Shoot Out At the OK Corral

Leave a comment

October 20th, 2013

This coming Saturday is the 132nd anniversary of the gunfight at the OK corral.  We got our own OK corral in Washington and there was a whuppin’ this week – a Washington style whuppin’, which means that no one got whupped but everyone agreed on an appointment date for a  future whuppin’.

Congress passes a continuing budget resolution with the same frequency that many of us get our teeth and gums cleaned.  Many government reports were not released this past week but the National Assoc of Homebuilders (NAHB) released a very positive monthly report of the national housing market, showing a slight decline over the past few months last month but still a strong index reading of 55.  Two years ago this October, that index stood at 15.  In fact since the latter part of 2007, the index oscillated in the range of 15 – 20, so this has been a strong and sustained growth surge.

Over the past hundred years, house prices have risen at about the same rate as inflation, so that the real price of homes stays about the same.  Most homeowners finance their home purchase and it is this interest cost that determines the total capital cost of the home.  That capital cost and the interest cost is divided over the life of the mortgage into monthly payments.  PITI is a familiar acronym to many home owners and buyers; the initials represent the components of a monthly house payment. The ‘P’ stands for Principal – the monthly capital cost of the home.  The ‘I’ is interest on the amount of the loan.  The ‘T’ represents the local real estate taxes which are included in the monthly house payment sent to the mortgage servicer who forwards them on to the local taxing agency. The ‘I’ represents Insurance.  This can be both house insurance and, for those with an FHA loan, the amount of the loan insurance.  The interest rate on the home loan is a key component and although there has been an increase in mortgage rates since the spring, they are near all time lows.  A 30 year mortgage is a common benchmark.

Let’s index the CPI and the house price index to 1991 and look at the divergence.

Declining interest rates have enabled many more people to qualify for a home purchase, thus driving up home prices. In 1995, Congress made some major revisons to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, making home loans more available in distressed urban and rural districts.  This further exacerbated the rise in home prices, creating a large divergence between the CPI and the housing price index.

As every homeowner knows, the cost of a home includes maintenance, repairs, utilities, and improvements.  As I discussed last week , real median household incomes plateaued during the 2000s.  The rise in home values and changes in banking laws enabled homeowners to tap the equity in their homes to meet these additional obligations and to augment stagnant incomes.

In the past dozen years, many people discovered that housing is not a reliable source of income.  At the turn of the century, stock traders who quit their jobs to trade stocks during the tech bubble, discovered the same truth about the stock market, whose price returns are a few percent above inflation.  A nifty calculator at  DQYDJ illustrates the average returns of the SP500 over the past 100 years.

 

At the heart of the financial follies of past centuries is that a surge in price for some asset, be it tulip bulbs, Florida real estate or tech stocks leads people to conclude that they can hop on the gravy train.  What is the gravy train?  As an asset increases in value, more people invest in the asset bubble, the valuation continues to rise and – for a time – it is possible to convert a stock, a store of value, into a flow of income by either buying and selling the asset or borrowing money against the asset.  There is always some constraint – the rise of inflation, or the rise of personal incomes, or the growth rate of profits – that eventually brings an asset valuation down to earth.  Einstein famously quipped that the most powerful force in the universe was compound interest.  He might have mentioned  what may be the most powerful force – reversion to the mean.

The Outcome of Income

Leave a comment

October 13th, 2013

“Use words not fists” a parent might say to a child.  For the second weekend during the government show down – I mean shut down, the children – er, representatives – in Washington have taken that to heart.  In a contest of dueling podiums, members of each party in both houses of Congress assure the public that their party is the reasonable one.  On Thursday, the market shot up on the news that – no, not a deal – but the likelihood that the two parties might talk to each other instead of mouthing platitudes and principles at their separate podiums.  About three weeks ago, speculative talk of a government shut down began to surface and where was the market after Friday’s close?  Back where it started three weeks ago and just 1.5% below the high on September 19th.

 In the Washington Irving tale, Rip Van Winkle fell asleep for twenty years only to wake up to a new United States of America.  In this version of the tale, an investor goes to sleep for three weeks, wakes up and there’s a whole new United States of Closed For Remodeling.  In a townhome association I belonged to many years ago, the tenants argued for several months over the choice of roofing contractor, color and style of roof for the townhomes.  A large Federal government may take a while longer.   In fact, it has been years since the Congress passed an actual budget.  The Treasury department used up the debt limit last May and has been running on fumes since then, grateful that the housing loan agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been paying back some of the cash they “borrowed” from the taxpayers a few years back.

Because of the shut down there have been few government reports.  Commodities traders have been buying and selling in the dark,  guesstimating what the weekly and monthly government reports on the sales and production of corn and other commodities would have been if there had been an actual report.  We can only hope that traders have been fairly accurate.  If there are some notable surprises, duck.

There have been some private reports, one of them the monthly manufacturing and services reports from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM).  I updated the combined weighted index (CWI) that I have been showing the past few months.  Unlike the environment during the August 2011 budget negotiations, business activity shows strength this year and the resilience of the S&P500 index reflects that underlying strength.  Although 10 of 14 trading days were down, the index lost only about 4% from the recent high.

The CWI has been in expansion territory since the summer of 2009, which coincided with the NBER’s official call of the recession’s end.  You’ll notice that there is a rolling wave like movement to the index since then, an ebb and flow of strong and not so strong growth.  Since this is a coincident indicator of the fundamental strengths in the economy, it might not be a good predictor of short term market swings but has been a reliable predictor for the longer term investor.   Despite the recent highs in the market index, the market has been in a downtrend since the highs of thirteen years ago.  It is approaching the high set in 2007, a sign of renewed optimism.

