Category: Economy

Analysis of the global economy

Posted on

Is a Hard Life Inherited? | NYTimes.com

Nicholas Kristof writes in the New York Times:

ONE delusion common among America’s successful people is that they triumphed just because of hard work and intelligence. In fact, their big break came when they were conceived in middle-class American families who loved them, read them stories, and nurtured them with Little League sports, library cards and music lessons. They were programmed for success by the time they were zygotes.Yet many are oblivious of their own advantages, and of other people’s disadvantages.

….This crisis in working-class America doesn’t get the attention it deserves, perhaps because most of us in the chattering class aren’t a part of it.

There are steps that could help, including a higher minimum wage, early childhood programs, and a focus on education as an escalator to opportunity. But the essential starting point is empathy.

Read more at Is a Hard Life Inherited? – NYTimes.com.

Posted on

Australia’s Major Banks Say The Murray Enquiry Used The Wrong Numbers… | Business Insider

From Greg McKenna:

The AFR reports ….the Australian Bankers Association CEO Steven Munchenberg said the banks are “concerned that if some of the statements in the interim report – that Australia’s capital is middle of the road, that housing is a ­systemic risk – are allowed to remain unchallenged and are then taken out of context that is going to cause us a lot of future grief”.

Munchenberg says the Inquiry hasn’t calculated the capital ratios correctly.

“The approach was simplified and didn’t take into account the complexities and nuances of how capital is determined in Australia, including deductions required by APRA and some of the areas where APRA has adopted a more conservative approach, and as a result underestimated the amount of capital in Australia relative to overseas”, he told the AFR.

Forget the nuances and comparisons to the plight of other banks. Australian banks need to almost double their capital and adopt a more conservative approach to home mortgage lending if they are to withstand future shocks. 3 to 5 percent capital against total exposure doesn’t get you very far. The history of low mortgage failures over the last 3 decades, in an expansionary phase of the credit market, is unlikely to be repeated during a contraction.

Read more at Australia's Major Banks Say The Murray Enquiry Used The Wrong Numbers To Calculate Capital | Business Insider.

Posted on

Why is the Yield Curve Flattening? | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

Interesting view from Cullen Roche:

Most fixed income traders view long rates as a function of the economy and short rates as a function of the Fed’s views on the economy. So, when the Fed increases rates it means that the Fed thinks the economy is improving and needs some tightening so it doesn’t cause the Fed to create too much inflation and overheat the economy. But fixed income traders account for this and front-run the Fed’s thinking by trying to anticipate their views on the economy. Said more simply – long rates are a function of short rates for the most part. And the fact that long rates are remaining low means that fixed income traders increasingly believe that we’re in a permanent state of low interest rates.

Read more at Why is the Yield Curve Flattening? | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM.

Posted on

What caused the Dow sell-off?

Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.88% to close at 16563, breach of 16750 warning of a secondary correction. Decline of 21-day Twiggs Money Flow below zero would strengthen the signal. Breach of primary support at 15500 is unlikely and the trend remains upward.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

* Target calculation: 16500 + ( 16500 – 15500 ) = 17500

The S&P 500 also fell sharply. Reversal below 1950 warns of a test of medium-term support at 1900. Breach of primary support at 1750 again appears unlikely.

S&P 500

* Target calculation: 1500 + ( 1500 – 750 ) = 2250

The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) spiked up, but remains below 20 — values normally associated with a bull market.

VIX Index

What caused the sell-off? Commentators seem puzzled. Theories advanced vary from Argentinian default to developments in Eastern Europe. Neither of these seem to hold much water: the market has been aware of the risks for some time and they should be largely discounted in current prices. My own preferred theory is the expectation of a rate rise from the Fed. With good GDP numbers and falling unemployment the Fed may be tempted to tighten a lot sooner than originally expected. Even oil prices are falling. High crude prices is one of the reasons for the cautious Fed taper so far.

