The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge (Stephen Hawking)

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so (Mark Twain)

Invest with smart knowledge and objective odds

NEW$ & VIEW$ (8 MARCH 2016): Recession Watch

RECESSION WATCH
U.S. Labor Market Conditions Index Falls to New Low

The Labor Market Conditions Index from the Federal Reserve Board includes 19 indicators of labor market activity, covering the broad categories of unemployment and underemployment. These include jobs, workweeks, wages, vacancies, hiring, layoffs, quits and surveys of consumers and businesses. Because the trends in the index are slow-moving, Haver presents only the changes in the index. All are measured monthly and have been seasonally adjusted.

During February, the index deteriorated to the greatest degree since June 2009, the last month of the recession. Last month’s weakening runs counter to the improvement in payroll employment reported Friday, because it also reflects other weaker indicators in the report, including the stable unemployment rate, the decline in hours worked, the drop in average hourly earnings and the rise in the average duration of unemployment. During all of last year, the index rose moderately following a stronger performance in 2014. During the last ten years, there has been an 85% correlation between the change in the index and m/m growth in nonfarm payrolls.

large image

Doug Short gives us more about this new indicator:

The indicator, designed to illustrate expansion and contraction of labor market conditions, was initially announced in May 2014, but the data series was constructed back to August 1976. Here is a linear view of the complete LMCI. We’ve highlighted recessions with callouts for its value the month recessions begin and for the latest index value.

Labor Market Conditions Index

As we readily see, with the exception of the second half of the double-dip recession in the early 1980, sustained contractions in this indicator is a rather long leading indicator for recessions. It is more useful as a general gauge of employment health. Note that in the most recent FOMC minutes for January 26-27, the phrase “labor market conditions” was used nine times. Maximum employment, after all, is one of the Fed’s twin mandates.

Interestingly enough, the FEDS Notes article announcing the indicator doesn’t chart the complete series with monthly granularity. Instead, the authors use a column chart to show blocks of six-month averages for the two halves of each calendar year since 1977. This approach further supports the use of the indicator as a general gauge of health. Here is our larger version of the same graphic model.

Labor Market Conditions Index 6-Month Blocks

We couldn’t resist the urge to create a chart of the more conventional six-month moving average of the indicator. Note that we’ve adjusted the vertical axis to capture the depth of the contraction during the last recession.

Labor Market Conditions Index 6-month Moving Averages

Looks like the FOMC won’t get too giddy after last week’s employment report. Doug’s charts are good stuff for recession callers. At a minimum, the LMCI supports Lael Brainard’s call for “risk-management” (see below). But what about inflation, the other Fed mandate? Drew sent me a link to Kessler’s blog which argues that the recent inflation  flare is only normal in the context of a business cycle.

The typical business-cycle sequence is that the manufacturing sector weakens first, then employment and consumer spending, and lastly, inflation. In fact, it is often not until the recession is over that inflation begins to come down. Inflation is the longest lagging indicator.

In fact, most past recessions were actually caused by the Fed precisely to kill inflation so there is no surprise that inflation would peak after recessions began. Kessler’s point is really to reinforce its view that “we have entered or will soon enter a full blown US recession”.

As we have pointed out here and here, manufacturing has clearly turned down in a way (3 independent indicators) that has not failed in calling an upcoming recession.

It is tempting to say that Kessler, “Specialists in US Treasuries”, are talking their book. Yet, they do serious research:

We know that the U.S. manufacturing industry is in recession. We also know that it now represents a much smaller percentage of the economy which might tempt us to dismiss its contraction. Yet, we should also understand that an important part of the service economy is dependant on manufacturers’ activity. Ask retailers, bankers, accountants etc. in Houston, Oklahoma or North Dakota.