The Federal Reserve recently posted up Census Bureau median household – not individual – income figures for the past thirty years.  Continuing on our theme from last week – the story we tell depends on how we adjust for inflation.  In this case, neither story is particularly cheerful.  Median household income adjusted for inflation using the Personal Consumption Expenditure measure has fallen  to 1998 levels, declining 7% from 2007 levels.

In 1983, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed their methodology for computing the cost of owning a home, or owner equivalent rent.  Over the years, some economists and financial writers have made the case that the official measure of inflation, the CPI, overstates inflation.  This tells an even bleaker story: a decline of almost 9% from 2007 levels, an annual growth rate over 28 years  of just 1/4% per year.

Now, let’s compare the two.  Does the CPI overstate income by 5% or does the PCE Deflator understate inflation by the same amount?

The methodology influences many people in this country, from seniors on Social Security to working people who rely on cost of living increases.  Yet there will be more debate about whether the manager of a baseball team should put in a fastball pitcher who sometimes struggles with accuracy or go with a pitcher who throws less hard but has good location and change up.  There are political consultants who spend late night hours trying to figure out how to present the problem to the public so that they can understand it and get passionate about it.

The slow growth in household incomes arises because there is a greater supply of people who want work than employers offering work that people can or want to do.  Slow growth in the economy means less demand for labor, which puts downward pressure on the wages that workers can demand.  Smoothing the quarterly percent change in GDP growth for the past thirty years gives a clear picture of this less than robust growth.

While that may be the chief reason for slow income growth, the negative real interest rate of the past five years has played some role, I think.  When the economy is in a recessionary funk,  the Federal Reserve keeps the interest rate low to spur growth.  In the past two recessions, the Fed kept interest rates low for a considerable period of time after GDP growth began to rise.  Now it is easy to look in the rear view mirror at GDP growth, which is revised several times and may be revised again a year later as more information becomes available.  The Federal Reserve has to guess what the growth is and lately they have been overestimating the growth in the economy.

As long as the Fed keeps interest rates low, banks can make easy, safe profits in the spread between buying Treasury bonds and borrowing from the Fed and other banks.  There is less incentive for banks to take the additional risk of investing in business loans.  Although climbing up from the trough of several years ago, business loans in real dollars are still below the levels of mid 2008.

During the past twenty-five years, the rise and fall of commercial loans has become more pronounced.  Have the banks become that much more cautious at each recession, are businesses circling the wagons at the first hint of a downturn, and what part do low interest rates play?

This past week President Obama confirmed his pick of Janet Yellen as the new chairwoman of the Federal Reserve.  Larry Summers had been Mr. Obama’s first choice but Summers withdrew after learning that he would have a difficult confirmation process.  Although very smart, Summers is not a concensus builder.  Many in Congress and the market preferred Yellen to Summers.  Ms. Yellen takes a dovish stance, meaning that she is likely to further the current policy of low interest rates for the near future.  A cautious investor might want to rethink rolling over that 5 year CD that comes up for renewal in the next few months.  Rates are currently 1.5 – 2%, so that after inflation an investor is losing a little money.

Employment and Government Shut Down

Leave a comment

Earlier this past week there were rumors that, due to the government shut down,  the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) might not release the monthly employment report on Friday.  The employment report is probably the foremost key indicator that guides stock and bond market action as well as a prime metric used by the Federal Reserve in the determination of future monetary policy. On Thursday, the BLS confirmed that they would not release the report, which prompted a drop in the stock market, followed by an almost equal rise over the next day.

On Wednesday, ADP released a tepid 166,000 estimate of net job gains for September accompanied by a downward revision of their August estimate.  On Thursday, the weekly report of new unemployment claims held no surprise.  Traders probably figured that they had enough information to guesstimate the BLS number of net job gains – tepid growth a bit above the 150,000 needed to keep up with population growth.  In short, there was less likelihood that the Federal Reserve would be tapering their QE program before the end of the year.

So this is a good opportunity to take a look at some historical employment trends.  Measuring wage growth and inflation adjustments to wages is a complex task, far more complex than the gentle reader wants to delve into.  Labor economists crunch a lot of regional employment data gathered by the BLS.  Whenever there is a wealth of data, there is also a wealth of ways to treat that data, which data to focus on, etc.  Some economists focus on median compensation.  The median represents the middle, i.e. 50% of workers make more than the median, 50% make less.

In a 2011 paper published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), author Lawrence Mishel states  “Between 1973 and 2011, the median worker’s real hourly compensation (which includes wages and benefits) rose just 10.7 percent.”

“Real” means inflation adjusted but there are different methods used to calculate inflation.  One method, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, has been changed over the years, making it difficult to make comparisons of data.

For a longer term perspective into the controversy over measurement, let’s turn to a graph of real output and total compensation per hour worked for the business sector.  Here we see a narrowing between compensation and output until output crosses above compensation in the mid-2000s.

The flattening of compensation growth is shown when we focus on the past twenty years.

But the hourly data seemingly contradicts the claim that there has been only an 11% increase in real compensation over the past forty years.  Looks like the total compensation of all workers has risen about 40% or more in the past forty years.  How can the median growth be so far below the total?  To understand that, a reader would have to examine the data sources behind the claim.  We might find that median weekly, not hourly, compensation has risen only 11%.  This could be due to more part time workers, or the rising percentage of women in the labor force who generally work fewer hours than men. What we do know is that a competent economist can find or crunch the data to prove his or her point.