Nymex Light and Brent Crude

Which makes me suspect that this correction is going to end like the last “taper tantrum” — with a strong rally when the market realizes that economic recovery will lift earnings.

Posted on

China: The best way to manipulate GDP is to lower inflation

From George Dorgan:

The best way to push real GDP upwards is, hence, to understate inflation via the GDP deflator. Lombard Street Research assumes that Chinese officials followed that approach:

Via Wall Street Journal Blogs
Lombard Street Research, a London economic research firm that takes a bearish view on China, constructs its own version of the country’s GDP. Lombard’s conclusion: China’s economy grew just 6.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013, year-over-year, down from 7.5% the previous quarter. That compares with the 7.7% fourth-quarter increase reported by China’s statistics bureau, which was down a smidgen from 7.8% in the third quarter.

China GDP

The main difference between Lombard’s numbers and the official numbers, said Lombard economist Diana Choyleva, is the estimation of China’s inflation. GDP is reported in real—that is, inflation adjusted — terms. If China’s inflation is higher than reported, its GDP growth will be lower.

Read more at China: The best way to manipulate GDP is to lower inflation.

Posted on

Shilling: Big Banks Shift to Lower Gear | The Big Picture

Gary Shilling describes how US regulators are getting tough with big banks:

Break-Up

Like unscrambling an egg, it’s hard to envision how big banks with many, many activities could be split up. But, of course, one of the arguments for doing so is they’re too big and too complicated for one CEO to manage. Still, there is the example of the U.K., which plans to separate deposit-taking business from riskier investment banking activities – in effect, recreating Glass-Steagall.

In any event, among others, Phil Purcell believes that “from a shareholder point of view, it’s crystal clear these enterprises are worth more broken up than they are together.” This argument is supported by the reality that Citigroup, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley stocks are all selling below their book value Chart 5. In contrast, most regional banks sell well above book value.

Bank Price-to-Book Ratios

Push Back
Not surprising, current leaders of major banks have pushed back against proposals to break them up. They maintain that at smaller sizes, they would not be able to provide needed financial services. Also, they state, that would put them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign banks that would move onto their turf.

The basic reality, however, is that the CEOs of big banks don’t want to manage commercial spread lenders that take deposits and make loans and also engage in other traditional banking activities like asset management. They want to run growth companies that use leverage as their route to success. Hence, their zeal for off-balance sheet vehicles, proprietary trading, derivative origination and trading, etc. That’s where the big 20% to 30% returns lie – compared to 10% to 15% for spread lending – but so too do the big risks.

Capital Restoration
….the vast majority of banks, big and small, have restored their capital….Nevertheless, the FDIC and Federal Reserve are planning a new “leverage ratio” schedule that would require the eight largest “Systemically Important Banks” to maintain loss-absorbing capital equal to at least 5% of their assets and their FDIC-insured bank subdivisions would have to keep a minimum leverage ratio of 6%. This compares with 3% under the international Basel III schedule. Six of these eight largest banks would need to tie up more capital. Also, regulators may impose additional capital requirements for these “Systemically Important Banks” and more for banks involved in volatile markets for short-term borrowing and lending. The Fed also wants the stricter capital requirements to be met by 2017, two years earlier than the international agreement deadline….

CEO remuneration is largely driven by bank size rather than profitability, so you can expect strong resistance to any move to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Restricting bank involvement in riskier enterprises — as with UK plans to separate deposit-taking business from riskier investment banking activities — may be an easier path to protect taxpayers. Especially when coupled with increased capital requirements to reduce leverage.

Read more at Shilling: Big Banks Shift to Lower Gear | The Big Picture.

Posted on

Platinum founder warns on property “act of faith”

ScreenHunter_3505 Jul. 29 08.50

By Leith van Onselen

The founder of Platinum Asset Management, billionaire investor Kerr Neilson, has released an interesting report warning about Australia’s frothy house price valuations and the risks of a correction once “conditions change, [and] a lot of the assumptions are found wanting”.

