The Death of M3

Posted by Ray on July 15, 2010 under Economy, Main, The Federal Reserve | Be the First to Comment

All the talk of the town is deflation, disinflation or disinflationary trends, what does all of this mean, is it bad and more importantly, should the Federal Reserve try to stop it? First, deflation is negative price growth year-over-year, we are not there yet even though I often say we are in a deflationary period, because we will get there, in my opinion. Disinflation or disinflationary trends are signals that show prices are declining and is how many economists or snarky bloggers, like myself, describe the trend before we hit outright deflation. In a nutshell, deflation is demand destruction or no end demand which means companies must drop prices in order to attract business. The most commonly referenced period of deflation is the 1930’s where, sadly, food was cheap, but people starved, houses were cheap, but people went homeless. Deflation has been framed as ugly, horrible and something that must be avoided at all costs.

Deflation during the good times is fine and we all reap the rewards, such as cheaper technology, i.e. cell phones or computers, which become cheaper because of competition from outsourcing and technological advances. No one minds paying lower prices during these periods of times and the Fed even doesn’t mind deflation during these periods, but they like it to remain in check. Because lower prices do not mean people are not buying the products, the opposite is typically true. Plus, other indicators usually show that only certain items are prone to deflation under normal conditions, usually technology related items. The Fed would only be concerned if they saw other items start to lose pricing power and the money supply shrinking, people saving more money, basically.

When people save their money, in an economy such as the U.S., it is devastating because such a large portion of our domestic growth comes from spending money freely on stuff we really don’t need. When we save we stop that wasteful spending this grinds our economy to a halt. In order to get sales going again companies start to offer incentives to get shoppers in the door. This usually means lower prices through either temporary or permanent sales on the price of the products they sell. Since these products are not selling the stores are not ordering new products which mean the raw materials to make the clothes or whatever begin to decline. Even if the product begins to move at reduced prices the company selling to the end user begins to demand lower prices for the product and even if they don’t ask for it the orders are so much smaller prices would fall anyhow. Essentially it is a chain reaction, this is pretty common knowledge, but it comes from one simple thing happening, people saving their money.

The other part of the equation of people saving their money is that money is taken out of circulation. This sounds counterintuitive to those who rail against the fractional reserve banking system since this system allows for more loans to be made if the deposit base grows. However, if the economy is bad banks simply do not make loans because they fear not getting repaid. Therefore, a higher savings rate means lower monetary circulation, commonly referred to as M3, which the Fed no longer produces by the way. In order to boost the money supply the Fed will try to encourage banks to make riskier loans by lowering interest rates. By lowering interest rates banks make lower rates of returns for doing nothing with their money so by loaning out the money to borrowers banks can make higher interest rates. In turn the borrower will go out and spend that money which will ultimately boost the money supply and, hopefully, boost final demand.

That is how things work in normal business cycles, but that is not what we have now. We have a very abnormal business cycle that happens once every few generations where we go through this huge leveraging cycle and then have to live through a period when we deleverage all the debt. The last time we went through this was in the 1930’s and the time before that was about 60 years before the 1930’s so about every 60 to 80 years we go through a super cycle of debt leverage that blows up. During these super cycles the consumer has so much debt that they just try to pay it off and does not waste much money on other items. This is bad for our economy which is built on a consumption model to the tune of 70% of our GDP. This lack of demand or demand destruction means people just will not spend unless it makes absolute sense to them, i.e. a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam. This demand destruction leads to lower prices which starts out as disinflationary forces, moves to deflation when prices finally start dropping YoY, which will happen soon.

No matter what the central bank does, the Fed, it on its own cannot change this deflationary trend when it has spent all of its ammo. When interest rates hit zero there is nothing the Fed can do to spur demand from a monetary policy point of view. Remember, this is a very unusual situation because in these super cycles not only are consumers saddled with debt, but so are the banks and the banks are usually saddled with worthless debts which make them insolvent. That was true 80 years ago and the same thing is true today because banks are not making loans nor do they want to. So what can the Fed do? They have insolvent banks and consumers that don’t want to spend and are trying to shed their debt loads.