The ability to work empirical magic with data often leads to contradictory claims by noteworthy economists.  The contentiousness of the discussion among economists baffles the intelligent reader.

Let’s return to that bugaboo mentioned earlier: measuring inflation. Twenty years ago, economists Brian Bosworth and George Perry noted the trending gap between output and productivity: “In an economy where real wage growth has paralleled the rise in productivity over the long run, this apparent divergence implies that the benefits of increased productivity have not been distributed in the expected way over the past two decades.”  A chart from their paper illustrates the trend.

A notable trend in the numbers is the steep rise of employee taxes and benefits, or non-wage employer costs.  Economists or politicians sometimes point to the decline in the real hourly wage over the past forty years, without bothering to note the growing non-wage costs of employment, a convenient omission.

Bosworth and Perry document problems and changes in measuring inflation in both consumption and output but noted that “the prices that workers pay as consumers have been rising significantly more rapidly than the prices of the products they produce.”  Further analysis by the authors shows that the wage growth in that twenty year period 1973 – 1993 did not flatten till after 1983.  They conclude that the major reason for the divergence is the difference between how inflation was measured before and after 1983. The authors recommended the use of a Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator instead of the CPI, which overstates inflation relative to output.

Let’s look at wage growth over the past twelve years using two methods to see the difference.  The BLS calculates real wage growth using the CPI-U inflation index (Source).  Here is a graph from their data.

Now let’s use the PCE deflator to get a slightly different picture of the same Employment Cost Index.

Now let’s compare the two.

They tell two different stories.  Using the CPI inflation adjustment, the blue line, I could tell a story that wage growth has stagnated over the past ten years.  Using the PCE inflation adjustment, I could tell a story that wage growth has stagnated since the financial crisis.

Now imagine a politician who wants to bash the policies of former President George Bush and exalt the policies of the current administration.  That politician would use the blue line to tell the story of how the Bush Administration undercut the wages of American workers and that this led to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

On the other hand, if a politician wanted to criticize the Obama administration, she would point to the red line.  Worker’s wages grew during the Bush years.  Since Obama took office, wages have stagnated, indicating that Obama’s policies are hurting American workers.

Thus a dense and complicated argument on how to measure inflation becomes a talking point for a politician.  Even worse, noteworthy and popular economists who understand the difficulties of measuring both employment and inflation choose one line or the other to tell a simple story based on their own bias.

During this ongoing government shut down, we will hear a lot of spin and invective.  The profusion of TV, radio and internet media sources ensures that anyone can choose exactly – to a ‘T’ – the version of reality that they want to hear.  Of course, our sources and opinions are unbiased and perfectly reasonable.  But can you believe what the other side is saying?  Boy, are they crazy!

Corporate Profits and New Orders

Leave a comment

Wednesday’s release of durable goods orders showed a rather large downward revision to July’s data and an increase in August’s orders.  The transportation component makes the overall reading of this report quite volatile.  A more consistent read is gained by excluding transportation and defense goods, which showed a less dramatic 3.3% decline in July, followed by a slight increase of 1.5% in August.  The year on year increase is 7.6%.

In nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation, we have reached the level of new orders before the recession began in late 2007 – early 2008.  Had the economy stayed “on trend” new orders would be over $84 billion this year.

When adjusted for inflation, we are at about 2006 levels – seven years of no net growth.

Second quarter corporate profits are up almost 6% and have tripled in the past ten years.

Despite all the daily and weekly responses to political as well as economic news, the SP500 stock market index essentially rides the horse of of corporate profits.  The market’s fluctuations reflect changing current expectations of future profits.  Except for the “irrational exuberance” of the late 90s, there is a remarkable correlation between the SP500 and corporate profits.

Focusing on the past ten years, we can see these two forces as they dance around each other.   As sales and profit emerge over each quarter, companies guide analysts estimates of profits up and down.  The market renegotiates its value based on these revisions of emerging profit estimates.  As a rule of thumb, an investor with a mid term horizon of 1 – 3 years might grow wary when these trends diverge as they did in the late 90s and 2006 – 7.

 

As a percent of the total economy, profits have doubled over the past ten years.  At the trough in 2008, when some financial pundits were forecasting the end of capitalism, profits as a percent of GDP were at the 25 year average.  Investors had become used to this lop-sided economy where corporations grab more of the economic pie.

A growing share of profits is earned overseas; that growing globalization and two decades of effective lobbying have enabled corporations to lower the tax bite on those profits.

The taxation of corporations is a two-edged sword.  One effect of more taxes for corporations means less dividends to investors, who probably pay taxes at a higher rate than the effective rate of corporations.  During the 1980s and 90s, dividends averaged around 40 – 50% of earnings after taxes.  In the past decade and especially after the cash crunch of 2008, corporations have retained more of their earnings as an emergency cash cushion, paying investors about 30 cents on each dollar of earnings.  That rush to safety will probably reverse itself in the coming years, prompting corporations to pay out more in dividends as a percent of profits.

There may be volatility in the market in the coming days and weeks as Congress wrestles over the funding and implementation of the health care act, threatening to shut down most non-essential functions of the entire government.  A similar budget battle in late July and August of 2011 was accompanied by an almost 20% drop in the market.  The longer term trend is told by the rise in corporate profits, by the rise in industrial production and by the rise in new orders.  A move downward in the market may be a good time to put some cash to work, or to make that IRA contribution for 2013.