While a lot of economists and investors have been comforted by the bedtime story of a puny and unimportant manufacturing sector, that story has been nothing but a misleading fractured fairy tale. Manufacturing is an important sector and while its employment share is low, goods drive a lot of activity and the sector is much more important than just its employment share. There is a new piece of research (here) from the MAPI Foundation that uses input-output analysis to show the fully integrated impact of the manufacturing sector in the context of the U.S. economy. The report (…) goes on to look at the full output and employment effects of bringing a manufacturing dollar’s-worth of product to market. It finds a surprising substantial impact

Viewed in this way, the U.S. manufacturing footprint and multiplier rise sharply. It is still not fair to call these effects either `manufacturing’ jobs or spending (they might be in some cases), but it is fair to call it a broader manufacturing sector impact. And this report helps to explain why the tiny-seeming manufacturing David is felling the service sector Goliath. (Robert Brusca)

This may explain the recent surprise drop in the U.S. Services PMIs with Markit’s falling into contraction territory and the ISM Services employment index declining sharply to 49.7 in February.

image

Markit digs further:

Markit’s manufacturing and services PMIs collectively showed the economy grinding to a halt in February, as signalled by a composite Output Index reading of 50.0. This was its lowest level since the financial crisis with the sole exception of October 2013, when the government shutdown disrupted business.

The more detailed sector data revealed how three out of the seven monitored sectors – healthcare, technology and industrials – slipped into decline in February, the most since the series began in October 2009. In January, only one sector – consumer services – had been in decline, and that in part reflected adverse weather.

While the remaining sectors noted growth of activity, the respective rates of expansion were modest at best.

A survey-record decline in output meant that healthcare was bottom-ranked in February. Underlying data showed that the downturn was driven by a first reduction in new orders since the series began almost six-and-a-half years ago.

The next two worst-performing sectors were technology and industrials, where output fell for the first time in 28 and 41 months respectively.

Growth of new business was relatively subdued in both cases. Despite slower growth of output, companies based in healthcare, technology and industrials continued to raise employment, pointing to lower productivity.

Meanwhile, consumer goods and financials had been the two best-performing groups in January, but marked slowdowns in output growth saw them slip to third and fourth place respectively. In particular, financial services activity rose at the weakest pace in over three years amid a near-stagnation in new work.

Data were slightly brighter for consumer services and basic materials. The modest rise in consumer services activity was enough for the sector to climb to the top of the rankings, though this was in part likely to have reflected a temporary rebound after severe weather disrupted the leisure sector in many states in late January.

Hmmm…can’t wait to see the March employment report. Meanwhile, the cheerleaders keep hopping (or hoping…):

(…) In a call for a “reality check”, Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and his colleagues at the Peterson Institute of International Economics say that global economic pessimism in 2016 has been in contravention of basic economic facts. (…)

While there were challenges across the world, notably from slow productivity growth, “most of the major economies, starting with China and the US, are growing more sustainably now than a decade ago, at their slower rates”, he said. “All the more reason then not to allow ourselves to be distracted by a financial market tail wagging the macroeconomic dog.”

The report notes that despite low oil prices hitting investment in energy projects in the US, jobs growth in the country is strong, as are real income growth and household spending.

Though Chinese growth was slowing, consumption was also rising strongly and the overhang of unsold property was getting smaller, raising hopes that the Chinese authorities could use the time to restructure over-indebted state-owned enterprises often in the heavy industrial sector. (…)

U.S. Consumer Borrowing Slows Amid Market Turmoil Borrowing by U.S. consumers slowed at the start of the new year, a possible sign of caution among households at a time of volatility in global financial markets.

Outstanding consumer credit, a measure of non-real estate debt, rose by a seasonally adjusted $10.54 billion in January from the prior month, the Federal Reserve said Monday. The 3.58% seasonally adjusted annual growth rate was the slowest growth pace since March 2013; in dollar terms, it was the smallest increase since November 2013. (…)

Consumer credit rose at a 7.28% pace in December, revised up slightly from an earlier estimate.

Revolving credit outstanding, mostly credit cards, decreased at a 1.35% annual pace in January compared with growth at a 7.05% pace in December. It was the first monthly decline for revolving credit since February 2015.