Some people say more quantitative easing will be helpful. I ask how? We already did how much QE? $2T+ that we know of and that did nothing. In fact, mortgage rates have dropped even more after QE stopped and we have falling demand for housing so what will another round of QE do? All it would do is cripple the dollar and trust me, the dollar is going to be in trouble soon enough anyhow because of the bloated balance sheet the Fed has and our national debt load. QE will not boost money velocity at all. It might give banks more money for their balance sheets, but other than that it will not boost the overall money supply so I am totally perplexed as to why anyone thinks QE will work. We have no problem selling our debt right now either, so it is a total waste of time and resources. The negatives far outweigh the positives.

What else can the Fed do? Nothing. They are done or have done everything they can do. Sure, they can roll out with TALF again, but the market has no problem placing junk paper right now so what would the point be? The problem is simple, the consumer does not want to spend. Businesses do not want to spend. Does anyone know why this is happening? I think it is pretty simple, no one knows what is going to happen. The President is keeping everyone in the dark about where taxes are going to go, heck, we are not even going to get a budget for 2010, unreal! We still have no idea how health care reform is really going to impact us yet, how much will it cost, etc. The business environment is weak at best and CEO’s are too afraid to admit it, look how they get treated by the administration, as traitors!

The consumer, well, I wonder why they aren’t spending. We have weekly initial unemployment claims coming in at well over 400K, 4 week average is 455K. We have more firings than hiring’s going on right now. The work week declined and so did wages. There are 6 people for every open job. It is taking 35 weeks to find a new job if you get fired. People were feeling more secure about their job, but when initial claims began to heat up again that confidence disappeared, even H-P started laying people off again and I bet Google will announce layoffs very soon. Their debt loads are through the roof and banks raised all their fees on the consumer so it is taking longer to pay down debt. Foreclosures, delinquencies and now a story broke tat home owner associations are foreclosing on homes for pennies on the dollar over the dues not being paid, come on. To top it all off the Senate is not extending unemployment benefits, but they can pass a 2,300 page Fin Reg bill with no problem, what is wrong with those people?

It is fair to say that there are plenty of reasons to not spend money from the consumer’s point of view. From corporate America’s point of view there is also little reason to spend money and even if they did it is so little of GDP it doesn’t even matter. The bottom line is how do we get M3 to increase? Can money velocity get positive again and should we even try? In my opinion, I do not believe we can get money velocity to get positive again without a drastic event such as WWII. These super cycles have to work themselves out and that takes time and the more tinkering we do the longer it takes. Look at housing, if we did not do the tax credit we might have bottomed in housing prices already, but we will never know now.

The Depression lasted as long as it did because of the tinkering and those who say we had a relapse because stimulus was removed in 1937-38 simply do not get it. If we cannot attract buyers to the housing market at 4.5% interest rates and prices significantly lower than the peak it just is not going to happen for some time to come. The market has to find its own bottom and it will be painful, but we cannot simply throw money at it and hope it works out. We could do that in the 1930’s because we had savings and we had manufacturing, we have neither now. We started out in a horrible position, greatly in debt, and to get ourselves out we are advocating going much deeper in debt. The problem is we cannot grow our way out of the debt we have, we cannot afford another New Deal. The most important thing to remember about the New Deal to begin with was that it did not work, it was a majorly failed policy.

As painful as it is going to be I say we have to let it be. No more QE and I hope we do not do another stimulus, but we will, look for a Bush style check coming right around October. Money velocity will sort itself out when the deleveraging is over and that could be as fast as next year or as long as 2015, no one knows except the collective minds of the consumers. The bottom line is we may come out, the consumer and corporate America, stronger than when we came into this thing with less debt and important lessons learned. Our government and the Fed, well, I do not believe they learned anything and look for QE and stimulus money just in time to buy your vote in November.

Bizzaro land continues

Posted by Ray on under Main | Be the First to Comment

Mark Haines: “Higher taxes creates more jobs.” No, I am not making this up, he really said this and he is basing this on 18 years of history from the Clinton years to the Bush years. I am not exactly sure when Mark went off his rocker, but he definitely hit his head, hard, when he landed. I have never heard such stuff in my entire life and it makes no sense. Let me explain.