Home Sweet Home

1 Comment

September 22nd, 2013

The monthly report of new housing starts was released Wednesday morning, the second day of a much anticipated meeting by Federal Reserve. On an annualized basis, builders started 891,000 homes, a 19% year over year increase. This figure includes both single family homes and apartment buildings. Starts were below expectations and may cause some Fed officials to postpone or soften their quantitative easing program.  (Note:  later that day, the Federal Reserve announced that they would not start tapering their bond buying program, a surprise that spurred a surge upward in the  stock market)

A 19% increase sounds great until we take a birds eye view of housing starts.

The 5 month average of housing starts has been declining since the spring. A decline in the volume of new homes sold is an early warning of recession.  Builders are motivated sellers and respond to changes in demand.  Because builders borrow money, called “bridge” loans, to manage their cash flow they are motivated sellers and respond more readily to changes in demand.

 

A common metric heard on the nightly news is the months supply of new homes for sale.  This is the inventory of new homes in a particular area.  More months is bad, less months is good but too little inventory puts upward pressure on prices.  New home inventory is low.

The months supply is a ratio of home sales to starts and can be misleading. The components of housing starts and sales tell another story.  Starts indicate confidence of builders in future home sales in their region. A thirty year graph of new one family homes started less one family homes sold shows a deep underlying caution among builders.  They got burned in this last downturn and are not sticking their necks out.

As the population grows, people need to live somewhere.  Below is the number of new privately owned housing starts per 1000 increase in the population.

This graph tells a different story than the usual “too many houses built” narrative.  The height of the 2000s boom was less than the heights of the 1970s and 1980s.  There were not too many houses being built but too many houses being bought by people who could not afford them.  Mortgage companies sold adjustable financing products designed to earn fees when homeowners refinanced every few years to avoid large interest rate increases.  Buyers were enticed by a hop-on-the-gravy-train mentality as housing prices rose dramatically, particularly in low income areas.

After the 2000 census, the Census Bureau summarized decades long shifts both in the type of housing and the characteristics of homeowners.   While there is a wealth of 2010 census data, I was unable to find a similar table that incorporated data from the recent census.  The Census Bureau notes that privately held housing starts do not include mobile homes, which grew to 7.6% of the housing stock in this country.   So the surge in housing per change in population of the 1970s and 1980s is understated.  This suggests that the new home market is not overbuilt but that people are less able or less willing to commit to owning a home than they were thirty and forty years ago.

Sales of existing homes, released Thursday, showed a recovery high of almost 5.5 million units on an annualized basis.  Realtors reported continuing strong demand in anticipation of rising mortgage rates.  The “churn” of existing homes is not a productive investment in and of itself since the home has already been built.  Sales in this category do generate fees for banks and realtors at the time of sale, and increased sales for Home Depot and remodelers as buyers remodel following the sales or sellers spruce up homes before they put them on the market.

The ratio of new spending per existing home is very small compared to the material and labor involved in building a new home.  The brisk pace of existing home sales does raise the valuation of existing homes, which leads people to feel that they are wealthier, which may induce them to loosen their purse strings.  Rising home values are good for those who own a home but increasing valuations make it that much more difficult for buyers trying to buy their first home.  People in their twenties and early thirties who are most likely to be first home buyers have been hit hard by the recession.

As the economy continues its muddling recovery and home prices rise, does this generation practice a stoic resignation as they look to the future?

Crises

Leave a comment

September 16th, 2013

September marks two anniversaries that we wish had not happened.  One of those is the financial crisis and the meltdown of the economy in September 2008.  In the fourth quarter of 2008, GDP fell about $250 billion.  By itself, this was not a disaster.  However, it came on the heels of a decline in the 2nd quarter and flat growth in the 1st quarter.

Almost overnight, consumers cut back on their spending.  Retail sales dropped $40 billion, a bit more than 10%.

There was little drop in food sales – people gotta eat.  All of the drop was in retail sales excluding food.

Retail sales are less than 3% of GDP.  Contributing to the GDP decline was the 33% fall in auto sales, about $20 billion.

Offsetting the decline in retail sales, however, total Government spending increased $40 billion in the 4th quarter.

Disposable Personal Income (income after taxes) fell $100 billion, about 1%, but was still on a healthy upward trajectory during the year preceding the crisis.

We routinely import more goods and services than we export.  In the national accounts of domestic production, imports are naturally treated as a negative number, while exports are positive. The difference, called net exports, is negative and reduces GDP.  For all of 2008, we had about the same net exports as 2007.

Gross Private Domestic Investment declined $200 billion or 9% over the year.  This includes investments in buildings, equipment and housing.  Housing accounted for $150 billion of the change.

The TV news media, a visual medium, focuses on crises because it is not well suited for more thoughtful analysis.  On camera interviews in a crisis do not have to be very detailed or accurate.  Viewers understand that it is a crisis.  But viewers are also an impatient bunch with trigger fingers on their remote controls. Video footage has to be loaded, sequenced and edited.  On air interviews and several short video clips run repeatedly during a news hour will have to do.  The recent flooding in Colorado is a reminder that there is only so much video footage available.  TV stations simply reran the same sequences over and over.  On the 9 PM local news, the station featured an on site reporter in front of a driveway heaped full with damaged belongings and furniture.  At 10 PM, a different local station featured their reporter in front of the same house.

In September 2008, the media focused on the financial crisis and the implosion of stock prices.  When the stock market opens up on a September morning 300 points down, what else is there to cover?  It is important to understand that the economy is a big organism with a lot of moving parts.  The housing decline was already two years old before the financial crisis hit in September 2008.

