Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Economics

  • Unemployment Rate Increased to 8.9%

    Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in April, and the unemployment rate rose from 8.5 to 8.9 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.7 million jobs have been lost. In April, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major private-sector industries. Overall, private-sector employment fell by 611,000.

    The number of unemployed persons increased by 563,000 to 13.7 million. Unemployment rates for April for adult men reached 9.4% and for adult women 7.1%. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by 498,000 to 3.7 million over the month and has risen by 2.4 million since the start of the recession in December 2007.

    The civilian labor force participation rate rose in April to 65.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.9 percent. The employment-population ratios for adult men and women showed little or no change over the month. However, since December 2007, the men’s ratio was down by 440 basis points, while the women’s ratio was down by 130 basis points. Since those that stop looking for work (retire or just stop actively looking) are not counted as unemployed the participation rate is a useful statistic to examine in conjunction with the unemployment rate.

    Much of the commentary on the April job losses have been that the decrease in the number of job losses from previous months shows the economy is stabilizing. While it is true losing 611,000 jobs is better than losing 700,000 jobs, losing 611,000 is still very bad. The unemployment rate increased to 8.9% and long term unemployment is increasing drastically. This is hardly good economic news. It is true that there is hope that the economy is turning around, but the employment data we have so far is hardly positive (employment data is a lagging economic indicator so it is not surprising employment data does not recover before other signs point to improvement).

    Related: Another 663,000 Jobs Lost in March in the USA – USA Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.1%, Highest Level Since 1983 – Over 500,000 Jobs Disappeared in November – What Do Unemployment Stats Mean?

  • Beware of the Sucker’s Rally

    Beware of the sucker’s rally

    The Bull Market Express may really be pulling out of the station, but Wall Street’s trains have a nasty tendency to derail just as passengers jostle for seats. Most recently, the S&P 500 soared 24 per cent over seven weeks ending in early January, only to plunge to a new low. It was a fairly typical sucker’s rally and bear markets often need more than one to create sufficient disillusionment for a definitive bottom.

    The 2000–2002 bear market had three, with average gains of 21 per cent in the Dow Jones Industrials over 45 days.

    The granddaddy of all bear markets, 1929 –1932, had six false alarms with an average gain of 47 per cent. And Japan’s ongoing bear saw the Nikkei rise by at least a third four times in its first four years with 10 more false dawns since then.

    Bear markets typically end with a whimper rather than a bang, casting doubt on the latest recovery according to Hussman Econometrics, which analysed numerous US market bottoms and bear market rallies. With the exception of the 1987 crash, the month before the lowest point of a downturn saw a gradual descent.

    I don’t put much money on the line trying to time the stock market. I thought the decline was overdone and I have found some things to buy. I am not convinced the current assent of the USA market especially means the bear market is over. If I had to sell stocks, I would be much happier to do it now than 3 months ago. That said, I am not selling anything or reducing my planned buying (401k buying).

    Related: Financial Markets Continue Panicky Behavior (Oct 2008) – Trying to Beat the Market – Add to Your 401(k) and IRA – see my investing portfolio results

  • USA Consumers Paying Down Debt

    Consumer borrowing falls in March at fastest pace in over 18 years, Americans saving more

    Consumer borrowing plunged in March at the fastest pace in 18 years as Americans put away their credit cards and hoarded cash amid the worst recession in decades. The Federal Reserve said Thursday that consumer borrowing dropped 5.2 percent in March, the biggest decline since an 8.1 percent fall in December 1990.

    In dollar terms, consumer borrowing plunged by $11.1 billion. That’s the largest dollar amount on records dating to 1943, and more than three times the $3.5 billion drop that economists expected. The borrowing category that includes credit cards dropped 6.8 percent in March after a 12.1 percent plunge in February. The category that includes auto loans fell 4.2 percent after rising by 1.2 percent in February.

    The Commerce Department last week said that the personal savings rate edged up to 4.2 percent in March, marking the first time in a decade that the savings rate has been above 4 percent for three straight months.

    Good. Consumer debt is far to large and should be paid down. This is a start but a small start, but a much larger reduction in outstanding consumer debt is needed before we have reached a healthy level of debt. The continued improvement in that debt level signifies a stronger economy. Far too many financial journalists instead of pointing out the benefits of such improvement note that this reduces current consumption (and thus, effectively, will lower current GDP – compared to what it would be if we continued to spend beyond our means). You cannot spend money your don’t have forever.

    Having more stuff in your house (along with an increased outstanding credit card balance) does not make you economically more successful. And the same holds true for the economy. Having more stuff sitting in people’s house and an increasing debt load is not the sign of a stronger economy (even if it is a route to a higher current GDP). Increased saving and reducing debt will strengthen the economy and improve our economic success over the long term.

