by Calculated Risk on 9/08/2014 01:47:00 PM

From Tim Duy at Economist's View: Forward Guidance Heading for a Change

The lackluster August employment report clearly defied expectations (including my own) for a strong number to round out the generally positive pattern of recent data. That said, one number does not make a trend, and the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls is notoriously volatile. The underlying pattern of improvement remains in tact, and thus the employment report did not alleviate the need to adjust the Fed's forward guidance, allow there is a less pressing need to do so at the next meeting. In any event, the days of the "considerable time" language are numbered.
...
Arguably the only trend that is markedly different is the more rapid decline in long-term unemployment, a positive cyclical indicator. Labor force participation remains subdued, although the Fed increasing views that as a structural issue. Average wage growth remained flat while wages for production workers accelerated slightly to 2.53% over the past year. A postive development to be sure, but too early to declare a sustained trend.

The notable absence of any bad news in the labor report leaves the door open to changing the forward guidance at the next FOMC meeting. ...
...
The trick is to change the language without suggesting the timing of the first rate hike is necessarily moving forward. The benefit of the next meeting is that it includes updated projections and a press conference. Stable policy expectations in those projections would create a nice opportunity to change the language. Moreover, Yellen would be able to to further explain any changes at that time. This also helps set the stage for the end of asset purchases in October. A shift in the guidance next week has a lot to offer.

Bottom Line: The US economy is moving to a point in the cycle in which monetary policymakers have less certainty about the path of rates. Perhaps they need to be pulled forward, perhaps pushed back. Policymakers will need to be increasingly pragmatic, to use Yellen's term, when assessing the data. The "considerable time" language is inconsistent with such a pragmatic approach. It is hard to see that such language survives more than another FOMC statement. Seems to be data and policy objections are not the impediments preventing a change in the guidance, but instead the roadblock is the ability to reach agreement on new language in the next ten days.
emphasis added

CR Note: The next FOMC meeting is on Sept 16th and 17th. Duy is referring to these sentences in the FOMC statement:

"In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. The Committee continues to anticipate, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored."

by Calculated Risk on 9/08/2014 11:02:00 AM

By request, here is an update on an earlier post through the August employment report.

Important: There are many differences between these periods. Overall employment was smaller in the '80s, so a different comparison might be to look at the percentage change.   Of course the participation rate was increasing in the '80s (younger population and women joining the labor force), and the participation rate is generally declining now.  But these graphs give an overview of employment changes.

First, here is a table for private sector jobs. The top two private sector terms were both under President Clinton.  Reagan's 2nd term saw about the same job growth as during Carter's term. Note: There was a severe recession at the beginning of Reagan's first term (when Volcker raised rates to slow inflation) and a recession near the end of Carter's term (gas prices increased sharply and there was an oil embargo).

Term	Private Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter	9,041
Reagan 1	5,360
Reagan 2	9,357
GHW Bush	1,510
Clinton 1	10,885
Clinton 2	10,070
GW Bush 1	-841
GW Bush 2	379
Obama 1	1,998
Obama 21	3,826
119 months into 2nd term

The first graph shows the change in private sector payroll jobs from when each president took office until the end of their term(s). President George H.W. Bush only served one term, and President Obama is in the second year of his second term.

Mr. G.W. Bush (red) took office following the bursting of the stock market bubble, and left during the bursting of the housing bubble. Mr. Obama (blue) took office during the financial crisis and great recession. There was also a significant recession in the early '80s right after Mr. Reagan (yellow) took office.

There was a recession towards the end of President G.H.W. Bush (purple) term, and Mr Clinton (light blue) served for eight years without a recession.

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph is for private employment only.

The employment recovery during Mr. G.W. Bush's (red) first term was sluggish, and private employment was down 841,000 jobs at the end of his first term.   At the end of Mr. Bush's second term, private employment was collapsing, and there were net 462,000 private sector jobs lost during Mr. Bush's two terms. 

Private sector employment increased slightly under President G.H.W. Bush (purple), with 1,510,000 private sector jobs added.

Private sector employment increased by 20,955,000 under President Clinton (light blue), by 14,717,000 under President Reagan (yellow), and 9,041,000 under President Carter (dashed green).

There were only 1,998,000 more private sector jobs at the end of Mr. Obama's first term.  Eighteen months into Mr. Obama's second term, there are now 5,824,000 more private sector jobs than when he initially took office.