Fast forward to this September.  A day ahead of the ISM Manufacturing report on September 4th came the news that China’s manufacturing sector has strengthened, a positive note in the Asian region where capital outflows from emerging nations have weakened the economies of other nations.  The prospect of higher interest rates in the U.S. has sparked a change in money flows to the U.S., strengthening the dollar against the currencies of emerging countries.  This change in flows promises to put pressure on companies in developed nations who had earlier borrowed money in U.S. dollars to take advantage of low interest rates.  The stream of capital follows the deepest channel.  The combination of risk and reward in each country can largely determine the depth of the channel.  Countries can, by central bank policy or law, control the flows of foreign investment into and out of their country.  China and India exercise some degree of control in an attempt to maintain some stability in their economies.  Like other developed nations, the U.S. has few controls.  In the run up of the housing bubble, foreign flows into the U.S. provided the impetus for investment banks like Goldman Sachs to initiate and bundle many thousands of mortgages into tradable financial products that met the demand by foreign investors.

Manufacturing data in the Eurozone was a big positive with several countries recording their strongest growth in over two years.  The Purchasing Managers Indexes (PMI) are not strong but are showing some expansion, a turn about from the slight contraction or neutral growth of the past two years.   The fragile economic growth of the Eurozone has been exacerbated by the concentration of growth in France and Germany, particularly Germany.  Recent strong gains in some of the peripheral countries, those in the former Communist bloc and southern Europe, suggest that economic activity is becoming more dispersed.  Dramatic differences in the economies of countries that share the same currency make the setting of monetary policy difficult and it is hoped that more even growth will take pressure off central banks in the Eurozone.

At an overall reading of 55.7, the ISM Manufacturing report released a week ago Tuesday showed even stronger growth than the previous month’s index of 55.4.  50 is the neutral mark that indicates neither expansion or contraction of manufacturing activity.  New orders began a worrisome decline in  the latter part of 2012 that persisted into the spring of this year, and the turnaround of the past few months forecasts a healthy manufacturing sector for the next several months.  Levels above 60 in any of the components of this index indicate robust growth;  both new orders and production are above that mark.

A few days later ISM reported their Non-Manufacturing composite was 58.6, indicating strong expansion in service industries which make up the bulk of the economy.  The Business Activity index came in at a robust 62.2.  ISM also reported that their figures for June had an incorrect seasonal adjustment.  The New Orders Index for June was revised up a significant 2%.  Prices were revised up 4.3%.  Other changes were relatively insignificant.

The constant weighted index I have been tracking smooths the ISM data so that it responds less strongly to one month’s data but it is showing strong upward movement in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing.

The Commerce Dept reported last Friday that Retail Sales continue to grow at a modest pace.  However, let’s look at retail sales as a percent of disposable income.  Consumers are still cautious.

Speaking of disposable income.  As we import more and export less, disposable income as a percent of GDP continues to rise.  This percentage rises sharply at the onset of recessions.  It is a bit troublesome that the 40 year trend is rising.

Labor Patterns

Leave a comment

September 8th, 2013

On Thursday, the payroll firm ADP released their estimate of monthly growth of private payrolls, showing a net job gain of 178,000.  The weekly report of new unemployment claims was also a positive, a steady decline that indicated that the labor market is healing – but slowly.  On Wednesday, the National Federation of Independent Businesses issued their monthly survey of small businesses. For the fourth month in a row employment growth has been negative.  Slowing layoffs have contributed to the decline in unemployment claims, but new hiring has also slowed.  What to make of that?  The market paused on Thursday in advance of Friday’s release of the BLS employment report.   Caution mixed with confidence – sounds like a weather report.  But there was hope that BLS job gains might approach the 200,000 mark.

The BLS composite picture of employment in August was a both a jaw dropper and a head scratcher, two actions which are difficult to do at the same time.  The headline number of 169,000 net job gains was disappointing, but the revisions to July’s job gains was a huge slash – from 162,000 as reported last month to a meager 104,000.  About a 150,000 net job gains are needed each month to keep up with population growth.

In a tumultuous job market when the flows of people within the labor market are undergoing a lot of change, downward revisions of this size are understandable.  In a supposedly stabilizing labor market, such revisions hint at an underlying fragility.

Is this large downward revision typical of the summer months?  In September 2012 the BLS reported upward revisions of over 80,000 jobs for June and July.  This year, revisions are down almost that amount so these wild swings may be typical.  Businesses may neglect to return the BLS survey on time because they are down at the lake 🙂 In perspective, a revision of 70 – 80,000 jobs is an insignificant percentage of the total working force of over 136 million.  But there is no doubt that it affects the mood of investors.

Once again, the usual industries contributed the most to employment gains:  professional and business services, retail and drinking establishments and health care workers.  I’ll look at some disturbing long term patterns later on in this blog post.

The unemployment rate dropped 1/10th percent to 7.3% but the decline is more a matter of attrition than strength in the labor market. Retirees and others continue to leave the labor force.

A bright note in this month’s report is the decline in the number of involuntary part-timers, those people who are working part time but want and can’t find a full time job.

The core work force aged 25 – 54 shows little improvement.

Gains in construction employment have moderated recently.

Government employment at the local level is providing a slight boost to the employment gains.  Yearly changes in Federal employment continue to show a decline.

As the economy increasingly focuses on services, employees in those industries have become a greater percent of total workers.

Let’s take a look at the labor mix, or the percent of some occupations of workers to the total work force.  During the past thirty years, the ratio of management and professional workers has increased by approximately a third.

In the early decades of the 20th century, agricultural workers made up about 45% of the work force.  In the first decades of the 21st century, they have declined to less than 2% of the work force.