    Related: Will Americans Actually Save and Worsen the Recession? – Proper credit card use – Personal Saving and Personal Debt in the USA – Americans are Drowning in Debt – Buying Stuff to Feel Powerful

  • Warren Buffett’s Q&A With Shareholders 2009

    Each year Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger answer questions in front of crowds of tens of thousands of Berkshire Hathaway shareholders in Omaha, Nebraska. The question and answer sessions provide great wisdom on economics, investing and management. Here are some of the highlights I have found from the meeting yesterday.

    Buffett, Munger praise Google’s ‘moat’

    “Google has a huge new moat,” Munger said. “In fact I’ve probably never seen such a wide moat.” Google’s main business of charging companies when people click on their ads after running an Internet search is “incredible,” the Berkshire chairman said. “I don’t know how to take it away from them,” he added. “Their moat is filled with sharks,” Munger said.

    Berkshire’s Buffett Calls Wells Fargo ‘Fabulous’ Bank

    “All banks aren’t alike by a long shot, and in our view Wells Fargo, among the large banks, has some advantages the others do not,” Buffett said today at Berkshire’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

    The stock closed at $19.61 yesterday after falling below $9 in March. Buffett said he was speaking to a class the day the shares dropped that low and told students that, at that price, “If I had to put all of my net worth into stock, that would be the stock.”

    Buffett, who has said he values lenders partly on their ability to acquire funds from depositors, told shareholders today that he’d “love” to buy the entire bank and is unable to do so because Berkshire wouldn’t get permission from regulators.

    Inflation on the horizon

    Reflecting on the near implosion of the financial system last fall, Buffett said officials should be judged more leniently when facing “as close to a total meltdown as you can imagine.”

    But he warned that efforts such as the Treasury’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion fiscal stimulus plan passed this year by Congress will have to be paid for, one way or another. And with political leaders showing little inclination to raise taxes, one sure way to pay for excess spending is to inflate the value of the currency, Buffett said. The biggest losers in a surge of inflation, he added, would include holders of bonds and other fixed-income assets.
    …
    “Government does need to step in,” Buffett said, referring to the 6% contraction of the U.S. economy in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

    That’s not to say he is pleased with the earmarks Congress has attached to some of the rescue legislation. Inevitably, Buffett said, when big organizations turn massive resources on a problem, “there’s a fair amount of slop.”

    Related: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2008 – Warren Buffett’s Letter to Shareholders 2009 – Great Advice from Warren Buffett – Warren Buffett’s 2004 Annual Report
    (more…)

  • Huge New Natural Gas Discoveries in the USA

    U.S. Gas Fields Go From Bust to Boom

    Even conservative estimates suggest the Louisiana discovery — known as the Haynesville Shale, for the dense rock formation that contains the gas — could hold some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s the equivalent of 33 billion barrels of oil, or 18 years’ worth of current U.S. oil production. Some industry executives think the field could be several times that size.
    …
    Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current U.S. natural-gas demand.

    The discoveries have spurred energy experts and policy makers to start looking to natural gas in their pursuit of a wide range of goals: easing the impact of energy-price spikes, reducing dependence on foreign oil, lowering “greenhouse gas” emissions and speeding the transition to renewable fuels.
    …
    new technologies and a drilling boom have helped production rise 11% in the past two years. Now there’s a glut, which has driven prices down to a six-year low and prompted producers to temporarily cut back drilling and search for new demand.

    The natural-gas discoveries come as oil has become harder to find and more expensive to produce. The U.S. is increasingly reliant on supplies imported from the Middle East and other politically unstable regions. In contrast, 98% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is produced in North America.

    Related: Oil Consumption by Country – posts on energy economics – Forecasting Oil Prices – South Korea To Invest $22 Billion in Overseas Energy Projects – Wind Power Provided Over 1% of Global Electricity in 2007

  • First Quarter GDP 2009 down 6.1%

    First Quarter GDP 2009 in the USA was down 6.1%. This is after a revised 6.3% drop in fourth quarter of 2008 (preliminary fourth quarter report showed a 6.2% decline). Real exports of goods and services decreased 30% in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 23.6% in the fourth. Real imports of goods and services decreased 34.1%, compared with a decrease of 17.5%.

    The personal saving rate — saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 4.2% in the first quarter, compared with 3.2% in the fourth quarter of 2008.

    The news certainly is nothing to be happy about. But the stock markets around the world were buoyed by the Federal Reserves positive words:

    Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in March indicates that the economy has continued to contract, though the pace of contraction appears to be somewhat slower. Household spending has shown signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Weak sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories, fixed investment, and staffing.

    Although the economic outlook has improved modestly since the March meeting, partly reflecting some easing of financial market conditions, economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time. Nonetheless, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability.

    True, those words hardly sound like great news but the markets were quite happy.

    Related: The Economy is in Serious Trouble (Nov 2008) – Warren Buffett Webcast on the Credit Crisis – Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare (March 2008) – Manufacturing Data – Accuracy Questions

  • Capitalism from the Ground Up

    Peet’s Coffee: In Africa, Brewing Good Works by Steve Hamm

    But over the past year, Moayyad has taken on a new type of challenge. Peet’s has joined an effort to develop a vibrant coffee industry in sub-Saharan Africa. The Coffee Initiative, as it’s called, is run by TechnoServe, a nonprofit, and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal: to double the income of poor coffee farmers in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda by linking their products with coffee lovers in the developed world.
    …
    Because of bad roads and delays at border crossings, it took 12 days for a truck with a container full of green coffee beans to travel 1,000 miles to the Kenyan port of Mombasa. The sea journey from Mombasa took nearly two months. Worse, when the shipment arrived in Oakland, Calif., in late February, a portion of the coffee was slightly damaged.

    Moayyad traveled to Rwanda to cement relationships with farmer groups and gather stories about the farmers for use in marketing. With a videographer tagging along, she navigated molar-crunching roads in a four-wheel-drive pickup to remote villages and farms perched on hillsides high above Rwanda’s Lake Kivu. On the roadsides, children greeted the passing truck with an excited cry of “Abazungu [white people]!” Moayyad plans to post a journal of her travels on Peet’s Web site, aimed at the company’s most loyal customers, called Peetniks.

    A good effort. Real world issues confront you when you take steps to build the capacity for capitalism to help people live better lives. We need more such efforts to help capitalists make better lives for themselves around the world.

    Related: Bill Gates: Capitalism in the 21st Century – International Development Fair, The Human Factor – Helping Capitalism Create a Better World – Frontline Explores Kiva in Uganda

  • Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences

    It seems to me the situation that lead to the current economic problems are due to the overthrown of the Glass-Steagal and other long time sensible regulation put in place to restrict economy wide destruction caused by a few large financial firms (well, that plus incredibly poor management by people that paid themselves many times more than anyone else and other factors – huge consumer debt…). But the most significant systemic problem was failure to regulate even close to sensibly. I have several posts on this topic on previously: Congress Eases Bank Laws, 1999 – Treasury Now (1987) Favors Creation of Huge Banks – Canadian Banks Avoid Failures Common Elsewhere and Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation.

    Capitalism requires sensible regulation. Regulation is not a friction on capitalism it is a necessary component. Poor regulation is a friction that is waste that should be excised. Unfortunately that is a very challenging task and when you allow those with the most gold to set the rules it is no surprise you have them saying they should not be regulated but should be protected. The failure of financial regulations do show the very obvious problem we have currently of those that donate huge amounts to politicians are granted favors that are paid for by the economy overall.

    The widespread failure to regulate financial markets recently is almost certain to lead to this exact type of situation every time. Companies will over-leverage, take huge risks, take huge pay while times are good and just go bankrupt when times are bad. Think about how a bank makes money. They charge fees for things like: writing a loan, overdraft charges on your account, arranging financing (loan or stock sale)… They charge more for in interest than they pay. Some money there but really they are doing nothing special so they should not be able to charge too much. Even the ridicules fees companies pay (often those in the companies have arrangements to get personal special deals – allocations of IPO’s, jobs later…) for arranging stock sales do not have a systemic risk. Those risks should be very easy to manage sensible.

    They speculate in currency markets, commodities markets, futures, derivatives… If you want a stable economy if you allow huge speculative investments to be assumed to such an extent they risk the economy you are in trouble. If you refused those risks to limited liability companies perhaps your limited regulation model might work. Where those profiting on products with negative economic externalities would personally go bankrupt prior to the losses becoming economically crippling. But I doubt even that would work. And we don’t have that now. We allow people to setup limited liability corporations, drain them of capital on speculation of potential value and then walk about with hundreds of millions of dollars if the company fails. And the negative externalities (due to huge leverage) are huge.

    Regulation seems the obvious solution. And it works when applied. It wasn’t until the USA decided to abandon the financial system regulation and enforcement that the problems became systemic. And see the current Canadian banking system for what happens, even while the world economy is collapsing if you required banks to remain banks instead of massively leveraged speculators paying huge bonus to the executives based on their claims of profitability.

    I agree trying to control risk is dangerous. There are however, very sensible measures to take. Do not allow huge financial companies to exist (we have laws on anti-trust, anti-competitive behavior…). Do not allow banks to speculate (more than a careful controlled regulated amount). Do not allow massive leverage of massive amounts of money. Do require audited financial records. Do require companies that want to speculate to be much smaller than regulated bank, and bank-like companies. Do elect politicians that will appose allowing companies to undertake systemic risks to the economy for short term financial gains.

