their luxury interiors and advanced safety features. The brand's most popular model is the Acura MDX: 2025 base price: $51,200Combined MPG: 20 Honda 4. Honda Honda is a Japanese automaker that, along with its industry peer Toyota, has long been known for its vehicles' reliability and longevity. In its manufacturing practices, Honda prioritizes fuel efficiency and sensible engineering over luxury. The brand's most popular model is the Honda Civic: 2025 base price: $24,250Combined MPG: 33 Toyota 3. Toyota Toyota, like Honda, is a Japanese automaker whose vehicles have built a longstanding reputation for reliability and are known to last well over 300k miles with proper maintenance. As such, Toyota vehicles tend to hold their value well in the resale market. The brand's most popular model is the Toyota Camry: 2025 base price: $28,700Combined MPG: 48 Lexus 2. Lexus Lexus is Toyota's luxury brand, and as such, many Lexus vehicles can use Toyota parts, which can help owners save on maintenance and repairs. Like Toyotas, Lexuses are known for their longevity, reliability, and resale value. The brand's most popular model is the Lexus RX: 2025 base price: $49,125Combined MPG: 24 Subaru 1. Subaru Subaru, another Japanese automaker, took first place in Consumer Reports' reliability rankings this year, surpassing Toyota and Lexus, one of which usually snags the top spot. Subaru is known for its diverse array of compact but capable outdoor-oriented vehicles, which typically come with standard all-wheel drive. The brand's most popular model is the Subaru Forester: 2025 base price: $29,995Combined MPG: 29 Related: These 5 brands make the best used cars, according to Consumer Reports The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Reuters
15-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Rwanda central bank holds its key rate, sees inflation within target
KIGALI, May 15 (Reuters) - Rwanda's central bank held its policy rate (RWREPO=ECI), opens new tab at 6.5% in a decision announced on Thursday. Governor Soraya Hakuziyaremye told a press conference that the level of the Central Bank Rate was adequate to keep inflation within the bank's target while continuing to support economic growth. "Our inflation is projected to stay around 6.5% for the rest of the year and expected to decline to 3.9% in 2026. Nevertheless, risks to this outlook remain, and these include risking trade uncertainty and geopolitical tensions," she said. It was the third monetary policy meeting in a row the National Bank of Rwanda has kept the policy rate unchanged. Annual inflation eased to 6.3% year on year in April from 6.5% a month earlier, within the central bank's 2%-8% target range.
Telegraph
03-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Bank of England must cut rates quicker to stem trade war fears
A 0.25 percentage point rate cut next Thursday to reduce the Bank Rate to 4.25pc is close to a done deal. But that would still keep the rate above the 2.8pc average since the bank became operationally independent in May 1997. It would mark the fourth cut since policymakers started to ease the brakes in August 2024 and maintain the pattern of lowering rates at a pace of once per quarter at meetings when the bank publishes its Monetary Policy Report and the governor hosts a press conference. So far, the Bank has kept rates unchanged at interim meetings – including at the last one in March. The critical question for Thursday is not whether the Bank will cut, but whether it will have the courage to signal that it plans to accelerate future cuts as a precautionary measure against rising growth risks. At the start of the year, economic logic argued for the Bank to stay in the slow lane. Growth momentum seemed to be picking up, and the UK had not fully gotten over the bitter inflation shock of 2022 and 2023. And even though the Bank had expected inflation to return close to its 2pc target within two years, inflation looked likely to jump above 3pc for a period this year because of a temporary rise in energy prices. Plus, the combination of weak productivity growth and elevated wage pressures tilted inflation risks a little to the upside over the medium term. That was then. Now, the situation has changed, and the danger is that policymakers get caught offside worrying too much about the last shock instead of the current one. To its credit, the Labour Government has reacted to US tariffs by avoiding retaliatory measures and instead by temporarily cutting tariffs across a range of imports. Thanks to such action, as well as broader global developments, trade wars are likely to be a disinflationary shock for the UK. A diversion of cheap Chinese goods into Europe, lower global commodity and energy prices reflecting weaker global demand, and lower import prices thanks to sterling's steady appreciation will help to keep a lid on price pressures. Furthermore, the fear factor coming from increased uncertainty may even dampen wage and price setting – softening underlying inflationary pressures. Judging by these fundamentals, the Bank should be safe to move a bit more quickly with rate cuts from now on. Ideally, policymakers should complement a likely cut on Thursday with a strong signal that they intend to reduce rates further in each of the remaining five meetings for the year. That would take the Bank Rate to 3pc by year-end instead of 3.75pc – which is where it would end up if policymakers keep the pace of cuts unchanged. Judging by the near-textbook response of the economy to the rise in the Bank Rate from 0.1pc in December 2021 to 5.25pc in August 2023, cuts of 1.5 percentage points rather than 0.75 percentage points could radically improve the outlook. Fears of a recession or even financial crisis, which had been widespread at the start of the tightening cycle, proved far overblown. Instead, slowing