Did Clinton raise taxes? Yes, he did. Did jobs increase? Yes they did. However, when did jobs increase? Not until after 1994, the Republican Revolution and some of Clinton’s tax policies were reversed, like his huge tax hike on the retired, the largest in history I might add. It is also important to note that this is when the internet came into everyday life and altered the business model of U.S. corporations and created a “new economy” which turned out to be horse poop, there is never a new or old economy, and there is merely an economy. However, the internet did improve efficiency, pricing and competition which create growth. All of this combined with dirt cheap oil led to the greatest economic expansion we have ever had, there is no question about that.

However, comparing the 1990’s to the 2000’s is crazy. It is the same thing as comparing the roaring 1920’s to the 1930’s, there is just no way you can make the comparison in an honest fashion and say there is any correlation. In fact, taxes were low in the 1920’s and we had a similar expansion as the 1990’s and taxes were higher in the 1930’s and unemployment was through the roof, so according to Haines the opposite should have happened. Also, according to Haines, the 1970’s should have been boom years as well as taxes were way up, but if memory serves me correctly the 1970’s, besides the Bee Gee’s, ABBA and Marvin Gay, sucked.

I guess the mandate from corporate, GE, to make the current administration look awesome and push their policies, no matter what, really went to Mark Haines’s head and he took it literally. I guess if we can prove Stalin had economic growth through killing 20M of his fellow citizens that too would be a good enough policy to enact here as well? I am just wondering how far he would go with his whacky correlations since he is clearly left of center. Higher taxes means people will spend less in order to save for the future tax bill, I save more when I know I have taxes coming up, I mean, this is economics 101. Hell, this might be business law high school style it is so basic, but not in bizzaro world. In fact, I am wondering if the market would not shoot up 1,000 points, with no circuit breakers of course because it is an up day, on the news of a VAT and a marginal income tax rate of 95%.

I get it, everyone hates Bush, I don’t blame them, and everyone wants to blame a policy for our problems, but making stuff up isn’t the answer. Pulling correlations from two uncorrelated periods is not the answer. Personal ideology being interjected into what is supposed to be unbiased reporting is not the answer. Is there any wonder why NBC as a whole is in decline? Businesses will not higher if they do not know if their effective tax rate is going to be 15% or 50% next year or how much health care per employee will cost them. They will not hire if they think end demand will not be there because people, like me, are saving to pay those higher tax bills that are coming. This is basic business sense which is clearly lost on the, what is their motto, “The #1 Business Network?”

Deflation, a reality

Posted by Ray on under Main | Be the First to Comment

Deflation is more than a pipe dream, it is basically here and it is global in nature. We saw a whole slew of data points come out over the past 12 hours and none of it was very positive from my lens since it all pointed towards either a slowing of the economy or deflationary headwinds. There is just no question that the second half of 2010 is going to be vastly different than the first half for America and 2011 is going to be worse than expected. To be blunt, when the Federal Reserve is telling you things are bad, things are much worse than you think. We are talking about the same Fed that got everything wrong or underestimated every problem we have had over the past 30 years. In their notes yesterday, wow, there was just nothing positive. We will have quantitative easing and it will be spectacular since we have no idea how this will impact the U.S. long-term.

China released its GDP figures last night, some 10.3% GDP, but its CPI was 2.9% compared to expectations of 3.5%. Some would argue that is good news, but I would disagree. With rapid growth you would expect to see inflation higher than 2.9% and if they are paying lower prices that means they are having end demand problems as well. Some say this ‘planned’ slowdown is good and maybe it is, but if China is the engine for the global economy and it is fulfilling its goal of a slowdown how in the world can that be good news for the U.S. or Europe? I don’t see it. I also see a stronger RMB as a major problem for China and the rest of the world, but I have beat that horse to death by now. Just remember, manufacturers with 3-4% profit margins cannot pay their employees more while their currency is rising and other currencies are falling or staying flat, a best case scenario for the U.S. and the EU. Watch out below in China and I feel much more comfortable in India or Brazil than I do in China at this point maybe even in Indonesia.