    We continue to elect politicians that provide large favors to those giving them money at the expense and risk to the rest of us. Therefore we are bringing this upon ourselves. When we chose to stop supporting politicians that behave in that way then we will get different behavior. Until that point it will continue. We don’t seems to be in any mood to change what we have been doing.

    Comments on Note to Regulators: Beware the Montana Paradox

    Related: More on Failed Banking Executives – more posts on regulation in capitalist economies – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – Bad Behavior

  • Mortgage Rates Falling on Fed Housing Focus

    Mortgages Falling to 4% Become Bernanke Housing Focus by Brian Louis and Kathleen M. Howley

    Home loans may go as low as 4 percent if the economy worsens, said Robert Edelstein, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. Record foreclosures, falling home prices and an economy that has lost 5.1 million jobs since December 2007 will pressure Bernanke to further reduce borrowing costs. “The Fed will have to do whatever it takes,” Edelstein said. “People will buy cheaper houses at very low interest rates.”
    …
    Conventional mortgages averaged 4.61 percent in 1951, 4 percent when backed by the Veterans Administration, and 4.25 percent by the Federal Housing Administration, according to The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market, a 1961 book written by Saul Klaman and published by Princeton University Press. Rates during the 1930s were as high as 7 percent.
    …
    Mortgages were cheaper through most of the 1940s, ranging from about 4 percent to 5.7 percent, depending on whether the lender was a life insurer, a commercial bank or a savings and loan. In that era, most loans were for 14 years and less.
    …
    The central bank has purchased more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities in 2009 through the week ended April 8, helping to cut home-loan rates to 4.82 percent last week from 5.1 percent at the start of the year, according to Freddie Mac data.
    …
    The difference between 30-year mortgage rates and 10-year Treasury yields has narrowed to about 2.2 percent from 3.1 percent in December, which was the widest since 1986. The spread remains almost 0.7 percentage point above the average of the past decade, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Rates for 15-year mortgages are about 1.8 percent above 10-year Treasury yields, compared with an average 1.4 percent since 1999.

    Excellent article with interesting historical information. I don’t believe mortgage rates will fall to 4% but differences of opinion about the future is one function of markets. Those that predict correctly can make a profit. I am thinking of refinancing a mortgage and I think I am getting close to pulling the trigger. If I was confident they would keep falling I would wait. It just seems to me the huge increase in federal debt and huge outstanding consumer debt along with very low USA saving will not keep interest rates so low. However, as I have mentioned previously, it is interesting that the Fed is directly targeting mortgage rates and possible they can push them lower. The 10 year bond yield has been increasing lately so the slight fall in mortgage rates over the last month are due to the reduced spread (that I can see decreasing – the biggest question for me is how much that spread can decrease).

    Related: Fed to Start Buying Treasury Bonds Today – Federal Reserve to Buy $1.2T in Bonds, Mortgage-Backed Securities – Low Mortgage Rates Not Available to Everyone – what do mortgage terms mean?

  • Skeptics Think Big Banks Should Not be Bailed Out

    Let big banks fail, bailout skeptics say

    The Obama administration must break up the biggest financial firms if the nation is to return to economic health, three prominent bailout skeptics told a congressional panel Tuesday. Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz and MIT professor Simon Johnson warned the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the current government policy of propping up troubled financial giants could impede an economic recovery.

    I must say this is the is how I feel, but I don’t have the time to research all the details – to know all the existing limitations for realistic solutions. But I can’t believe allowing huge, incredibly poorly run financial organizations to remain in place with the same bozos that have looted the treasuries of their companies and then taken huge handouts from the federal government, is good policy. It was a very bad idea to allow such anti-competitive large financial institutions to exist in the first place. Then the extremely bad behavior of thousands of people taking millions from those banks treasuries and imposing huge risks on the financial system certainly should result in government finally doing their job to prevent harm to the economic system.

    Hoenig said authorities must set up a procedure that would allow big nonbank financial firms to be temporarily taken over by the government. Regulators would then replace management, wipe out shareholders and seek to sell the cleansed institution back into private ownership. Stiglitz, formerly an aide in the Clinton administration [and Economics Nobel Prize winner], said the process of briefly taking over banks then selling them back to investors would be much less costly for taxpayers.

    This sounds like a much more sensible strategy to me. It is certainly much much better than increasing consolidation with moves like having huge financial firms buy other huge firms. Obviously I would not support the selling of pieces of the old broken institution to remaining large organizations. The anti-competitive market power must be sharply reduced.

    Related: Treasury Now (1987) Favors Creation of Huge Banks – posts on the credit crisis – Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – Canadian Banks Avoided Failures Common Elsewhere – There is No Invisible Hand