by Calculated Risk on 11/04/2009 08:17:00 AM

ADP reports:

Nonfarm private employment decreased 203,000 from September to October 2009 on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the ADP National Employment Report®. The estimated change of employment from August to September was revised by 27,000, from a decline of 254,000 to a decline of 227,000.

Note: ADP is private nonfarm employment only (no government jobs).
The BLS reported a 210,000 decrease in nonfarm private employment in September (-263,000 total nonfarm), so once again ADP was only marginally useful in predicting the BLS number.


On the Challenger job-cut report from MarketWatch: Planned layoffs down 3 months in a row

Planned job reductions at major U.S. corporations declined for the third month in a row in October, falling to the lowest level since March 2008, according to a monthly tally compiled by outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas.

Planned layoffs fell to 55,679 last month, down 16% compared with September and down 51% compared with October 2008.

The BLS reports Friday, and the consensus is for 175,000 net job losses, and a 9.9% unemployment rate, for October.

by Calculated Risk on 11/03/2009 11:56:00 PM

From the NY Times: Congress Agrees to Keep Homebuyers’ Tax Credit

The Senate and House are poised to agree on a compromise measure to extend unemployment benefits that also would expand a [un]popular $8,000 tax credit for homebuyers ...

The bill also extends the net-operating-loss carryback period for firms from two years to five years (to help homebuilders).

The Senate might pass its version as early as Wednesday, and aides to Congressional leaders say the House could accept it this week, sending the bill to President Obama to sign into law.

Oh well ...

by Calculated Risk on 11/03/2009 09:43:00 PM

David Leonhardt at the NY Times gives "equal time" to a more optimistic outlook: Through a Glass Less Darkly

In the fall of 1982, with a long recession ending but the unemployment rate heading toward 10 percent, The New York Times ran an article titled “The Recovery That Won’t Start.”

It quoted prominent economists who worried that “the recovery may amount to nothing more than a few quarters of paltry growth — and possibly not even that.” The economists, the article noted, had “growing doubts about whether the mechanisms of economic recovery will — or can — operate as they have in other postwar business cycles.”

Over the next two years, the American economy grew at a blistering annual rate of more than 6 percent.
...
People tend to become overly pessimistic at the end of a recession, partly because they can see that the forces behind the last boom — housing and mortgage lending, in this case — won’t be around for the next one. If anything, the excesses from the last boom seem likely to hold back the economy for years to come. People are left to wonder where future growth will come from.

I want to take a stab at that question today. To be clear, I am not predicting a boom over the next two years. I’m just trying to give equal time to the side of the economic ledger that often doesn’t get discussed until after the fact.

Leonhardt goes on to discuss a few reasons the economy might grow quicker than many expect: consumption in China, pent-up demand in the U.S., more stimulus spending, and some surprising unknown innovation.

My comment: Usually the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. So why is it different this time?

First, this recession was preceded by the bursting of the credit bubble (especially housing) leading to a financial crisis. And there is research showing recoveries following financial crisis are typically more sluggish than following other recessions. See Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff: Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different? An International Historical Comparison

Second, most recessions have followed interest rate increases from the Fed to fight inflation, and after the recession starts, the Fed lowers interest rates. There is research suggesting the Fed would have to push the Fed funds rate negative to achieve the same monetary stimulus as following previous recessions (see San Francisco Fed Letter by Glenn Rudebusch The Fed's Monetary Policy Response to the Current Crisis). Welcome to ZIRP! (Note: Professor Taylor disagrees on the size of the negative Fed funds rate).

Third, usually the engines of recovery are investment in housing (not existing home sales) and consumer spending. Both are still under severe pressure with the large overhang of housing inventory (record vacancies rates!), and the need for households to repair their balance sheet (the saving rate will probably rise - slowing consumption growth).

We are a long way from normal.

by Calculated Risk on 11/03/2009 07:04:00 PM

Just one more post on auto sales ...

The following table is from the GM restructuring plan, presented to Treasury in mid-February (no longer available online).

This data is for all vehicles (the charts in the previous post excluded heavy trucks). All information in Red is added.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

GM overestimated sales in Q2. Of course they weren't planning on going bankrupt! And GM underestimated sales in Q3 because of cash-for-clunkers.

Overall their forecast has been pretty close for 2009.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see sales increase to 12 million plus in 2010, even with a sluggish recovery. That is about the replacement level for auto sales.

The real question mark is what happens in the later years. Although total sales in the U.S. were above 17 million for several years, some of those sales were probably the result of incentives and loose lending (buying cars using home equity, and many subprime auto loans). I doubt we will see a return to those practices any time soon.

I'd like to emphasize that the 10.5 million (SAAR) for light vehicles in October is a very low number, and is close to the average sales rate during the early '80s recession.

If sales increase to 12 million in 2010 that would still be worse than the depths of the '91 recession.

by Calculated Risk on 11/03/2009 04:00:00 PM

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the historical light vehicle sales (seasonally adjusted annual rate) from the BEA (blue) and an estimate for October (red, light vehicle sales of 10.46 million SAAR from AutoData Corp).

The second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.

Obviously sales were boosted significantly by the "Cash-for-clunkers" program in August and some in July.

This was the first month over a 10 million sales rate (SAAR) - excluding July and August - since December 2008. Still very low ...