by Calculated Risk on 12/07/2009 11:55:00 AM

From Professor Duy: Structural and Cyclical

For several months, I have been telling stories that decompose US economic activity into what I think of as cyclical and structural dynamics. I believe the distinction is very important to firms, markets, and policymakers who need to be aware when one dynamic is clouding their view of the other.

The cyclical dynamics, in my opinion, are the most spectacular, the most visible. The real cyclical fireworks began in the second half of [2008], as the energy price shock decimated household budgets, quickly followed by a financial shock that triggered an additional pullback in demand. Firms unexpectedly found they had far too much excess capacity in this environment, and began the process of "rightsizing." [Job] losses mounted even as falling energy costs and lower interest rates for those not credit constrained began to put a floor under spending.

Eventually, firms would realign capacity with the new level of demand, and job losses would taper off. That would mark the early stages of the cyclical bottom, the point at which growths returns. The initial growth spurt could be very rapid, as firms restock inventory and pent-up demand comes into play. The additional of government stimulus will add additional fuel to the fire.

Once the early stages of recovery are complete, the story shifts from cyclical to structural. The boost from inventory correction, pent-up demand, and government stimulus fade, and the underlying growth rate, the fundamental rates of activity, becomes evident. Now your expectations about the nation's economic direction depend on the weight you place on the structural factors. If you place nearly zero weight on those factors, then growth remains fairly high as the economy rapidly returns to potential. In effect, cyclical dynamics dominate your story; the Fed is simply flipping a switch that shifts the economy from high to low states and back again, a traditional post-WWII business cycle. If you place heavy weight on structural stories, you talk about the inability to revert to past patterns of consumer spending growth due to excessive household debt, a reversion to global imbalances that supports outsized import growth, lack of an asset bubble to compensate for these structural problems, etc. With these stories in your toolkit, you expect a low underlying growth rate - barely at potential growth - in which case the gap between actual and potential output remains distressingly high for possibly years to come.

A nice summary of the differences between those who expect a "V-shaped" recovery, and those that believe the recovery will be sluggish. I think growth will be sluggish primarily because of the overhang of excess housing inventory (slowing any recovery in residential investment), and because consumers will increase their saving rate to repair their household balance sheets. There is much more in Dr. Duy's post.

by Calculated Risk on 12/07/2009 08:57:00 AM

From Bloomberg: No Escape From TARP for U.S. Banks Choking on Real Estate Loans

... mounting defaults on commercial property may keep regional lenders from repaying bailout funds until at least 2011.

... regional banks ... are almost four times more concentrated in commercial property loans than the nation’s biggest lenders, according to data compiled by Bloomberg on bailout recipients.

The concentration makes regulators less likely to let regional lenders ... leave the Troubled Asset Relief Program, analysts said.
...
The stakes for taxpayers include whether they’ll get back $36.6 billion held by 35 of the largest regional lenders that received TARP money.
...
Among 35 of the biggest regional lenders that retain TARP funds, commercial real estate and construction loans average 37 percent of total loans, compared with 9.5 percent at Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co., the two biggest U.S. banks that haven’t announced plans to repay the government, according to data compiled by Bloomberg....

Basically small and regional banks were over concentrated in C&D (Construction and Development) and CRE (Commercial Real Estate) loans - and those areas are still under severe stress (CRE will get worse). This is why the FDIC is busy every Friday, and also why many of these small and regional banks will be stuck with TARP for some time (or even fail owing money to the Treasury).

by Calculated Risk on 12/07/2009 12:16:00 AM

From the NY Times: U.S. Forecasts Smaller Loss From Bailout of Banks

The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report.

The new assessment of the $700 billion bailout program, provided by two Treasury officials on Sunday ahead of a report to Congress on Monday, is vastly improved from the Obama administration’s estimates last summer of $341 billion in potential losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. ...

The officials said the government could ultimately lose $100 billion more from the bailout program in new loans to banks, aid to troubled homeowners and credit to small businesses.

And from the WSJ: Estimated TARP Cost Is Cut by $200 Billion

The article notes that this will reduce the deficit significantly this year.

by Calculated Risk on 12/06/2009 09:18:00 PM

From Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, and Holger Spamann in the Financial Times: Bankers had cashed in before the music stopped

According to the standard narrative, the meltdown of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers largely wiped out the wealth of their top executives. ... That standard narrative, however, turns out to be incorrect. ... our analysis ... shows the banks’ top five executives had cashed out such large amounts since the beginning of this decade that, even after the losses, their net pay-offs during this period were substantially positive.
excerpted with permission

It appears these executives were incentivized to gamble.

Mark Thoma has more excerpts Did Bank Executives Lose Enough to Learn their Lesson?

by Calculated Risk on 12/06/2009 04:52:00 PM

Based on the recent trend in the employment report, the U.S. economy might start adding net payroll jobs soon. This post looks at payroll employment vs. the change in real GDP, and estimates the unemployment rate in 12 months for several growth scenarios.

Credit: This idea is from a recent research note by Jan Hatzius.

Note: This is similar to Okun's relationship between GDP and unemployment.

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows the four quarter change in real GDP and the four quarter change in employment, as a percent of payroll employment (to normalize for changes in payroll over time).

The second graph shows the same data in a scatter graph.

There is a clear relationship - the higher the change in the real GDP, the larger the increase in payroll employment.

This shows that real GDP has to grow at a sustained rate of about 1% just to keep the net change in payroll jobs at zero.

A 3% increase in real GDP (over a year) would lead to about a 1.5% increase in payroll employment. With approximately 131 million payroll jobs, a 1.5% increase in payroll employment would be just under 2 million jobs over the next year - and the unemployment rate would probably remain close to 10%.

The following table summarizes several growth scenarios. The unemployment rate is from the household survey and depends on the number of people in the work force - so it cannot be calculated directly. The table uses a range of unemployment rates based on 1.6 to 2.1 million people entering the workforce over the next 12 months (a combination of population growth and discouraged workers reentering the work force).

Real GDP Growth	Percent Payroll Growth	Annual Payroll Growth (000s)	Monthly Payroll Growth (000s)	Approximate Unemployment Rate in One Year
6.0%	3.5%	4,563	380	8.0% to 8.3%
5.0%	2.8%	3,684	307	8.6% to 8.9%
4.0%	2.1%	2,806	234	9.1% to 9.4%
3.0%	1.5%	1,928	161	9.7% to 10.0%
2.0%	0.8%	1,049	87	10.3% to 10.6%
1.0%	0.1%	171	14	10.8% to 11.1%

I expect a sluggish recovery in 2010, and I think the unemployment rate will stay near 10% for the next year. Those expecting a sharp drop in the unemployment rate are clearly expecting real GDP growth of 5% or more.

Obviously higher growth rates would mean an even quicker decline in the unemployment rate, and a decline in real GDP would mean much higher unemployment rates.