by Calculated Risk on 5/07/2010 09:59:00 AM

Here are a few more graphs based on the employment report ...

Employment-Population Ratio

The Employment-Population ratio increased to 58.8% in April (from 58.6% in March), after plunging since the start of the recession. This is about the same level as in December 1983.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the employment-population ratio; this is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population.

Note: the graph doesn't start at zero to better show the change.

The general upward trend from the early '60s was mostly due to women entering the workforce.

The Labor Force Participation Rate increased to 65.2% from 64.9% in March. This is the percentage of the working age population in the labor force. This is still well below the 66% to 67% rate that was normal over the last 20 years. As people return to the labor force, as the employment picture improves, this will put upward pressure on the unemployment rate - even with job growth.

Part Time for Economic Reasons

From the BLS report:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was about unchanged at 9.2 million in April. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

The number of workers only able to find part time jobs (or have had their hours cut for economic reasons) was at 9.152 million in April.

The all time record of 9.24 million was set in October.

These workers are included in the alternate measure of labor underutilization (U-6) that was at 17.1% in April.

Unemployed over 26 Weeks

The blue line is the number of workers unemployed for 27 weeks or more. The red line is the same data as a percent of the civilian workforce.

According to the BLS, there are a record 6.72 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks (and still want a job). This is a record 4.34% of the civilian workforce. (note: records started in 1948)

Although the headline number of 290,000 payroll jobs was a positive (this is 224,000 after adjusting for the 66,000 Census 2010 temporary hires), the underlying details were mixed. The positives: the employment-population ratio increased (after plunging sharply), and average hours increased.

Negatives include the unemployment rate increasing to 9.9%, a near record number of part time workers (for economic reasons) pushing U-6 to 17.1%, and a record number of workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

The number of long term unemployed is one of the key stories of this recession, especially since many of them are now losing their unemployment benefits. Note: In Q1, all of the increase in income - and much of the increase in consumption - came from government transfer payments for unemployment benefits.

I'll have even more later ...

Earlier employment post today:

April Employment Report: 290K Jobs Added, 9.9% Unemployment Rate for graphs of unemployment rate and a comparison to previous recessions.

by Calculated Risk on 5/07/2010 08:30:00 AM

From the BLS:

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 in April, the unemployment rate edged up to 9.9 percent, and the labor force increased sharply, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows the unemployment rate and the year over year change in employment vs. recessions.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 290,000 in April. The economy has lost 1.4 million jobs over the last year, and 7.8 million jobs since the recession started in December 2007.

The unemployment rate increased to 9.9 percent as people returned to the workforce.

The second graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms (as opposed to the number of jobs lost).

For the current recession, employment peaked in December 2007, and this recession is by far the worst recession since WWII in percentage terms, and 2nd worst in terms of the unemployment rate (only early '80s recession with a peak of 10.8 percent was worse).

Census 2010 hiring was 66,000 (NSA) in April.

This was well above expectations, especially given the level of Census 2010 hiring. The increase in the unemployment rate was because of people returning to the work force - the decline in the participation rate during the recession was stunning, and it is no surprise that people are once again looking for work. I'll have much more soon ...

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 11:59:00 PM

The BLS will release the April Employment situation report tomorrow (Friday) morning at 8:30 AM ET. The consensus is around 200K payroll jobs and the unemployment rate declining slightly to 9.6%.

The estimates for temporary Census 2010 hiring are around 100K, so the market expectation is for about 100K payroll jobs ex-Census. That is the key number (the underlying job creation). Note: the largest increase in Census 2010 hiring will happen in May - perhaps 500K payroll jobs - and then all of those jobs will be unwound over the next 6 months.

The earlier data this week has been somewhat mixed. ADP reported 32K private sector jobs in April, the largest monthly increase since January 2008.