A decline in manufacturing and construction has caused a gear shift in the components of the labor force.  Service occupations as a percent of the work force have risen steadily.

The conventional narrative says that this has been a natural long term shift from manufacturing to service.  But a longer term perspective calls that into question and shows that we are returning and surpassing – this is not new – to a more service oriented labor force.

The BLS does not have data before 1983 for this composite of service occupations but the trend indicates that the labor market is much healthier when service occupations are less than about 16.5% of total workers.  I’ll call this the Service Occupation Ratio, or SOR.  Let’s now look at this thirty year trend and add the unemployment rate.

Until the housing bubble of the early 2000s, the unemployment rate followed increases and declines in the SOR.  Largely fed by robust employment related to housing, the unemployment rate parted company with the trend line of the SOR.  As the recession sparked large job losses, the unemployment rate snapped back into trend with the SOR.  Since the recovery, declines in the unemployment rate have not been accompanied by a decline in the SOR.

The trend patterns are even more closely aligned when we look at the wider unemployment rate that includes those who want full time work but can’t find it and discouraged job seekers – or the U-6 rate.

How long will this imbalance last?  In the early 2000s, the imbalance lasted about five years.  This current imbalance is about three years old, meaning that we may have a few years before the unemployment rate returns to the SOR trend line.  What is particularly worrisome is the degree of imbalance.  As the unemployment rate drops further away from the SOR trend line, as it did in the early 2000s, it signifies greater tension between these two labor “plates.”  Like the movement of land mass tectonic plates, the greater the tension, the more severe the “snap back” to trend.  We see the same pattern developing in these past few years.  A lower participation rate and more people working part time out of necessity have contributed to a decline in the unemployment rate but the SOR has plateaued.

History is a river; history repeats itself; pick your aphorism.  An old Chinese maxim says that a man never crosses the same river twice.  History does not repeat itself exactly so that it is unlikely that the current anomaly will resolve itself in the same way as it did in 2008.  We can hope that the SOR starts to decline, indicating a healthier labor market.  These anomalies can take years to develop but we may find that the correction is as abrupt as 2008.

Each month starts off with a wealth of data. Next week I’ll cover industrial production, retail sales and an update of the CWI composite of manufacturing and non-manufacturing data that I have been charting the past few months.

Labor and Money Flows

Leave a comment

September 1st, 2013

On this Labor Day weekend, I’ll review some things that caught my attention this past week.

The employment picture has shown steady but slow improvement.  The weekly survey of new unemployment claims continues to show downward movement.  In a survey that is about 13 years old, called the JOLTS, the BLS gathers data on Job Openings, Layoffs and Turnovers.  A component of this survey includes the number of employees who have quit their jobs, referred to as the “JOLTS quit rate.” In the aggregate, it indicates a hive intelligence, the estimation of millions of people about the prospects of getting another job.  Decades ago, researchers asked a number of people to estimate the number of jelly beans in a jar.  Each estimate has very small chances of getting close to the actual number, but the average of all estimates was found to be almost exactly the number of jelly beans in the jar.  I don’t know whether this experiment has been replicated but it is interesting.

After recent months of surging new orders for durable goods, July’s report, released Monday, showed signs of caution and a “return to the mean” of a positive upswing this year.

Although this past month’s data was negative, industrial production shows a clear uptrend.

In an analysis released a few months ago, the Federal Reserve examined data from the 2010 triennial (every 3 years) survey of households and estimated that inflation adjusted net worth per household (green line in the graph) has just climbed back to the level it was almost ten years ago.

 

On the positive side, average net worth is not less than it was ten years ago.  On the negative side for those nearing retirement, it is not more that it was ten years ago.

On Friday, the Personal Consumption and Expenditures (PCE) report showed a 1.4% year over year percent gain, indicating the tepid growth in household spending.  Below I’ve charted the percent gain in PCE vs the percent gain in GDP for the past thirty years.

We are still below the low points of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.  The Federal Reserve is projecting GDP growth of 3 – 3.5% in 2014 but this may be another in a string of rosy forecasts by the Fed, who have repeatedly revised earlier rosy forecasts.  If the Fed were a contractor, it would be out of business due to poor estimating.  A $16 trillion economy is not a kitchen remodel by any means, but it does illustrate how difficult it is for the best minds to make even short term predictions of the economy from the vast amounts of sometimes conflicting data.  Consider then the folly of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the economic watchdog created by Congress and mandated by Congress to come up with ten year estimates of economic growth and the consequences of existing and proposed legislation.  Those in Congress continue to trot out these fantasy numbers to support or criticize policy and legislation.

Washington continues to vacuum in money and talent from the rest of the country.  Of the richest counties in per capita income in the U.S., the Washington metro area has two of the top three.  The other county in the top three is a stone’s throw from the metro area.  As Washington politicians convince the rest of us that they have the solutions, lobbyists and graduates flock to the concentration of power, jobs, money and influence.
 
Bond yields have increased more than 1% since the spring, meaning that the prices of the bonds themselves have fallen dramatically.  Most of this change has been a reaction to forecasts for stronger growth and a tapering of the Fed’s stimulus program called Quantitative Easing.  Washington is sure to get in the way of stronger growth for the economy as a whole.  Policy out of Washington is designed to promote strong economic growth for Washington.

The market research firm Trim Tabs regularly monitors money flows into and out of the stock and bond markets.  They  reported today that outflows from the stock market in August were half of the record inflows in July.

