U.S. Economic Snapshot

by Zach Bethune, Tom Cooley, and Peter Rupert

Today’s second estimate of Q1 GDP issued by the BEA reveals a downward revision of nearly one percentage point, from 0.2% to -0.7.

Many prognosticators envisioned an even larger drop so this “restrained” decline might not send shock waves across markets…unless, of course, there are other signs of weakness moving forward that might signal weaker Q2 growth. For example, inventories were revised down by about half of what people thought, $15.2 billion. While personal consumption expenditures saw almost no revision, the (expected) downward revision in exports materialized, revised down by $26.3 billion. Final sales also saw a big downward revision compared to the advance estimate, from -0.5 to -1.2.

Residual Seasonality and GDP vs. GDI

A recent report from the San Francisco Fed argues that the large revisions to first Quarter data and the remarkable weakness in the first quarter for the last few years may be the result of “residual seasonality” rather than fundamentals.  Economists at the Federal Reserve Board reached a similar conclusion.  The Bureau of Economic Analysis is looking at this issue and will incorporate their conclusions into the July revisions to GDP. Many expect that review to result in a .5% or so upward revision of the data In our view it would be a mistake to attach too much importance to this possibility.  The first quarter was unquestionably weak for reasons that were quite foreseeable. Some of it was bad luck (i.e. bad weather and port strikes) but some of it was fundamental – lower exports because of a stronger dollar and weakness in other economies.

The more important issues are twofold: How does this bear on the argument that we we are caught in a period of “secular stagnation” as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and others have argued. And, how does the weaker economic growth impact the probability of Fed “liftoff” in the near future.  On the first question it would be hard to refute the idea that U.S. potential GDP has shifted down a notch. Compared with previous recoveries this one continues to be anemic. There has also been a distinct slowing of both residential and non-residential fixed investment that does not bode well for future growth of the economy.

Another theme that has emerged is a discussion of the merits of looking at Gross Domestic Income (GDI) vs. GDP. The argument is that GDI is a better gauge of the economy than the traditional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measure. The reasons given can be found here and here. As the graphs below show, however, this is certainly not a matter of using one or the other.  Each has shown lackluster performance. In NIPA theory these two measures are equivalent, but, GDP and GDI do differ at times. Over a long time frame, they do indeed almost perfectly rest on top of each other.

If we zoom in to the recent experience since 2007, real GDI has performed better than real GDP. Indeed it is the end points that signal a decline in real GDP but not in real GDI…

…but it was the opposite in the early 1990’s when real GDI does worse than real GDP.

However, the main point to be made here is that using either one tells a story of an anemic recovery since the Great Recession of 2007, and splitting hairs over GDP vs. GDI seems a minor issue.

All of these factors are going to caution the FOMC when it meets in June because the last thing they want to do is derail a recovery that is now both mature and showing some signs of weakness. By and large the labor market seems to be operating near full employment, albeit without wage growth. Whether the first quarter weakness signals a more prolonged slowdown won’t be known for some time but it seems likely to put liftoff on hold for a while.

by Zach Bethune, Tom Cooley and Peter Rupert

Today’s employment report for April from the BLS showed a solid gain in employment +223,000. However, a downward revision of -41,000 leaves March at a disappointing 85,000 with one more revision to go. Probably the best thing about the report is that it was not bad. The numbers roughly hit the consensus forecast of 230,000. But the recent performance underscore how noisy this estimate is.  Nevertheless, the numbers signal an economy that is growing slowly, but definitely growing in spite of many challenges in the global environment.

The gains, however, were pretty much across the board, although, mining and logging saw a third straight month of decline as the oil industry continues to struggle with the low oil prices. There has been a slight uptick in those prices of late.

Average hours of work have remained pretty flat over the last few months, around 34.5.

Nominal earnings growth remains flat, but in real terms, labor income is up.

On the household side of the ledger, there was a fairly restrained increase in employment, 166,000. The unemployment rate declined slightly to 5.4%…that is from 0.05465056 to 0.05442727.

And the long term unemployed (27 weeks and over) fell slightly but remains elevated, obviously a concern as these workers may lose skills and become even more difficult to hire.