The ISM manufacturing report suggested fairly robust hiring in the manufacturing sector:

ISM's Employment Index registered 58.5 percent in April, which is 3.4 percentage points higher than the 55.1 percent reported in March. This is the fifth consecutive month of growth in manufacturing employment.

Of course the manufacturing sector is relatively small.

And the ISM non-manufacturing report suggested job losses in the much larger service sector:

Employment activity in the non-manufacturing sector contracted in April for the 28th consecutive month. ISM's Non-Manufacturing Employment Index for April registered 49.5 percent. This reflects a decrease of 0.3 percentage point when compared to the 49.8 percent registered in March.

The weekly initial unemployment claims was elevated throughout April suggesting continuing weakness in employment, but the Monster employment index was strong.

The Monster Employment Index rose eight points in April as a number of industries initiated springtime recruitment efforts. The annual growth rate further accelerated, rising by 11 percent, the highest rate of increase since July 2007.

Anything above 100K ex-Census will be viewed as a solid report. As far as the unemployment rate, it usually drops 0.1% to 0.2% during the peak of the Census hiring (April and May) - however the participation rate fell so far during the recession, it is possible that the unemployment rate will tick up as more people reenter the workforce. We will know in a few hours ...

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 09:20:00 PM

From Graham Bowley at the NY Times: Markets Plunge, Then Stage a Rebound

[I]n Washington a team of Treasury officials began combing through market tapes trying to figure out what was going on. By the evening they still had not gotten to the bottom of it, but they discovered some aberrations — market blips — in trading coming out of Chicago.
...
As of about 6 p.m., all the officials knew was that there had been what one official called “a huge, anomalous, unexplained surge in selling, it looks like in Chicago, at about 2:45.” The source remained unknown, but it had apparently set off algorithmic trading strategies, which in turn rippled across everything, pushing trading out of whack and feeding on itself — until it started to reverse.

Federal officials fielded rumors ... But they did not know the truth.

What happens to the day’s market losers will depend on what the cause was and whether it can be identified. That is a question for the S.E.C.

And from Scott Patterson at the WSJ: Did Shutdowns Make Plunge Worse?

A number of high-frequency firms stopped trading Thursday in the midst of the market plunge, possibly adding to the market's unprecedented selloff.

Tradebot Systems Inc., a large high-frequency firm based in Kansas City, Mo., closed down its computer trading systems when the Dow Jones Industrial Average had dropped about 500 points ... Tradeworx Inc., a N.J. firm that operates a high-frequency fund, also stopped trading during the market turmoil ...

No answers yet - just rumors.

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 06:53:00 PM

Usually I focus more on economics, but ...

Via Reuters:

Nasdaq Operations said it will cancel all trades executed between 2:40 p.m. to 3 p.m. showing a rise or fall of more than 60 percent from the last trade in that security at 2:40 p.m or immediately prior.

This needs an explanation ...

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 04:00:00 PM

There are two rumors: The first is that there was a trading error (fat finger of a E-mini SP future order), the second is that Euro banks are having a liquidity problem of some sort. Neither is confirmed.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows the S&P 500 since 1990 (this excludes dividends).

The dashed line is the closing price today. The S&P 500 was first at this level in April 1998; over 12 years ago.


The second graph is from Doug Short of dshort.com (financial planner): "Four Bad Bears".

Note that the Great Depression crash is based on the DOW; the three others are for the S&P 500.

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 02:43:00 PM

Dow off 800

Free fall ...

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 01:02:00 PM

This is a theme I've probably already pounded into the ground ... but here is some more from the Atlanta Fed's Economic Highlights:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph is from the Altanta Fed and shows the month-to-month increase in government transfer payments (green) and the change in real personal income less transfer payments (flat red line).

From the Atlanta Fed:

The major contributor to income growth during the past several months has been transfer payments.

We could take this a step further ... the following table shows month-to-month increase in transfer payments and the month-to-month reduction in personal saving - and then compares to the month-to-month increase in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE). Note: all numbers are annual rates.