The blood spilled this year has been in the bond market.  Trim Tabs reports that outflows from bond funds and ETFs have totalled more than $123 billion in the past three months.  Flows into bond funds and ETFs were about $750 billion in 2012, almost a doubling from the $400 billion invested in 2011. (Fed Flow of Funds tables F.120, F.121)

While the prospect of higher rates may have been the trigger that caused a reversal of bond inflows, the underlying current is also an overdue correction of the surge of investment in bonds in 2012.

Households continue to shed debt in one form or another so that total liabilities continue to decline. However, every man, woman and child in this country is carrying, on an inflation adjusted basis, 2-1/2 times the amount of debt they carried thirty years ago.  This level of household liability will continue to put downward pressure on growth.

This next week will kick off with the ISM manufacturing report on Tuesday and finish the week with the monthly employment report.  Year over year percent gains in employment have been steady and guesstimates are for maybe 200,000 net job gains.  150,000 net jobs are needed to keep up with population growth.

The Fed meeting is coming up in mid-September so this employment report will be watched closely to guess the next steps the Fed will take. 

Productivity

Leave a comment

August 25th, 2013

(First a little housekeeping: an anonymous reader commented that when they clicked the “back” button after viewing a larger sized graph they were returned to the beginning of the blog post instead of where they had left off when they clicked on the smaller image within the text.  I suggest that, after viewing a graph, try clicking the ‘X’ button on the top right of the graph page to return to where you left off.   This works in the Chrome browser.)

Since the onset of the recession in late 2007, I have read many articles on the lack of wage growth despite big gains in productivity.  Ideas become popular when they have a narrative, one that I took for granted.  Each quarter, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issues a report on productivity and labor costs that I have taken at face value.

The 2001 manual of the OECD manual states “Productivity is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume measure of output to a volume measure of input use.”  They frankly admit that “while there is no disagreement on this general notion, a look at the productivity literature and its various applications reveals very quickly that there is neither a unique purpose for, nor a single measure of, productivity.” (Source)

The authors of a recent paper at the Economics Policy Institute cite BLS data showing that productivity has grown “by nearly 25 percent” in the period 2000 – 2012 while the median real, that is inflation adjusted, earnings for all workers has essentially remained flat.   Company profits are at all time highs and workers are struggling.  The narrative is familiar but I wondered: how does the BLS calculate productivity growth?

What the “headline” productivity numbers describe is labor productivity, the output in dollars divided by the number of hours worked.  The BLS Handbook of Methods, page 92, gives a detailed description of its methodology.  As the BLS notes, this often cited productivity figure disregards capital investments in output like machinery and buildings.  For this reason, the BLS also calculates a less publicized multifactor  productivity measure using methodologies which do incorporate capital spending.  How does capital investment influence the productivity of a worker?

Consider the simple case of a man – I’ll call him Sam – with a handsaw who can make 20 cuts in a 2×4 piece of lumber in an hour.  His company charges customers a $1 for each cut, the going rate, so that the company can sell Sam’s labor for $20 per hour. Due to increased demand for wood cutting, the company invests $1000 to buy an electric chop saw.  The company calculates that Sam’s productivity will rise enough that they can undercut their competition and charge 75 cents a cut.  With the chop saw, Sam can now make 60 cuts per hour at .75 per cut = $45 dollars in revenue per hour to the company.  Sam’s labor productivity has now risen 150%.  In our simple case, this would be the headline labor productivity gain – 150%.

A more complete measure of productivity including capital investments is quite complex.  The latest edition of the OECD handbook notes that “there is a central practical problem to capital measurement that raises many empirical issues – how to value stocks and flows of capital in the absence of (observable) economic transactions.”  To illustrate the point further, the asset subgroup listed in the BLS handbook includes “28 types of equipment, 22 types of nonresidential structures, 9 types of residential structures (owner-occupied housing is excluded), 3 types of inventories (by stage of processing), and land.”

You want simple?  Let’s go back to our kindergarten example.  At this rate of production, let’s say that the saw’s useful life is only 10 months.  The company has an investment of $100 per month in the saw, plus additional costs like electricity, a bigger workbench, etc.  To round out the numbers, let’s say that equipment related costs are $150 a month.  If Sam’s output is 8 hours a day x $45 an hour, Sam is producing $360 per day in revenue for the company, or close to $8000 a month. The $150 a month in equipment costs is trivial and multi-factor productivity is very close to labor productivity.

Sam knows he is making much more money from the company and goes to his boss and says he wants a raise.  Not only is he producing more for the company but the electric saw is much more dangerous than a handsaw.  The company gives Sam a raise from $7 an hour to $8 an hour, an almost 15% increase that Sam is happy with.  In addition to the raise, the company has an additional $2 in mandated labor costs, bringing the total costs for Sam’s labor to $10 an hour.  Even with the higher labor costs, the company is raking in huge profits – $35 an hour – from Sam’s labor.

But now an inspector comes in and tells the company that, because an electric saw makes much more dust than a handsaw, the company will have to install a ventilation and filtering system so that the employees and neighbors won’t have to breathe sawdust.  The company gets bids that average $100,000 to install this system and the company estimates that the system will equal $1000 a month in additional capital costs.  Despite the additional costs, the company still continues to make substantial profits from Sam’s labor.  To the company, the capital costs for this new system represents about 60% of an additional worker’s labor costs, yet that additional cost is largely not included in measuring labor productivity because Sam’s hours and the revenue generated by Sam’s labor remain the same.

A multifactor productivity comparison of handsaw vs. chopsaw production would show a percentage growth of 40%, far below the 150% labor productivity growth.