The report highlights four “facts” about Australian housing:

1. Returns from housing investment are often exaggerated and flattered by inflation.
2. Holding costs of rates, local taxes and repairs are estimated to absorb about half of current rental yields.
3. Long-term values are determined by affordability (wages + interest rates).
4. To be optimistic about residential property prices rising in general much faster than inflation is a supreme act of faith.

It then goes on to examine each of these facts.

On returns, the report notes that “the rise in the price of an average home in Australia…[has] been about 7% a year since 1986. In dollar terms, the average existing house has risen in value by 6.3 times over the last 27 years. No wonder most people love the housing market!”

But rental returns have gotten progressively poor:

…we earn a starting yield of say 4% on a rented-out home or if you live in it, the equivalent to what you do not have to pay in rent. But again, looking at the Bureau of Statistics numbers, they calculate that your annual outgoings on a property are around 2%. This takes the shape of repairs and maintenance, rates and taxes, and other fees. This therefore reduces your rental return to 2%, and what if it is vacant from time to time?

And the prospect for future solid capital growth is low due to poor affordability:

…the last 20 or so years has been exceptional. Australian wages have grown pretty consistently at just under 3% a year since 1994 – that is an increase of about 1% a year in real terms.

Affordability is what sets house prices and this has two components: what you earn and the cost of the monthly mortgage payment (interest rates).

…even though interest rates have progressively dropped, interest payments today absorb 9% of the average income, having earlier been only 6% of disposable income.

ScreenHunter_3506 Jul. 29 09.21

Today, houses cost over four times the average household’s yearly disposable income. At the beginning of the 1990s, this ratio was only about three times household incomes. As the chart over shows, this looks like the peak.

ScreenHunter_3507 Jul. 29 09.22

Finally, the report argues that for Australian home prices to significantly outpace inflation over the next ten years, as they have in the past, “would require a remarkable set of circumstances”, namely a combination of:

1. Continuing low or lower interest rates.
2. Willingness to live with more debt.
3. Household income being bolstered by greater participation in the income earning workforce.
4. Average wages growing faster than the CPI.

The last point is improbable seeing that wages and the CPI have a very stable relationship, while the other points are not very likely.

Reproduced with kind permission from Macrobusiness.

Posted on

Is unemployment really falling?

US unemployment has fallen close to the Fed’s “natural unemployment rate” of close to 5.5%. Does that mean that all is well?

Not if we consider the participation rate, plotted below as the ratio of non-farm employment to total population.

Employment Participation Rate

Participation peaked in 2000 at close to 0.47 (or 47%) after climbing for several decades with increased involvement of women in the workforce. But the ratio fell to 0.42 post-GFC and has only recovered to 0.435. We are still 3.5% below the high from 14 years ago.

When we focus on male employment, ages 25 to 54, we exclude several obscuring factors:

  • the rising participation rate of women;
  • an increasing baby-boomer retiree population; and
  • changes in the student population under 25.

Employment Rate Men 25 to 54

The chart still displays a dramatic long-term fall.

Posted on

A compassionate conservative: Arthur C. Brooks

Bill Moyers interviews the American Enterprise Institute’s president Arthur C. Brooks on how to fight America’s widening inequality.

“The problem is we have a bit of a conspiracy between the right and left to have people now who are tending to be more part of the machine…We need a new kind of moral climate for our future leaders.”

Bill Moyers seems a bit light on the economics of the Walmart situation. Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare payments to Walmart employees, but WMT is a rational entity with the primary goal of maximizing profits and shareholder value. An increase in the minimum wage would increase the appeal of automation and result in a reduction in staff numbers, causing an increase in unemployment, or alternatively WMT will pass on the additional cost in the form of increased prices to consumers, causing a rise in inflation. The only sustainable long-term solution is not an easy one: to increase economic growth and employment so that market-driven wage rates rise. Interference with the pricing mechanism in a market — whether through legislated minimum wages, price controls or Fed interest rates — is misguided and unsustainable. It may defer but also amplifies the original problem.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper