My brother lives in Lucca, Italy ( near Florence) and sent the following report.
My brother lives in Lucca, Italy ( near Florence) and sent the following report.
Before the recent swoon stock market market performance under Trump had been quite favorable. The market gain since his inauguration (100) had been (144) similar to those under Clinton (141) and Obama (150). At this point Ike actually had the best return ( 170) but Ike and Truman are not included in the chart because it is too cluttered already.
After the recent market drop he is now more or less in the middle of the pact for recent presidents — even with JFK-LBJ and behind most democrats and ahead of most republicans.
But if he wants a strong market-economy going into the election it is easy to see why he strongly favors the 50 basis point cut by the Fed. The market doesn’t seem quite sure what to make of the Fed’s actions, first rallying strongly and then turning negative. It still does not have a handle om what economic impact to expect from the coronavirus. Maybe the Fed fears a bigger impact than markets were already discounting. Or, maybe the Fed is just taking out insurance in the face of extreme uncertainty.
Different bloggers have been posting their favorite charts of 2019 this January. So I decided to post my favorite chart of the past 20, or more, “years of the long bond yield versus the long run trend.” Bond yields are now below their long run trend and may be at or near a secular bottom. Of course no one rings a bell at the turning point so we probably will only identify the bottom long after it actually occurs.
In October the real trade deficit fell to $79,133 (million 2012 $) from the third quarter average of $84,713 (million 2012 $), a 6.6% improvement. This implies that the fourth quarter is starting with trade making a significant large boost to fourth quarter real GDP growth. Remember, the trade balance is the difference between two very large numbers so a small change in either exports or imports can generate a large change in the balance. The year over year percent change in exports is down -0.6% and imports have fallen -4.1%. But since the December, 2018 peak, the real trade balance has contracted -13.2%.
When you look at the details of US real trade, the changes in trade stem largely from oil and consumer goods. Other trade categories, like food, industrial materials, capital goods are each showing relatively small changes that are largely offsetting each other. For the most part both imports and exports of other goods have been stagnant for the past year. The drop in auto and consumer goods imports reflects several points.
The new world of the US being an open economy after the leap . . .
I first met Volcker when I was a junior international economist in Washington in the late 1960s. He was the Treasury Under Secretary for International Economics. I was going to a luncheon at the National Press Club for the Indian Finance Minister. As I got on the elevator, Paul Volcker and John Kenneth Galbraith — among other things he was the US Ambassador to India under Kennedy –followed me on. I am 6’2″ — or at least I was back then — but they were both well over 6’6″. I honestly believe that was the only time in my life that I was the shortest economist in the room.
This was back when they had the annual International Monetary Fund( IMF) meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. The standing joke was that they had the meeting in Nairobi so everyone could compare Volcker to an actual giraffe.
With the presidential election still a year away, Wall Street is starting its normal analysis that if a democrat is elected it will cause a devastating stock market crash. One would think that after all these years of such claims being proven dead wrong that the street would finally give up on it. In the post WWII era from Truman to Obama it is 70 years and each party has had bad candidates in office for half that time. Truman was only President for seven years and five months so the Democrats only had 35.4 years in office while the Republicans had 36 years in office. Over these years the average annual S&P 500 gains was 15.9% for Democrats and 6.6% for Republicans. If you look at the actual returns, you would think if anything; Wall Street analyst would be warning about the dangers of a Republican President for the stock market.
Because the chart is already so cluttered I left Truman and Ike off. But it seem so obvious that the record shows that it is Republican Presidents that investors should fear. Just to clearly show that stock market gains have been more that double under Democrats versus Republicans I’ve also presented the data in a table.
Despite all the recent stock market volatility the actual S&P 500 PE on trailing operating earnings is almost exactly where my model says it should be.
The biggest problem is that the market PE is about 19 and bond yields are under 2%. The quick and dirty rule of thumb is that a 100 basis point change in yields should generate a 100 basis point change in the S&P 500 PE. With bond yields already under 2% the upside potential for the market PE is under 200 basis points — driving the PE to the upper limit of the fair value band.
Consequently, further market increases are almost completely dependent on earnings growth. But currently, unit labor cost are rising faster than prices as measured by the non-farm business deflator and world economic growth remains very weak. While this spread is a powerful determinate of earnings growth you have to be careful with it as the most recent observations are subject to significant revisions.
Given these conditions the stock market downside risks clearly looks larger than the upside potential.
The use of drones against Saudi Arabian oil facilities changes the economic-market risk significantly.
Until now the oil producers have done an excellent job of preventing terrorist attacks from disrupting oil supplies. But the use of drones significantly changes the risk of future oil disruptions. How do we prevent future drone attacks on the choke points in the oil supply line?
I, for one, am surprised that the stock market reaction has been so muted.
Am I wrong in believing that the game has changed?
I have been looking at the data recently to find economic series that would quickly reflect the impact of rising tariffs on the consumer.
One is Retail Sales: GAFO. Think of it as department store type merchandise — goods excluding autos, food and energy. It is reported every month in both the Census retail sales press release and in the BEA measures of retail sales they compile in putting together personal spending and GDP. I have long preferred the BEA data because it provides very detailed measures of retail sales and real growth. Moreover, the practice of some to deflate the Census retail sales data with the CPI overstates retail price increases and under states real sales growth.As the chart shows price changes in GAFO sales moves very closely with prices of consumer goods imports excluding autos, food and fuels.
However, there is a problem with using the price index for imports as a measure of the impact of tariffs. It is a measure of prices FoB, or freight on board. So it does not include tariffs that are added as the merchandise moves through customs. In the current environment importers reaction to tariffs could show up here. One, if China absorbs some of the price increase while consumers would see higher import prices, this measure of import prices would actually fall as it shows prices China receives. Alternatively, if production is shifted to other countries their prices could be higher that the original Chinese price but less than the new Chinese price including the tariff. In this case, this measure of import prices would rise. So we do not know ahead of time how this price index will change.
Just a footnote, GAFO is about a quarter of all retail sales and this measure of consumer imports is also about a quarter of all imports.
There seems to be some confusion about the impact of Census employment of temporary and intermittent employment for the 2020 Census.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a table showing the monthly employment for Special Census workers. You can find it at: BLS – Special Census Workers
The table also has the data from the 1990 and 2000 Census so you can compare what happened in those Censuses to what to expect over the next year. I took the data from Table 1 of total nonfarm employment and subtract the Census employment to create a new series, Total NonFarm Employment excluding Census Temp & Intermittent Employment. The chart shows the last some 20 years of special Census employment. As you can see, this months 27,000 increase hardly shows in the chart compared to what happened in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses or what we can expect over the next year.