Monthly Increase, Billions (SAAR)	Jan-10	Feb-10	Mar-10
Government Transfer Payments
Old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance benefits	-1.5	3.1	5.1
Government unemployment insurance benefits	-6.6	-2.2	11.8
Other	33.7	6.4	7.8
Reduction in Personal saving	55.1	54	28.2
Total Saving Reduction and Transfer Payments	80.7	61.3	52.9
Increase in Personal outlays	34.4	58.3	60.6

This shows that the entire increase in consumption in Q1 was due to transfer payments and reductions in the saving rate (now down to 2.7% in March). I suppose the saving rate could go to zero - although I expect it to increase, maybe incorrectly! - but at some point increases in consumption are going to have to come from jobs and income growth, not government transfer payments and reductions in the saving rate.

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 09:58:00 AM

From Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: The Supervisory Capital Assessment Program--One Year Later

Importantly, the concerns about banking institutions arose not only because market participants expected steep losses on banking assets, but also because the range of uncertainty surrounding estimated loss rates, and thus future earnings, was exceptionally wide. The stress assessment was designed both to ensure that banks would have enough capital in the face of potentially large losses and to reduce the uncertainty about potential losses and earnings prospects. To achieve these objectives, for each banking organization included in the SCAP, supervisors estimated potential losses for each major category of assets, as well as revenue expectations, under a worse-than-expected macroeconomic scenario for 2009 and 2010. Importantly, the SCAP was not a solvency test; rather, the exercise was intended to determine whether the tested firms would have sufficient capital remaining to continue lending if their losses were larger than expected. The assessment included all domestic bank holding companies with at least $100 billion in assets at the end of 2008--19 firms collectively representing about two-thirds of U.S. banking assets.
...
The assessment found that if the economy were to track the specified "more adverse" scenario, losses at the 19 firms during 2009 and 2010 could total about $600 billion. After taking account of potential resources to absorb those losses and capital that had already been raised or was contractually committed, and after establishing the size of capital buffers for the end of the two-year horizon that we believed would support stability and continued lending, we determined that 10 of the 19 institutions would collectively need to raise an additional $75 billion in common equity. Firms were asked to raise the capital within six months, by November 2009. Importantly, we publicly released our comprehensive assessments of each of the firms' estimated losses and capital needs under the more-adverse scenario. Our objective in releasing the information was to encourage private investment in these institutions, and thus bolster their lending capacity. If private sources of capital turned out not to be forthcoming, however, U.S. government capital would be available.

The good news is the economy has performed better than the "more adverse" scenario, especially house prices and GDP - although unemployment is still much worse than the "baseline" projections.

The bad news is one of the key goals has not been met: to "bolster lending". From Bernanke:

Our goal ... was to accomplish more than stability; for example, in the SCAP, by setting reasonably ambitious capital targets, we hoped also to hasten the return to a better lending environment.

Clearly that objective has not yet been realized, as bank lending continues to contract and terms and conditions remain tight.

Several analysts (like Meredith Whitney yesterday) are questioning the health of the banks. Perhaps it is time to repeat the stress tests (make them an annual exercise like the FSA in the UK), publish the scenarios for five years (baseline and more adverse), and also make the results public.

by Calculated Risk on 5/06/2010 08:30:00 AM

The DOL reports on weekly unemployment insurance claims:

In the week ending May 1, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 444,000, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 451,000. The 4-week moving average was 458,500, a decrease of 4,750 from the previous week's revised average of 463,250.
...
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 24 was 4,594,000, a decrease of 59,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,653,000.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.

The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims decreased this week by 4,750 to 458,500.

The dashed line on the graph is the current 4-week average. The current level of 444,000 (and 4-week average of 458,500) is still high, and suggests continuing weakness in the labor market.

Although declining over the last few weeks, the 4-week average first declined to this level in December 2009, and has been at this level for about five months.