The employment to population ratio is also quite sluggish…stuck at 59.3% since February.

The other slightly negative news is that productivity declined for the second straight month…it is the first time this has happened since 2006!

Putting this together, it appears as if the good news is that it wasn’t bad news…meaning that it does not appear that it will change anyone’s view of when the Fed will begin liftoff. Many commentators have feared that future revisions of Q1 GDP could show that it actually shrank.  These number do not seem consistent with that, although as noted above, they could be revised downward as well.

by Zach Bethune, Thomas Cooley and Peter Rupert

Today’s release of first quarter real GDP by the Bureau of Economic Analysis saw another weak 1st quarter, gaining only 0.2% at an annual rate.  It was expected that first quarter growth would be weak but this was below most analysts estimates. They were off by about a full percentage point as the median forecast was around 1%. The first quarter of last year was forecast to be around 1.1% and the eventual revisions left it at -2.1%!  It may well be that the first quarter numbers for 2015 will eventually come in negative.

While there is much discussion of the impact of a severe winter on GDP…that is only a small part of the story. The bigger issues facing the economy are declining commodity prices – particularly oil prices and the much stronger U.S. dollar as other countries try to stimulate their domestic economies. The U.S. is a big oil producing economy so the impact of lower oil prices, while helping consumers, hurts producers and has a decidedly chilling impact on investment. In the first quarter alone, twenty five central banks around the world eased their monetary policies in an attempt to stimulate their economies. The effects of these could be long lasting. The decline in investment is likely to be a long lasting drag on growth. The decline in exports is only the first wave of the impact of a strengthening dollar.

The biggest detractors from GDP growth in the first quarter were non-residential fixed investment and exports.

Nevertheless, the U.S. has an interest in other countries stimulating their economies. The U.S. is still the strongest game in town. Europe and Japan have continued to lag far behind in the recovery from the financial crisis – a fact the following graph makes very clear. But this tolerant stance will become more difficult to maintain when the Fed begins the cycle of raising interest rates later this year. That will undoubtedly strengthen the dollar further and raise questions about the unsynchronized nature of monetary stimulus among developed economies. So what does all this mean for the Fed and the future of policy? With such a weak reading for GDP and with the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast of just 0.9% growth for the second quarter likely means liftoff is likely not in the cards for the next couple of meetings at least.

by: Zach Bethune, Thomas Cooley, Peter Rupert

Today’s Employment Situation  revealed a gloomy picture of the labor market for the first quarter of 2015. Non-farm employment increased by 126,000 in March, well below expectations. Job growth in January and February was revised down by 13%. Ovearall the picture is one of a stagnant labor market in the first quarter.  The unemployment rate remained unchanged, wages increased slightly and hours worked declined slightly.  The transition rate from unemployment to employment remained unchanged.

What are the implications of these developments for the future?  Some of the decline in job growth is due to declining oil and commodity prices.  Employment in the mining sector and construction fell as drilling declined sharply. Some of it was due to particularly severe winter which slowed economic activity.  These are both short term effects. Oil prices will not likely fall much more and the positive effects of consumers having more disposable income will show up gradually over time. If that is all we are dealing with we might expect the damping effect on labor markets to be short-lived.  More troubling for the longer term outlook is the dramatic rise in the value of the dollar.  Since the beginning of 2015 25 central banks have eased monetary policy. The list includes China, the ECB, and Canada, major trading partners of the U.S.  This has pushed up the value of the dollar precipitously and the effects of that on our export industries are only beginning to be felt. Exports declined in the most recent trade report and the effects on employment will, most likely, be increasing and ongoing.

A sluggish labor market and sluggish GDP growth all suggest that Fed will have plenty of reason to be patient at its June meeting and has plenty of breathing room for deciding on the timing of liftoff.

Unemployment

Part time for economic reasons

by: Zach Bethune, Thomas Cooley, Peter Rupert

The third and final estimate of GDP released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis provides no substantial new information on the growth of the economy…and therefore little to guide us to the future of interest rate changes by the FOMC. The final number for real GDP growth for Q4 is 2.2%, seasonally adjusted at an annual rate.