Nonrevolving credit outstanding, including student and auto loans, increased at a 5.36% annual pace in January compared with December’s 7.36% growth rate. (…)

Haver Analytics has another viewpoint: U.S. Consumer Credit Usage Increases

Consumer credit outstanding increased $10.5 billion during January (6.5% y/y) following a $6.4 billion December rise, revised from $21.3 billion. Action Economics Forecast Survey participants looked for a $17.0 billion January increase. During the last ten years, there has been a 46% correlation between the y/y growth in consumer credit and y/y growth in personal consumption expenditures.

Nonrevolving credit borrowing grew $11.6 billion (6.9% y/y) after a $0.9 billion increase, changed from $15.4 billion reported last month. Revolving consumer credit in January fell $1.1 billion (+5.3% y/y) following a little-revised $5.5 billion gain.

large image

Now Coming to the Commercial Property Market: Defaults

(…) New signs of weakness are surfacing in the commercial property market, ending a half-decade run of improvement with steadily climbing values. Amid global shifts like the sluggish Chinese economy and a new era of low oil prices, defaults on loans are popping up in areas that were considered overheated, occurring in small numbers for now, but stoking fears that more could be on the way. (…)

“We’re at the top of the market,” said Kenneth Riggs, president of Situs RERC, a real-estate research firm that advises investors on property values and market direction. “There’s going to be a market correction.” (…)

Meanwhile, loans are becoming harder to secure even for safe investments such as well-leased buildings. That is because broader market volatility has caused lenders who sell off their loans via bonds known as commercial mortgage-backed securities to grow wary. While the segment made about $100 billion in loans last year, it has grown to a virtual halt today, lending executives said. If that continues, it will become more difficult for landlords who took out 10-year loans in 2006 to refinance today. (…)

Fed’s Fischer sees ‘first stirrings’ of rising inflation

(…) In a speech to a group of business economists in Washington on Monday, Stanley Fischer, the Fed’s vice-chairman, dismissed critics within the profession who have pointed to wage stagnation in the US as evidence that the traditional link between strong employment and inflation “must have been broken”. 

“I don’t believe that. Rather the link has never been very strong, but it exists, and we may well at present be seeing the first stirrings of an increase in the inflation rate — something that we would like to happen,” he told the National Association of Business Economists. (…)

Speaking across town to a group of bankers on Monday, Lael Brainard, a member of the Fed’s board of governors who has emerged in recent weeks as one of its most vocal doves, said the Fed still needed to be mindful of “weak and decelerating foreign demand”. It meant policymakers should not take “the strength in the US labour market and consumption for granted”, she said. 

“Tighter financial conditions and softer inflation expectations may pose risks to the downside for inflation and domestic activity,” she said. “From a risk-management perspective, this argues for patience as the outlook becomes clearer.” 

She also warned that the FOMC “should put a high premium on clear evidence that inflation is moving toward our 2 per cent target” and that “inflation has persistently underperformed relative to our target”. (…)

China’s Exports Tumble Amid Broad Slowdown

China’s customs administration reported Tuesday that exports fell 25.4% in dollar terms year-over-year last month, compared with a drop of 11.2% in January. Though last month’s long Lunar New Year holiday contributed to the decline, the figure was much worse than a median forecast for a 15% slide by 17​ economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.

Imports also declined, falling 13.8% last month, the agency reported, compared with an 18.8% drop in January, in a further cooling of demand in China that is affecting its Asian neighbors. China’s trade surplus narrowed in February to $32.59​ billion from $63.29​billion in January, falling short of the median forecast of a $51.25 billion surplus. ​​(…)

The poor export showing dovetails with trade results from other major exporters in the region. Last month, Taiwan’s exports fell for the 13th straight month—the island’s longest export slump since the global financial crisis—while South Korean exports declined for the 14th consecutive month. China’s February results were the weakest since May 2009, when exports fell 26.4%. (…)

Many blame the calendar quirks but this is a lower low (chart from Bloomberg)