demand – linked to softer credit and real estate momentum – helped to curb earlier inflation and wage excesses. Initial worries about what would happen if the Bank slammed the brakes hard, as it did, overlooked the fact that the financial health of the private sector is robust. Household credit and mortgages versus incomes are at 30 and 20-year lows, respectively, and the household saving rate sits at a lofty 12pc. Corporates' debt is at a near-30-year low versus GDP while their cash balances are worth some 20pc of GDP. Banks are well capitalised. More aggressive easing would help to turn these buffers against shocks into springboards for growth. Importantly, it would stimulate domestic-oriented services and consumer sectors as well as housing – offsetting the external drag. Yes, government finances are a mess, but the private sector has the capacity to leverage up and spend. The problem is that, after years of unusual and repeated shocks, businesses and households find themselves in a state of near-chronic pessimism. Paradoxically, the fear of tough times ahead risks becoming self-fulfilling again if the response by companies and consumers is to tighten up. The major problem with monetary policy is that it is a blunt tool. But when people need a big nudge to go out and spend, invest, and borrow, it is the right instrument for the job. The question now is not whether the Bank has the power to change the narrative, but whether it will use it.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Strong jobs report surprises economists
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – A strong jobs report caught economists by surprise Friday. The new numbers show unemployment and hiring stayed steady even as Americans worry about the impact of new Trump tariffs. The U.S. added 177,000 jobs last month, above expectations and unemployment remained at a relatively low 4.2%. President Trump celebrated Friday's economic news in a Truth Social post, writing in part….'employment strong, and much more good news, as Billions of Dollars pour in from Tariffs. Just like I said, and we're only in a TRANSITION STAGE, just getting started!!!' Though recent polling shows his optimism about tariffs doesn't match the mood among most Americans. 'Consumer sentiment is quite miserable right now,' said BankRate Senior Economic Analyst Mark Hamrick. BankRate analyst Mark Hamrick says the new trade policies are driving fears about the future of the economy. 'People are worried about their job security and concerned about the prospect of higher prices,' said Hamrick. The president insists the hefty taxes on foreign imports will be worth it. 'It's going to make us very rich. We're going to be paying off debt. We'll be lowering your taxes very substantially,' said Trump. The administration promises in the long-term it will strengthen American manufacturing. Hamrick warns in the short-term tariffs could mean less goods on store shelves, higher prices for products, and downsizing at some companies. President Trump is calling for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, but economists say that's unlikely to happen in the near term. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Telegraph
09-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Money printing could prevent a global recession. But MPs want to ban it
In times of looming recession, such as the credit crunch of 2008 or Covid-19, world leaders have stood together and committed to injecting a financial lifeline in to the global economy through quantitative easing (QE). In buying their own governments' bonds, these central banks were flooding the economy with cash to keep the cogs of the financial system from freezing. This week, Goldman Sachs raised its odds of a US recession to 45pc. As markets continue to fall amid President Trump's ongoing trade war, eyes are turning to central banks to intervene in order to stave off looming disaster. Between 2009 and November 2020, the Bank of England engaged in five rounds of QE, buying just under £900bn worth of bonds in total. The tactic has been similarly deployed by other central banks, including the US's Federal Reserve, at times of severe financial stress. But is it a good idea today? Rupert Lowe thinks not. The now-independent MP for Great Yarmouth has a private members bill currently working its way through Parliament banning QE and government 'indemnification' of losses. What is quantitative easing? The process of QE involves a central bank buying bonds – and sometimes other financial assets – in order to encourage economic activity. Large purchases of government bonds push up their price but lower their interest rate, with the hope this then feeds through to rates on products such as mortgages. It also aims to improve market liquidity, boost confidence and lead to some asset prices rising. Mr Lowe has drafted up a bill, which is currently at its second reading in the House of Commons, where he argues that the practice is akin to when Henry VIII debased the currency by heavily reducing the amount of silver and gold in coins. When bringing the bill to Parliament, he said QE is used by 'third-world dictators' and led to excessive state spending and intervention. It is a controversial view and not one that carries much weight in modern economics, despite the use of QE by the Bank of England having plenty of critics. Andrew Goodwin, chief UK economist at Oxford Economics, said: 'Quantitative easing came into being because central banks ran out of road with interest rate cuts. It was an unusual policy for an unusual time.' He argues that when QE was introduced ,there were no tools for the Bank of England to reduce interest rates further beyond what is possible through the Bank Rate. At that point in March 2009, the benchmark rate had been cut to 0.5pc by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). 