Data in the U.S. was horrible and there is no way to deny that. The initial claims data is very noisy since the seasonally adjusted data is looking for retooling of the auto industry which is not happening right now, but it makes the weekly number look real nice. Unfortunately, it is not reality and to put everything into prospective, last week’s number was revised up, this number, 429,000, will also be revised up as well and take a look at the unadjusted data set. The unseasonal adjusted data is flat week over week at 513,347 which looks similar to last week’s figure and shows how the BLS is not seeing through the distortions of the auto industry retooling and makes the case that seasonally adjusting doesn’t always work. Either way, this figure is a head fake and even Steve Liesman admitted that so what does that tell you?

The CPI/PPI, what can I say? Disinflationary at best and this is what the Fed is worried about. This problem is global, not just a U.S. problem and, unfortunately, looks a lot like what happened in the 1930’s which was made worse by Europe’s debt problems I might add, sound familiar? The Fed also said we are looking at 5 to 6 years of this, ouch, and this means equity prices should be trading at what P/E exactly? Certainly not 20, maybe 10, 15? No one knows, but we are way overvalued that much we all know at this point. To make a point about deflation let’s take a look at Marriott’s earnings, they were good, but if you look at their room rates YoY they were down across the board from 2009, I thought we were in the midst of a fantastic recovery? If Marriott has to cut its rates by 4% all over the world, except in the UK, what does that tell you about pricing power? There is none, they have to discount to fill rooms. Also, their luxury brands were flat and their lower end brands were doing much better, staycations anyone. Don’t bet on global growth, you will get slaughtered.

The Empire State report, from 19 to what??!! To say that we are not having a slowdown with an Empire State report slipping 15 points, 19.57 to 5.08, on top of the ISM making lower highs, the Baltic Dry Index plummeting and unemployment hideously high is insane. This is just the icing on the cake, in my opinion, I am sure some people will claim it is a one off event, but there is a clear pattern here and it is down. All of this means a slowdown, good earnings or not. This is also not a case of more stimulus with the exception of extending unemployment benefits, we need to let this thing sort itself out at this stage of the game. Unfortunately, we will get it whether we want it or not starting with quantitative easing from the Fed which will do nothing to boost money velocity. The bottom line, the Empire State report was awful and will likely not be talked about much today or ever again. The other Fed reports will likely show a similar slowdown as well.

Painful, I think that is the word we are looking for as we look at the data today. How or why futures are not down bit time, who knows. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, myself included, who said that 2Q10 earnings would not be good, but forward earnings are the key and all forward looking data points look terrible. The ECRI comes out tomorrow and it is pushing closer and closer to that -10% mark, but I guess that indicator only matters when we are on our way up, not on the way down. Be very careful in this market as it is devoid of reality at this point. Valuations will matter and the fact that we are seeing deflationary pressures mount from China to room rates at Marriott means you have to treat valuations differently. You cannot look at a 19 P/E and consider that cheap in a deflationary environment and we have very little experience in these environments to boot, so think deep value, ultra low P/E’s and high dividends from strong companies that do not need to go to the capital markets to raise capital. Good luck.

Alcoa, the contrarian indicator

Posted by Ray on July 12, 2010 under Economy, Markets | Be the First to Comment

Alcoa is infamous for having lousy numbers and missing its estimates, even Cramer came out today saying who cares about Alcoa, they have lousy numbers. Last quarter they had lousy numbers, but everyone else had great numbers, so what does this mean? To me, it means that Alcoa is the contrarian play since they beat their numbers and raised guidance. Although one analyst says he was not happy with the results as he thought they would guide higher and attributed last quarter’s beat to the airline and auto industries higher demand, basically he said the rest of the year would be weak. I have not looked through the company’s numbers because I do not own Alcoa and I do not want to own Alcoa, so why bother.

Alcoa had good earnings, at least good headline earnings, and CSX had good earnings, which is no surprise since the rail reports have been looking better, but I think we are in for some serious outlook shocks moving forward. All the initial signs are there as the economy is cooling off, frankly it was never that hot to begin with, as retail sales are not stellar, consumer credit is contracting and unemployment remains incredibly high. For some reason the unemployment aspect has become a new normal that most people are immune to, 454,000 initial claims last week was not good and a 466,000 4 week average is not good, in fact it is disturbing that more people are not concerned about this. Not to mention, unemployment benefits for some 3M people are about or have already ran out, not good at all for future earnings outlook, in my opinion, or maybe this fits into a V shaped recovery story somewhere along the way, I get confused nowadays.