German Industrial Production Surges by Most Since 2009

Production, adjusted for seasonal swings, climbed 3.3 percent from the prior month after retreating a revised 0.3 percent in December, data from the Economy Ministry in Berlin showed on Tuesday. That’s the biggest increase since September 2009 and the first gain in three months. It was stronger than all projections in a Bloomberg survey of economists, which had a median forecast for 0.5 percent growth. (…)

Construction jumped 7 percent from December and investment goods output rose 5.3 percent, the report showed. Consumer goods production increased 3.7 percent and manufacturing increased 3.2 percent. Industrial output rose 2.2 percent from a year earlier, again beating the highest economist estimate. (…)

High five German Orders Erode in January on Domestic Weakness

German orders fell in January for the second straight month. However, each month the declines were relatively small, and together, they fail to offset the 1.5% order gain in November so that the three-month change is still positive. Over three months orders are up at a 4.8% pace, up from 2.4% over six months which also was up from 1% over 12 months. Orders are expanding and accelerating sequentially despite the two-month drop.

German orders are fighting two opposite trends. Foreign orders are accelerating sharply sequentially while domestic orders are weakening sequentially. So far, foreign order strength is dominating the trend based on stronger shorter term rates of growth. However, year-over-year, the growth in foreign and domestic orders is nearly identical at about 1% (i.e., 1.2% foreign; 0.8% domestic). The year-over-year growth rate in foreign orders has just turned positive. (…)

large image

Capital goods trends are decelerating, showing sales dropping over three months and over six months. Other sectors show both growth and acceleration. Normally the preponderance of strength would simply make that the end of the story. But for Germany, capital goods tend to be at the core of its strength so the progressive weakness and deceleration there gives me pause. (…)

Oil edges lower after Kuwait dents hopes for output freeze

(…) Kuwait’s oil minister said on Tuesday that his country’s participation in an output freeze would require all major oil producers, including Iran, to be on board.

“I’ll go full power if there’s no agreement. Every barrel I produce I’ll sell,” Anas al-Saleh told reporters in Kuwait City.

OPEC member Kuwait is currently producing 3 million barrels of oil per day, he added.

On Monday the Ecuadorean government said that Latin American oil producers would meet on Friday to coordinate a strategy to halt the crude price rout.

Tuesday’s report by Goldman Sachs said that a recent surge in commodity prices was premature and unsustainable. (…)

Long-term Japanese bonds set record lows 30-year bond yield falls 22.2bp in single trading session

(…) The benchmark 10-year JGB yield fell below zero in mid-February and was quoted at -0.11 basis points on Tuesday. Last week, Japan sold a new 10-year bond at a negative yield for the first time, meaning that buyers are effectively paying the country for lending it money over a decade.

Bonds needing to be repaid in seven years now carry a yield of minus -0.23 per cent.

This is truly amazing: (via Tony Sagami)

Crying face Michael Bloomberg Says He Won’t Run for President

NEW$ & VIEW$ (4 MARCH 2016): Retail Sails!

EUROZONE RETAIL SALES EXPLODE

I have not seen this in any mainstream media. Yet it could be the most important economic news this year given that it comes along the same strong trend in U.S. retail sales between November and January. The volume of retail sales in the Euro Area rose 0.4% MoM in January following a 0.6% jump in December. Last 2 months annualized: +6.2% in real terms, during the two most important months of the year (Eurostat).

image

Core retail sales were even stronger rising 0.5% and 0.7% MoM in December and January respectively, a 7.4% annualized rate, in volume.

image

It seems that consumers are finally reacting to the oil windfall. If this continues, we’re in for many surprises…

U.S. Productivity Fell in Fourth Quarter of 2015 The U.S. economy experienced one of its worst productivity declines in more than two decades at the end of last year, extending a sluggish trend that threatens to constrain worker pay and economic growth in the coming years.

(…) The productivity of nonfarm workers, measured as output per hour worked, decreased at a 2.2% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday. Output rose at a 1% pace and hours worked rose at a 3.2% pace.