Since the negative growth rates in 2008 and 2009, real GDP growth has been weak, but fairly steady year to year, 2010: 2.5%, 2011: 1.6%, 2012: 2.3%, 2013: 2.2%, and 2014: 2.4%; but, as noted here and elsewhere, quite slow relative to previous expansions.

Consumption growth received a small boost, as did net exports, but inventories took a hit.

Real investment took about 25 quarters to get back to it 2007 peak, typically taking only about 10 quarters. Residential fixed investment has yet to get back to its peak in 2007, it is still about 14% below that level.

There is still real debate within the FOMC, however. From KC President George’s remarks: “While the FOMC has made no decisions about the timing of this action, I continue to support liftoff towards the middle of this year due to improvement in the labor market, expectations of firmer inflation, and the balance of risks over the medium and longer run. Liftoff in the middle of this year, in my view, would be fully consistent with the FOMC’s Statement on Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, which reminds the public that monetary policy actions tend to influence economic activity and prices with a lag.” But, Chicago President Evans from a speech in London: “What is my personal view of the appropriate path for Fed policy? I think economic conditions are likely to evolve in a way such that it will be appropriate to hold off on raising short-term rates until 2016.”

In their own words, the future of lift-off will be “data-driven.” When isn’t it?

by Thomas Cooley, Peter Rupert, and Zach Bethune

The problem of deflation is not just a concern for fans of American Football. It has been troubling economists and financial market observers since Japan slipped into deflation in their lost decade of the 1990’s and the concern has become more pronounced as the European Economy, particularly the Eurozone, has struggled to escape from a lost decade of its own following the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and has been on the brink of deflation – a sustained fall in the price level – for the past few years. Now, with commodity prices falling and the European Economy in continued stagnation, the ECB has finally decided to undertake some serious monetary stimulus in the form of large scale purchases of sovereign debt, as has been done in most of the other major economies of the world over the past few years. Their goal is to stimulate their stagnant economy, improve their competitiveness by lowering the value of the Euro relative to the dollar, and stave off deflation. In a global economy domestic policy actions have ripple effects, sometimes large ones, on other economies. If countries were all trying to improve their competitiveness at once it can look like a currency war or at least be confusing.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recent release showed the U.S. CPI declining at the end of 2014 raising the issue of downward price pressures in the U.S. Not all of this was a reflection of declining energy prices – they have been falling rapidly in the past year – because core inflation, excluding food and energy, has been falling as well. What is going on with world prices and how does it impact the U.S. economy? Since the economy is recovering well as we have documented in previous posts, the pressure on the Federal Reserve to normalize monetary policy and begin raising interest rates should come about largely because of concerns about inflation. But, the current environment is one in which the struggles of some our most important trading partners has incentivized them to push the value of their currencies down, lowering import prices in the U.S. but also stimulating capital inflows to the strong U.S. economy.

First, lets look at prices in a collection of important economies. The picture below shows the broad CPI or equivalent for Japan, the U.S. and some key European economies.

Prices have turned down, more dramatically in some countries than others, and as the following picture shows it is not just energy prices that is driving them.

These price levels reflect a complex set of drivers and ultimately what is going to be most important is the relative price of currencies. The countries that have been most stagnant are the Euro area nations and Japan. (An earlier post also contrasted these areas to the BRICs). The picture below shows the relative performance of these economies in the aftermath of financial crises. Real GDP growth is stagnant in Japan and the Eurozone economies as we have documented before. The U.S. and U.K. in contrast are recovering well and showing steady growth.

More important than the price level, however, is the relative price of the currencies. The picture below shows the real effective exchange rates for the Euro, Yen, Pound and Dollar. What they show is that the dollar and pound have appreciated sharply and the Yen has depreciated sharply.  The Euro, adjusted for domestic inflation, has not moved much.  The Euro zone countries need the real value of their exchange rate to decline sharply with the ECB’s policy in order to restore their competitiveness.  But they are hampered in the end by the fact it is one currency that links very disparate economies.  It remains to be seen how effective they are.