'Quantitative easing was brought in when you couldn't go further with interest rates – but now there has been a study showing you could go negative and there is more road to use up before you go to quantitative easing.' Most recently, the Bank conducted three rounds of QE in response to the economic challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. The main aim, according to Monetary Committee Policy meeting minutes, was to prevent the 'unavoidable economic slowdown' being amplified by tightening conditions. Does it waste taxpayer's money? However, during this crisis, the move had louder critics. Sir Paul Tucker, of Harvard Kennedy School and former deputy governor of the Bank of England, told the House of Lords Economics Affairs Committee that he had questioned why the Bank wished to 'stimulate aggregate demand just as aggregate supply is closing down'. The Committee also detailed concerns among institutional investors on the purchase of government bonds when so many were being issued, giving the impression that it was aimed at keeping the government's borrowing costs down at a time of significantly increased spending. Even if its decision was within the Bank of England's remit to manage inflation, the perception of misuse either then or in the future risks undermining market confidence. Furthermore, William Allen of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research argued that the money lost by the Bank as result of buying bonds at too high prices, currently totalling around £120bn, is significant and could have been avoided if other approaches had been taken. As the losses are 'indemnified', it means that the UK taxpayer, via the Treasury, picks up the bill. The full cost will not be known until the Bank winds down its policy of quantitative tightening, in which it sells the bonds it acquired to reduce the assets on its balance sheet. However, some estimates suggest it could reach as high as £150bn. Mr Allen said: 'My opinion of quantitative easing is that it was badly designed and recklessly executed. It got worse as it went on as they were paying higher prices for the bonds.' Macroeconomic effect 'positive and progressive' Instead, he argued the Banks should have done more in 2009 to support private borrowing, but he does not dispute that the method was successful in avoiding a harsher recession. Mr Allen also admits it would have been brave for the Bank of England to adopt a different approach when central banks across the world were responding to the extraordinary conditions in the same way. A great difficulty in assessing the success or otherwise of QE is the inability to definitively measure its impact. As the House of Lords Committee noted: 'There is a recognition that measuring the effectiveness of quantitative easing is difficult to do with precision.' It is also tricky to judge based on the counter factual – what would have happened if there had been no intervention. There are also accusations that it exacerbates inequality, as one of its stated aims – to increase asset prices – disproportionately benefits the wealthy. The think tank, Resolution Foundation, found that instances of QE up to its use over the pandemic resulted in 40pc of the aggregate gains in asset prices going to the wealthiest 10pc of households in the UK. However, it also found that overall the macroeconomic effect was positive and progressive. The Bank of England's own research found the benefits were disparate, with households close to retirement age gaining the most from QE, but the resulting income support disproportionately benefitted younger people and households. There are signs that when – not if – the next financial crisis arises, the Bank will be more hesitant before looking at QE. Mr Allen said: 'I am absolutely sure they will be more restrained in the future. [Governor of the Bank of England] Andrew Bailey says they don't want to take more interest rate risk in the future.' Effect of QE is 'unclear' However, that does not mean Mr Lowe's bill is being welcomed by economists. Many argue that while the merits of individual uses can be debated, it is a necessary tool for the Bank of England to keep in its reserves. Joachim Klement, head of strategy at Panmure Liberum, said: 'There is clearly a consensus that quantitative easing, whether it is the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve, has helped keep long term government bond yields and hence debt servicing costs for the government down. 'The criticism that is sometimes issued for conservative investors is mostly that 'money printing' leads to inflation. My view is there is no empirical evidence unless you think that inflation was driven by money printing 10 years ago.' Likewise, the House of Lords found the effect of QE on inflation, and the extent to which it has increased since the onset of the Covid pandemic, is 'unclear'. Mr Goodwin agrees: 'All the main central banks used it in the pandemic and after the global financial crisis. Each central bank did it slightly differently but the debate is about how you operate it not whether it exists.' Mr Klement took a stronger line. When asked whether the abolition of QE was a topic of discussion in economic circles his response was simple: 'Your call is the first time I've heard about this.' Yet questions remain over the policy's use by central banks. An increasingly precarious global economic outlook driven in part by Trump's trade war, with market volatility (Wall Street's so called 'fear gauge') spiking, may see those at the helm review what tools they have at their disposal and it is unlikely QE will be thrown out all together. But, with the higher inflation and cost of Covid-19 spending still looming large over UK finances, many will be eager to see more thought given to QE and its impact in the future.