That was an upgrade from the agency’s initial estimate last month that productivitydeclined at a 3% annual rate in the final three months of the year. (…)

Still, it was the weakest productivity reading since the first quarter of 2014. Since the end of 1994, only four quarters have seen a larger decline. (…)

Unit labor costs at nonfarm businesses rose at a 3.3% pace in the fourth quarter, the agency said, revised down from an earlier estimate of 4.5% growth. (…)

Productivity in the fourth quarter rose a mere 0.5% from a year earlier. For all of 2015, productivity growth averaged 0.7% compared with 0.8% in 2014. Since 2007, productivity growth has averaged 1.2%.

Quarterly productivity data are volatile and undergo frequent revisions. Still, a broad and persistent slowdown in productivity gains has haunted the U.S. and other advanced economies for years. (…) (Charts from Haver Analytics)

 large image large image

 large image large image

Moody’s:

The narrowing of margins stems from the more rapid climb of labor costs relative to labor productivity. This is important because recessions occurred each time unit labor costs outpaced corporate gross value added over a yearlong span.

image

In 2015’s third quarter, unit labor costs accelerated to a 2.7% yearly increase that outran the accompanying 2.4% rise by net revenues, or corporate gross value added. Whether or not unit labor costs grew more rapidly than net revenues in 2015’s final quarter is problematic.

Mostly because the yearly increase of hourly compensation slowed from the 3.4% of the previous two quarters to Q4-2015’s 2.6%, the annual increase of unit labor costs slowed from the 2.6% of 2015’s middle two quarters to the 2.1% of 2015’s final quarter. Though it may now be easier for Q4-2015’s net revenues to at least match the growth of unit labor costs, the yearly increase of core revenues (which exclude energy product sales) slowed from Q3-2015’s 2.5% to Q4-2015’s 1.4%.

Thus, the unexpected slowing of Q4-2015’s unit labor costs offers no assurance that unit labor costs did not outpace net revenues for a second straight quarter.
However, an incomplete and preliminary estimate suggests that the yearly increase of core revenues may have improved to 2.5% in January. But, even that may not be enough to offset the possibly relentless acceleration of labor costs in a tightening labor market.

RECESSION WATCH

(…) Nerves have calmed considerably since. Blue chip indexes are up nicely from their Feb. 11 low. Junk bond yield spreads have narrowed. Oil has stopped going down and the dollar has stopped going up, so expected inflation has risen. Especially important for everyone’s blood pressure, volatility has receded. Vix, the options price-based stock market fear gauge, is back down to December levels. A model developed by Cornerstone Macro put the odds of recession, as signaled by the markets, at 64% on Feb. 11. That has since fallen to 47%.

But no one, including the Fed, should take much comfort from this.  The risk of recession hasn’t declined. In fact, it may have edged up. (…)

However, unlike the odds based on financial indicators, those macro probabilities have not since declined. Some indicators, such as surveys of factory purchasing managers, remain in recession territory. (…)

The dollar is still much stronger, stock prices lower and corporate bond yields higher than just a few months ago. Indeed, over the last year and a half, these have collectively tightened financial conditions by the equivalent of 0.75 to one percentage point in the federal-funds rate, notes Lael Brainard, a Fed governor, on top of the actual 0.25 point increase the Fed delivered in December.

Tighter financial conditions always operate with a lag, so it could be a few more months before it’s clear what toll the latest tightening in financial conditions has had on growth. It may turn out to be zero, as with last August’s bout of turmoil.

While a recession is still not the economy’s base case, it’s too soon to sound the all clear.

  • Recovery by Base Metals Price Index improves outlook

Moody’s industrial metals price index has been recovering since bottoming on January 12, 2016. Since year-end 2015, the +5.6% climb by the base metals price index differs considerably from the accompanying -6.4% slide by the price of oil.

image

The latest firming of base metals prices is important because it hints of an improving world economy despite the still relatively depressed price of crude oil. In fact, compared to the price of oil, the base metals price index has been a more powerful coincident indicator of world economic activity.

