Category: Coincident Index

Economic Porridge

Leave a comment

August 31, 2014

As summer comes to a close and the sun drifts south for the winter, the porridge is not too hot or too cold.

********************

Coincident Index

The index of Leading Indicators came out last week, showing increased strength in the economy.  Despite its name, this  index has been notoriously poor as a predictor of economic activity.  The Philadelphia branch of the Federal Reserve compiles an index of Coincident Activity in the 50 states, then combines that data into an index for the country.

This index is in the healthy zone and rising. When the year-over-year percent change in this index drops below 2.5%, the economy has historically been on the brink of recession.  The index turns up near the end of the recession, and until the index climbs back above the 2.5% level, an investor should be watchful for any subsequent declines in the index.

As with any historical series, we are looking at revised data.  When this index was published in mid-2011, the percent change in the index was -7% at the recession’s end in mid-2009.  Notice that the percent drop in the current chart is a bit less than 5%.  This may be due to revisions in the data or the methodology used to compile the index.

**************************

Disposable Income

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces a number of annual series, which it updates through the year as more complete data from the previous year is received.  2013 per capita real disposable income, or what is left after taxes, was revised upward by .2% at the end of July but still shows a negative drop in income for 2013.  While all recessions are not accompanied by a negative change in disposable income, a negative change has coincided with ALL recessions since the series began at the start of the 1930s Depression.

Many positive economic indicators make it highly unlikely that we are either in or on the brink of recession.  Clearly something has changed.  Something that has routinely not been counted in disposable personal income is having some positive effect on the economy.  In 2004, the BEA published a paper comparing the methodology they use to count personal income and a measure of income, called money income, that the Census Bureau uses.  What both measures don’t count in their income measures are capital gains.

Unlike BEA’s measure of personal income, CPS money income excludes employer contributions to government employee retirement plans and to private health and pension funds, lumps-sum payments except those received as part of earnings, certain in-kind transfer payments—such as Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps—and imputed income. Money income includes, but personal income excludes, personal contributions for social insurance, income from government employee retirement plans and from private pensions and annuities, and income from interpersonal transfers, such as child support. (Source)

Analysis (Excel file) of 2012 tax forms by the IRS shows $620 billion in capital gains that year, about 5% of the $12,384 billion in disposable personal income counted by the BEA.  An acknowledged flaw in the counting of disposable income is that the total reflects the taxes that individuals pay on the capital gains (deducted from income) but not the capital gains that generated that taxable income.  Although 2013 data is not yet available from the IRS, total personal income taxes collected rose 16%.  We can suppose that the 30% rise in the stock market generated substantial capital gains income.

*************************

Interest

Every year the Federal Government collects taxes and spends money.  Most years, the spending is more than the taxes collected – a deficit.  The public debt is the accumulation of those annual deficits.  It does not include money “borrowed” from the Social Security trust fund as well as other intra-governmental debt, which add another third to the public debt.  (Treasury FAQ)  This larger number is called the gross debt.  At the end of 2012, the public debt was more than GDP for the first time.

The Federal Reserve owns about 15% of the public debt.  But wait, you might say, isn’t the Federal Reserve just part of the government?  Well, yes it is.  Even the so-called public debt is not so public.  How did the Federal Reserve buy that  government debt?  By magic – digital magic.  There is a lot of deliberation, of course, but the actual buying of government debt is done with a few dozen keystrokes.  Back in ye olden days, a government with a spending problem would have to melt down some of its gold reserves, add in some cheaper metal to the mix and make new coins.  It is so much easier now for a government to go to war or to give out goodies to businesses and people.

Despite the high debt level, the percent of federal revenues to pay the interest on that debt is relatively low, slightly above the average percentage in the 1950s and 1960s but far below the nosebleed percentages of the 1980s and 1990s.

As the boomer generation continues to retire, the Federal Government is going to exchange intra-governmental debt, i.e. the money the government owes to the Social Security trust funds, for public debt.  As long as 1) the world continues to buy this debt,  and 2) interest rates stay low, the impact of the interest cost on the annual budget is reasonable.  However, the higher the debt level, the more we depend on these conditions being true.

************************

Watch the Percentages

As the SP500 touched and crossed the 2000 mark this week, some investors wondered whether the herd is about to go over the cliff.  The blue line in the chart below is the 10 month relative strength (RSI) of the SP500.  The red line is the 10 month RSI of a Vanguard fund that invests in long term corporate and government bonds.  Readings above 70 indicate a strong market for the security. A reading of 50 is neutral and 30 indicates a weak market for the security. The longer the RSI stays above 70, the greater the likelihood that the security is getting over-bought.

Long term bonds tend to move in the opposite direction of the stock market.  While they may both muddle along in the zone between 30 and 70, it is unusual for both of them to be particularly strong or weak at the same time.  We see a period in 1998 during the Asian financial crisis when they were both strong.  They were both weak in the fall of 2008 when the global financial crisis hit.  Long term bonds are again about to share the strong zone with the stock market.

Let’s zoom out even further to get a really long perspective.  Since November 2013, the SP500 index has been more than 30% above its 4 year average – a relatively rare occurrence.  It happened in 1954 – 1956 after the end of the Korean War, again in December of 1980, during the summer months of 1983, the beginning of 1986 to the October 1987 crash, and from the beginning of 1996 through September 2000.

In the summer of 2000, the fall from grace was rather severe and extended.  In most cases, including the crash of 1987, losses were minimal a year after the index dropped back below the 30% threshold.  When the market “gets ahead of itself” by this much, it indicates an optimism brought on by some distortion.  It does not mean that an investor should panic but it is likely that returns will be rather flat over the following year.

The index rarely gets 30% below its 4 year average and each time these have proven to be excellent buying opportunities.  The fall of 1974, the winter months of 2002 – 2003, and the big daddy of them all, March 2009, when the index fell almost 40% below its 4 year average.

************************

GDP

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released the 2nd estimate of 2nd quarter GDP growth and surprised to the upside, revising the inital 4.0% annual growth rate to 4.2%.  As I noted a month ago, the first estimate of 2nd quarter growth included a 1.7% upward kick because of a build up of inventory, which seemed a bit high.  The BEA did revise inventory growth down to 1.4% but the decrease was more than offset primarily by increases in nonresidential investment. A version of GDP called Final Sales of Domestic Product does not include inventory changes.  As we can see in the graph below, the year-over-year percent gain is in the Goldilocks zone – not strong, but not weak.

New orders for durable goods that exclude the more volatile transportation industries, airlines and automobiles, showed a healthy 6.5% y-o-y increase in July.  Like the Final Sales figures above, this is sustainable growth.

***********************

Takeaways

Economic indicators are positive but market prices may have already anticipated most of the positive, leaving investors with little to gain over the following twelve months.

Predictions and Indicators

Leave a comment

January 20th, 2013

I was talking with someone this week who thought that, this year or next, the financial world would melt down.  This week someone else asked what I thought was going to happen this year.  The S&P 500 index is approaching the highs of 2007.  Is this a good time to invest in stocks?

I don’t know.  In the early 1970s, Alan Greenspan, who would become head of the Federal Reserve in the late 80s, called for a bull market just a few months before the market imploded and lost almost half its value.  Recently released minutes of meetings of the Federal Reserve in 2007 showed that some members were worried about contagion from the decline of the housing market to the rest of the economy but the overall sentiment was that housing and employment weakness was a needed and normal correction to an economy that had gotten a bit too frothy.  No melt down anticipated there.

All any of us can know is what has happened and even that knowledge is imperfect.  Regulators who are privy to information that might spook the markets often conceal that information and hope to contain the damage.  Brokers and managers at large investment houses actually help build bubbles, skimming off fees and derivatives profits in the process.

With an imperfect assessment of the recent events, and a non-existent knowledge of the future, investors face the choice of putting their savings under the mattress or sending out their vulnerable savings into the economic fog.

Over the past few years, I’ve looked at several indicators that have been fairly reliable foreshadowings of coming recessions.  Before I look at those, let’s look at the big daddy indicator: the stock market.  Over the course of a week, millions of buyers and sellers try to anticipate the direction of the economy and corporate profits.  The majority of the time the market does anticipate these downturns but we need to look beyond the main index, the S&P500.  Instead we look at the year-over-year percent change in the index.  Below is a monthly chart of that percentage change.

The percent change drops below zero when the majority of investors do not believe that the market will increase over the next year.  You may also notice that it is a good time to buy the market when the y-o-y percent change declines 15-20%.

When we look at the past twenty years, the lack of confidence has been a reliable indicator of the past two recessions.  The graph below is the y-o-y percent change in a quarterly average of the S&P500.

These charts are easily available at the Federal Reserve database, FRED.  Just type in “Fred SP500” into your search engine and the top result will probably be a link to a chart of the index.  (Link here ) Click the “Edit Graph” button below the chart, then change the Frequency under the resulting graph to Monthly or Quarterly to smooth out the graph.  Just below the Frequency field is a drop down list of what you want to chart.  Select “Percent Change from Year Ago”, then click “Redraw Graph”.  Fred does all the work for you.

As of right now, the majority of investors are somewhat hopeful that there will be an increase in the index in the coming months. 

Another indicator I look at is the y-o-y percent change in the unemployment rate (UNRATE).  This is the headline number that comes out each month.  When the percentage change goes above 0, it’s probably not the best time to putting more money to work in the market.

Although the unemployment rate is still high, the yearly percent change is healthy.  As someone quipped, “It’s not the fall that kills ya, it’s the change in speed when ya hit the pavement.”  The change in each of these indicators is the key aspect to focus on.

Entering “Fred Unemployment” into a search engine should bring up as the top result a link to the unemployment chart.  Follow the instructions I gave for the SP500 and Mr. Fred will do all the number crunching.

Looking at a broader index of unemployment, the U-6 rate, gives no indication of near term economic decline.  Below is the percent change in that index.

Another indicator is New Orders in Nondefense Capital Goods Excluding Aircraft.  As I noted the past few months, this has been worrisome.  We don’t have sixty years of data for this indicator but a decline in the y-o-y percent change in new orders has foreshadowed the past two recessions.  Recent monthly gains give some hope but the decline in equipment investment shows a lack of business confidence for the near term future.

The last index I look at is a composite indicator put together by the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, the agency that makes the official calls on the start and end of recessions.  The Coincident Economic Index combines employment, personal income, industrial production, and manufacturing and trade sales.   In a healthy or at least muddling along economy, the percent change should stay above 2.5%.

You can access this by typing “Fred Coincident” into a search engine and the top result should be the graph for this indicator.  Follow the same instructions as above to show the percent change.

Except for New Orders there does not appear to be anything immediately worrisome.  According to Standard and Poors, (the S&P in the name of the S&P500 index), estimated operating earnings for 2013 are about $112 (Source).  At a 15.0 P/E ratio, that would put fair value of the SP500 at 1680, or 13% above its current level of 1486.  The problem is that the estimates of 2013 earnings have been drifting down from $118 last March.

For the past few years there has been a pattern of declining earnings estimates.  Something seems to be getting the way of early optimistic forecasts.  However, even if operating earnings were to actually come in at $100 for 2013, an investor with a ten year or more time horizon couldn’t say that she had overpaid at current market levels.

A favorite theme of 1950s sci-fi movies was the underwater creatures who had been turned by nuclear radiation into a gigantic monsters lurking on the seabed.  The tranquil calm surface of the water gave no hint of the monster swimming beneath the surface.  Then came an upswelling of water seen from the shore, a crashing crest of wave and the creature erupted from the liquid depths. For many investors, there may be that same sense of foreboding.  European banks loaded up on government debt; the Federal Reserve buying the majority of newly issued U.S. debt this past year; trillion dollar U.S. deficits; persistently high unemployment;  perhaps that is why there is so much cash floating around. 

The MZM money stock includes cash, checking accounts, savings accounts and other demand type accounts, money market funds and traveler’s checks; in short, it is money that people can demand now.  The percentage change has moderated recently and shows neither confidence or fear, of investors not knowing whether to step left or right.

For the long term investor, a showdown over raising the debt ceiling in the next few months may present another buying opportunity before the April 15th deadline to make IRA contributions for the 2012 year.

Reading Tea Leaves

Leave a comment

Each month the Federal Reserve in Philadephia compiles a Coincident Index (CI) for each state, then combines state information to get a picture of the U.S. economy.  The Federal Reserve at St. Louis publishes this composite which provides an overall economic picture for the nation. (Click to view larger graphs in separate tab)

The graph shows clearly why this is the Mother of All Recessions.

These coincident indexes rely primarily on labor and production statistics and a decline in the index correlates pretty closely with the official start of recessions as set forth by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).  The CI gives a more accurate picture of the underlying economic strength of the country.  The NBER calls an end to a recession long before it feels like the end of a recession, leading some economists and market watchers to scoff lightly when the NBER pronounces that a recession is over as it did in the middle of 2009.

When is a recession really over?  In my view, it is when the index reaches the level it was at when the recession began.  Using this criteria as a guide, the relatively shallow recessions of the early 90s and 2000s were longer lived than the official NBER  dates.  Those of us who lived through them can concur that the CI gives the more accurate picture.

Those earlier recessions look like mere wrinkles compared to this last recession and using my criteria, we are still in recession.  The millions of unemployed would confirm that.

Combining some of the same labor and production data, together with fear and greed, the stock market tries to anticpate the earnings of publicly traded companies.  Since earnings are based largely on the strength of economic activity in this country and abroad, the stock market is a divination of sorts.  Like augurers of ancient Rome, sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don’t.

Below is a chart of the CI following the recession of the early 90s to the height of the “dot com” era in the early part of 2000.  The growth of the personal computer and the advent of the internet helped usher in a decade like the 1920s when the telephone and telegraph prompted both investment and speculation.  Below is a chart of the CI with a few price flags of a popular ETF, SPY, that mimics the movement of the S&P500 index.

With the rise in economic activity and the stock market, we began to take on ever more debt during that period, continuing and accelerating a trend that started in the early 1980s.  In anticipation of a continuing boom in economic activity, we borrowed against the rising equity in our homes and in our stocks.  That borrowing fueled ever more economic activity as we remodeled our homes, bought new cars and took more expensive vacations.

As the froth of the dot com era blew away, overall economic activity was still rising and so was household debt.  The stock market may have experienced a correction but the American family was still riding the rocket of rising home prices.  In his campaign, George W. Bush had warned of an impending recession and soon after he took office, the recession began.  The recession officially lasted 8 months, about average, but was exacerbated by the 9/11 disaster.  The true length of that recession is marked more clearly by the CI, which shows how truly weak the recovery was.

On the whole, Republicans believe that government can boost the economy by taking less in taxes out of the private sector.  Democrats believe that government can boost the economy by more government spending.  With a slight majority in both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats crafted an elegant solution – tax less and spend more.  Never mind that such a solution is a long term recipe for economic disaster.

By the beginning of 2004, the CI had risen to the level of early 2001, finally ending an almost 3 year recessionary period.  The stock market was beginning a strong upward move.  House prices were still on the rise and accelerating, prompting homeowners to trade up to bigger houses and renters to become homeowners.  It was a period of Buy, buy, buy and Borrow, borrow, borrow.

In a November 2005 research paper by the St. Louis Fed, the authors write,  “Real U.S. house prices, on average, have appreciated by 6 percent annually since 2000, a historically high rate when compared with the 2.7 percent annual rate between 1975 and 1999.” But, the authors concluded, “if bubble conditions do exist, they appear only on the two coasts and in Michigan.”  In the same month this research paper was published, the peak of the housing boom occurred, using the Case Shiller index as an indicator.

Fueled by borrowing and a rising stock market, economic activity continued to climb until it peaked in December 2007 – January 2008.  The stock market had stumbled in August 2007 as the unemployment rate edged up toward 5% (the good old days!) and softness in the housing market became more pronounced.

An investor who simply took a cue from the rise and fall of the CI over the past 20 years would have done very well.   The market anticipates an upturn or downturn in economic activity just as the CI is turning up or down EXCEPT for 2009.  What did the market respond to when it turned up in the spring of 2009?  It was not economic activity because activity was still falling and showed no signs of bottoming.  The market was hoping that massive government spending would spur increased economic activity.  As stimulus spending flowed through the economy throughout 2009, economic activity did pick up but stalled in the spring of 2010 as the greatest part of the stimulus had already been spent and the underlying weakness of the economy became apparent.  Enter the Federal Reserve in September with another round of stimulus via its QE2 program of Treasury bond purchases, which again spurred an uptick in activity and the stock market.

As the CI shows, the recessionary period isn’t over.  Over the past 3 years, we have shifted household debt

and bank debt

to the federal government – that’s you, me, our kids and grandkids.

It is going to be a bumpy ride.  The CI has proven to be a fairly reliable road map.