All of us have our biases (except my readers who are perfectly rational beings) which cause us to look no further than the narrative that clearly supports our previous conceptions.  If we generally agree with the narrative of companies taking advantage of workers, we read of 25% productivity gains for companies and 0% gains for workers in the past twelve years, and we look no further – for the data has confirmed what we previously had concluded.  Big companies = bastards; workers = victims.

In June 2013, the BLS released revisions to their productivity figures for 2012 and included historical productivity gains for various periods since 1987.  During the past 25 years, multifactorial productivity, including capital investment, has averaged .9% per year – less than 1%.

While labor productivity has grown 25% since 2000, multifactorial productivity has been half that, at about 12%.   Dragging the 25 year average down is a meager .5% growth rate since 2007.  Even more striking is the growth rate of input into that recent tepid productivity growth; the BLS calculates 0% net input growth since 2007.  For the past 25 years, capital investment has grown at more than 3% but since the recession capital growth has slowed to 1.3% per year.  I wrote last week that there is an underlying caution among business owners and this further confirms that caution; companies have been cutting back on both labor and capital investment.

If multifactorial productivity rose by 12+ percent over the past 12 years, and the profits did not go to workers, where did the money go?  For a part of the puzzle, let’s look to inflation adjusted dividends of the SP500.

From the beginning of 2000 through 2007, when the recession began, inflation adjusted dividends grew at an annual rate of almost 3.8%, eating up most of the profits from productivity growth.  As bond yields continued to decline, I would guess that investors pressured companies for more of a share of the profits from productivity growth.

As workers lost manufacturing jobs during the 2000s, many were able to switch to construction jobs in the overheating real estate market and unemployment stayed low.  This should have pressured management to give into labor demands for an increased share of the productivity growth but it didn’t.  I suspect that the labor mix contributed to the lack of pressure on management.  Fewer manufacturing jobs meant fewer union jobs; a reduced labor union influence meant less demand on management.

Looking past the headline labor productivity gains, overall productivity is slow.  Capital and labor investment is slow, which means that future overall productivity is likely to remain slow.

While walking a trail in the Colorado Rockies years ago, my brothers and I complained about having to dodge moose poop on the trail.  Then we ran into the bull moose that made the poop.

Investment, Savings and Income

Leave a comment

August 18th, 2013

Gross Private Domestic Investment (GPDI) consists of capital spending on factories and equipment, improvements in rental properties, and changes in inventory.  Changes in GPDI reflect expectations by the business community.  Companies and landlords continue to increase investment after the precipitous fall of 2008.  Below is the long term view.

Let’s zoom in on the past five years to show some comparisons.  In 2010 there was a slight decline in investment.  In 2011 and 2012 came short periods of a levelling off of investment.  So far this year, the trend is upward.

l

Declines in investment accompany recessions but do not consistently precede recessions.  However, declines in the year over year (y-o-y) percent change do signal an aggregate caution among businesses.  The attentive investor would do well to notice these signals.  Investment growth remains positive.

Percentage changes in investment and the market loosely track each other, as we can see below.  Both investment and the market ride on anticipation of future business conditions but the market reacts and overreacts much more than investment. I dampened the percent change of the market to show a bit more clearly both the correlation and the divergences.

The y-o-y gain in investment has been positive since the latter part of 2009, indicating that business owners and managers have enough confidence in future business to increase their investment. A key component of the business landscape is the willingness of consumers to buy.  This past Tuesday came the monthly report on Retail Sales showing a .2% monthly gain for total retail sales, including food services.  At an annualized growth rate of 2.4%, sales  are positive but annualized gains of 3% or more would indicate strong consumer demand.  So far this year, earlier forecasts of negative real retail sales growth in response to sequestration policies have proved unfounded.  Below I’ve excluded the food services component which accounts for approximately 10% of retail sales.

When we look at retail sales as a percent of GDP, the total economic activity of the country, retail sales excluding food is still below 20 year averages.

Adjusting for inflation and population, we can see that it is food services that continues to show strong growth over a two decade period.  While the recession put a dent in that growth, it is more than 25% higher than it was two decades ago.

Each month the U. Of Michigan releases a consumer sentiment survey.  This past Friday’s report showed a surprising fall in sentiment from 85 to 80.

In the U.S. we can take a rough reading of the willingness of consumers to spend by looking at savings patterns – we don’t save as much.

We are down below a 5% savings rate again, indicating that people are confident enough to spend most of their income.  That is one reading.  Another is that many households have responded to the increase in the Social Security tax this year by reducing their savings.  The lack of savings by Americans has a long history.  Before the Social Security Act was passed in the 1930s, George Washington Carver wrote: “We have become ninety-nine percent money mad. The method of living at home modestly and within our income, laying a little by systematically for the proverbial rainy day which is due to come, can almost be listed among the lost arts. ”  Perhaps that is why some felt that Americans had to be put on a mandatory retirement program called Social Security.

The upward spike in savings at the end of 2012 has been attributed to higher dividend payouts and bonuses in anticipation of the “Fiscal Cliff” in 2013.  Per capita Disposable Personal Income continues its subdued but steady march upward, also rising dramatically in the last part of 2012 as a one time anomaly before the onset of higher taxes and sequestration.

On an inflation-adjusted basis, we are 10% higher than we were ten years ago.

But a longer term picture is a bit more sobering.  The decades longs rising trend of real income has clearly plateaued since the recession began at the end of 2007, over five years ago.

The recession has been a sobering experience for everyone, including the business community. While the growth signs are mildly positive, an underlying watchfulness seems to be the order of the day.