Regarding the annual percent changes of calendar-year averages, the IMF’s measure of the world economy shows a much stronger correlation of 0.74 with Moody’s industrial metals price index than to the world economy’s 0.40 correlation with the price of crude oil. The correlations were obtained from a 37-year sample that began with 1979 and ended in 2015. For a 30-year sample that begins in 1986 and ends in 2015, world economic growth generates correlations of 0.82 with the industrial metals price index and 0.59 with the price of crude oil.

By the way, the correlations between world growth and US real GDP growth are 0.59 and 0.52 for the 37- and 30-years-ended 2015, respectively. Thus, in terms of calendar-year percent changes, the correlation between the industrial metals price index and world economic growth is stronger than the correlation between US real GDP growth and world economic growth.

RecessionALERT WLI

  • Credit: Aging Business Cycle to Limit Rally

Since peaking at February 11’s 10.17%, the composite speculative-grade bond yield plunged by a stunning -129 bp to a recent 8.88%, where the latter was its lowest reading since the 8.88% of December 31, 2015. Coincidentally, March 2’s close for the market value of US common equity was the highest since January 6. If spec-grade yields ease further, the market value of common stock may recover all of its 2016-to-date losses.

The combination of a sharply lower spec-grade bond yield and a significantly higher benchmark Treasury yield slashed the high-yield bond spread by -150 bp from February 11’s six and a half-year high of 899 bp to a recent 749 bp. The latter was its narrowest band since the 744 bp of January 11.

A further narrowing by the high-yield spread is possible according to recent readings on the average high-yield EDFTM (Expected Default Frequency) metric, the Chicago Fed’s national activity index, and the VIX index. In fact, these three variables now suggest a range of 625 bp to 650 bp for the high-yield spread. Apparently, high-yield bonds have priced in both a deterioration of the economy and another frightening sell-off of equities.

(…) if business activity firms and equities stabilize, a -100 bp narrowing of the high-yield bond spread is well within reach.

image

Why Markets Shrug Off Prospect of a President Trump

(…) The reasons traders are unruffled about a possible President Trump tell us a lot about how markets assess political risk.

Start with the odds of Mr. Trump upgrading from what rival Marco Rubio has called “Hair Force One” to the real presidential jet: According to online bookies Betfair, Mr. Trump has a 24% chance of securing the White House. That is close to the 27% likelihood punters put on Britain voting to leave the European Union in June, so-called Brexit.

While the U.K. referendum has electrified markets and hammered sterling, similar odds of a Trump victory have had no effect at all.

Why not? A simplistic answer is that few big fund managers—international types who mainly live in coastal cities or abroad—believe Mr. Trump has any chance. The problem is these are the same type of people who play on political-betting sites in their spare time, while Betfair’s odds come exclusively from people outside America because of U.S. gambling rules.

A better answer is that the U.S. election isn’t until November, while Britain’s vote is in June. Traders tend to focus on the next thing in the calendar, and there is plenty else to worry about before American voters head to the polls. This may sound like a cynical comment about short-termism in markets, but hard-to-assess political risks are frequently ignored entirely by traders until they become so obvious they can no longer be avoided. (…)

The risk itself is also hard to assess. While many both in the Republican party and the wider world are horrified at the idea of a president who promises to wall off Mexico and ban foreign Muslims from visiting the U.S., Mr. Trump has committed to few economic policies.

Stephen Jen, founder of hedge fund SLJ Macro Partners LLP, says the market has reacted to Brexit and not Mr. Trump in part because they are the “difference between personalities and institutions.” Brexit is about changing the legal and governmental framework for the U.K. Mr. Trump has put personality way above policies, but would sit in the same Oval Office as any other president, and like them be limited by Congress and the Supreme Court.

“In developed markets you have very strong institutions and the personalities matter less,” he said. “In emerging markets it’s the other way round.” (…)