One surprise last week was the news that Wells Fargo was closing down 638 stores that catered to non-prime, a.k.a. sub-prime, borrowers, I thought they got out of that business 2 years ago? The firm is expected to has a $.02 charge because of this closure which leads me to believe there may be more losses which led to the closure of the division, not a stretch, I know. Also considering that their pick-a-pay mortgage portfolio still looks terrible I think there is more to the story, but, frankly, with the suspension of mark-to-market accounting what does a bad loan really mean anymore? I will say even with the accounting gimmickry that a bad loan still impairs the balance sheet even if it ‘looks’ good in the reporting and over time a loss will catch up to the bank it is just a matter of how long. I also suspect that there is probably no more perfect quarters for the trading desks f Goldman and JP Morgan, my heart bleeds for them. What I am trying to say is that we might be shocked to find that financials do not perform as well as expectations and their outlook gets more cautious.

There is also technology which has been on fire for the past year, there is no denying that. Earnings have been fantastic and growth has been abundant for pretty much anyone in the technology arena, but will it continue? I fear, no. One of the dirty little secrets is the fact that for the bulk of the last years Asia has been the driving force of growth and these firms have had the benefits of a declining dollar which meant a lot of positive FX results. This is true for Google to Intel who all had several hundred million in earning kickers thanks to a depreciating dollar, but that trend stopped at the end of 1Q10 when Europe started to really catch on fire. I am sure 2Q earnings are going to be good, but guidance might not be as robust as many believe and there is now greater possibility for misses on the top or bottom line as well.

There is also Europe to contend with, I know, everyone says Europe is no big deal and the impact in the U.S. will be minimal. Well, the same people also said the sub-prime crisis was contained in 2007 as well, how did that work out for you? The fact of the matter is that 30% of the S&P 500 earnings are coming from Europe and they are going to stop spending as much, that is just a fact. This slow down will have an impact on earnings moving forward, how much? I do not know, no one knows which is why guidance will probably be more cautious this quarter. You may be saying, well Asia is growing like a weed and I will agree with you, but only somewhat.

I will say that the population in Asia will probably be more liberal with their wallets than businesses will be. China has a lot to contend with right now between property bubbles blowing up, banks worrying about capital requirements, loans becoming harder to come by, profit margins being squeezed by employees wanting higher pay, but their top importer, the EU, has a falling currency and the U.S. consumer is also not buying as much either. They probably are not going to be buying as much as they would be or had in the past. A good barometer of this is the Baltic Dry Index which has plummeted over the past few weeks. China is the reason why the BDI expands and contracts, for the most part, and it shows that China is importing less because they are uncertain or at the very least done stockpiling for now. I believe that means Chinese companies are not doing much capex right now, I could be wrong, but I just don’t see it happening.

The other thing I know people will rip me apart on is the $1.7T, or there about, in cash U.S. companies has on its balance sheets. Many believe all that money will be spent or used to hire, well, what planet are you living on? How long has that money been there for? 6 – 9 months maybe a year now? This is like the cash on the sideline argument, it doesn’t hold water. I agree that eventually that money will go to work somewhere, but not now there is simply too much uncertainty out there. These companies will not go out and hire people, why would they do that, they just fired them? They don’t hire people just to give people jobs, that what governments do. The bottom line is there is no end demand right now, all the evidence shows that as the consumer is deleveraging and so are companies.

That money is sitting on the balance sheet right now because firms are worried about what is going to happen. Most firms paid down debt and are preparing to hunker down for a bad business environment for a long period of time which is why they are not raising dividends to much higher levels or buying new equipment. There is simply no reason to invest right now when the current employee level and technology can met their needs which is the problem with deflationary depressions. Over time this may change, but given what we see right now and the sharp drop in the leading indicators, drop in retail sales, etc. companies are just going to hold that cash until they absolutely have to spend it. I hope I am wrong, but it doesn’t look that way.

I believe that we have plenty of reasons to be worried this earnings season. There has been tremendous technical damage done to the S&P and unless we get stellar earnings and good guidance I do not see the markets going higher. The headwinds are just too strong right now and there is little sign that things are getting better, the opposite is true. I believe we are heading for an immense P/E multiple compression and that is a good thing for value investors, bad for those who own AAPL though. Speaking of which, AAPL is also another reason to be weary of the market right now, it is the only alpha holding out there, take that bad boy out and it will be like trying to get an elephant through an eye of a needle. Plus, if AAPL broke the trust they have with their users who can the people trust? Look for lower guidance.

The Birth/Death Model

Posted by Ray on July 10, 2010 under Economy | Be the First to Comment

I just read John Mauldlin’s weekly newsletter and he apparently got into a discussion over the much misunderstood and hated, by myself and many others, birth/death model used by the BLS. I have not been receiving the newsletter on a regular basis, some type of server issue I guess, but someone did not like what he had to say about it and I guess John misspoke about it. The whole thing about the birth/death model is it is meant to be a smoothing mechanism, I know that, everyone knows that, but it stinks and is not accurate which is what John ultimately said it was in his letter or at least it has not been accurate the last few years.

Now, I may have misspoke or led many to misunderstand what the birth/death model is and does. It is this little provision that helps the BLS make up for data they either do not receive back by survey participants or never receive, but it leaves room for interpretation and is never fixed in real time. In fact, they wait until February of the following year to correct any errors in the birth/death model that it may have had on the unemployment rate, fantastic, right? The model is not seasonally adjusted so when the BLS says 83,000 jobs were created it is not as if they added in the 147,000 (June’s B/D adjustment) figure to come up with that figure, that would be lying and a government agency would never do that.

Instead, what they do is add in the not seasonally adjusted B/D figure to the not seasonally adjusted employment figure and THEN seasonally adjust it. Now, you are thinking, big deal that shouldn’t make a big difference. Well, you may be right and you may be wrong. If you are talking 1M as a figure and the B/D adjustment is 50K it is no big deal, but if you are talking about a headline figure of 800K and the B/D adjustment is 147K (June figure) or 241K (May figure) well, you tell me, would that impact the seasonally adjusted figure? I would say yes it would. I have history on my side on this as well.

You see, in the fall of 2008 when Lehman collapsed and the world came to an end we all saw unemployment shoot to the moon, remember? Well, the BLS thought since so many people were losing their jobs and the business environment was so good that must be why so many survey respondents did not get back to them, they were busy making money! So, they added in hundreds of thousands of jobs from September of 2008 until the end of 2009. They were so aggressive in their B/D modeling they underestimated unemployment by 880,000 people, that is a pretty large underestimation by anyone’s standards considering the total ‘official’ unemployment total is 14M people and the underestimate for that time frame was about 10% of the total of the newly unemployed.

One could say, well, that is within the margin of error, but I don’t buy that since the government is the one who processes unemployment benefits and receives the initial claims data. In other words, it is pretty easy to correlate the data within a reasonable time frame, in my mind at least, but I am not a bureaucrat, so what do I know. Basically, if one removes the B/D figures from the non-seasonally figures and seasonally adjusts them you would have a bit of a difference in the monthly numbers. The series would be much more volatile, but it would also, in my mind, be more accurate and real time which seems to be something no one wants anymore with this figure which is why Santelli and Liesman get into screaming matches about it every first Friday of the month.

The bottom line is the adjustments matter, they boost the jobs number every month and they don’t come clean about any adjustments until the next year. That does not help anyone except for politicians and when more and more people are saying employment is now a leading indicator we need a better way to report unemployment. At the very least the BLS can correlate with the state data bases along with the household survey and that might give us a better view of what is going on. I think it is pretty much a proven fact that when we have the government guessing at any figure it is pretty much going to be wrong so why anyone would defend the B/D model is beyond me. The idea is fine, I guess, but how the BLS does it and how no one questions it, especially when it creeps up month after month when it really shouldn’t be, is very odd as, again, the only people who truly benefit from it is the political class.