 A big difference between the presidencies has been public sector employment.  Note the bumps in public sector employment due to the decennial Census in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. 

The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 682,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level.  This has been a significant drag on overall employment.

And a table for public sector jobs. Public sector jobs declined the most during Obama's first term, and increased the most during Reagan's 2nd term.

Term	Public Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter	1,304
Reagan 1	-24
Reagan 2	1,438
GHW Bush	1,127
Clinton 1	692
Clinton 2	1,242
GW Bush 1	900
GW Bush 2	844
Obama 1	-713
Obama 21	56
119 months into 2nd term

Looking forward, I expect the economy to continue to expand for the next few years, so I don't expect a sharp decline in private employment as happened at the end of Mr. Bush's 2nd term (In 2005 and 2006 I was warning of a coming recession due to the bursting of the housing bubble).

A big question is when the public sector layoffs will end.  The cutbacks are clearly over at the state and local levels in the aggregate, and it appears cutbacks at the Federal level have slowed.  Right now I'm expecting some increase in public employment in 2014, but nothing like what happened during Reagan's second term.

by Calculated Risk on 9/08/2014 08:11:00 AM

This is a key distressed market to follow since Phoenix saw a large bubble / bust followed by strong investor buying.

The Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service (ARMLS) reports (table below):

1) Overall sales in August were down 8.8% year-over-year and at the lowest for August since 2008.  Note: This is the smallest year-over-year sales decline this year.

2) Cash Sales (frequently investors) were down about 33% to 25% of total sales. Non-cash sales were up 3.5% year-over-year.  So the decline in sales is probably mostly due to less investor buying.

3) Active inventory is now up 22% year-over-year - and at the highest level for August since 2011 (when prices bottomed in Phoenix).  Note: This is the smallest year-over-year inventory increase this year, so the inventory build may be slowing.

Inventory has clearly bottomed in Phoenix (A major theme for housing in 2013).   And more inventory (a theme this year) - and less investor buying - suggests price increases should slow sharply in 2014.

According to Case-Shiller, Phoenix house prices bottomed in August 2011 (mostly flat for all of 2011), and then increased 23% in 2012, and another 15% in 2013.  Those large increases were probably due to investor buying, low inventory and some bounce back from the steep price declines in 2007 through 2010.  Now, with more inventory, price increases should flatten out in 2014.

As an example, the Phoenix Case-Shiller index through June shows prices up less than 1% in 2014, and the Zillow index shows Phoenix prices up only 0.1% over the last year!

August Residential Sales and Inventory, Greater Phoenix Area, ARMLS
	Sales	YoY Change Sales	Cash Sales	Percent Cash	Active Inventory	YoY Change Inventory
Aug-08	5,660	---	1,004	17.7%	53,5691	---
Aug-09	8,008	41.5%	2,849	35.6%	38,085	-28.9%
Aug-10	7,358	-8.1%	3,129	42.5%	44,307	16.3%
Aug-11	8,712	18.4%	3,953	45.4%	26,983	-39.1%
Aug-12	7,574	-13.1%	3,382	44.7%	20,934	-22.4%
Aug-13	7,055	-6.9%	2,409	34.1%	21,444	2.4%
Aug-14	6,431	-8.8%	1,621	25.2%	26,138	21.9%
1 August 2008 probably includes pending listings

by Calculated Risk on 9/07/2014 07:51:00 PM

From Ben Leubsdorf at the WSJ: Services-Spending Report Gains Wider Attention

A quarterly reading from the Commerce Department has quietly emerged as one of the most consequential government reports, with the power to roil estimates for U.S. economic growth and the impact of the Affordable Care Act.

The Quarterly Services Survey, or QSS, measures revenue at service-providing companies including hospitals, day-care centers and law offices. ... Federal Reserve policy makers and private economists are taking a much closer look at the gauge. ...

Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic output, but measuring spending on services is tricky. The government often relies on indirect clues, like payroll growth in certain industries. The QSS offers the best—that is, only—source of timely hard data. It is the basis for roughly one-fifth of the Commerce Department's quarterly calculation of gross domestic product.

June's report led to a steep downgrade for first-quarter GDP.

The Q2 Quarterly Services Report will be released on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 10AM ET.

Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of September 7th
• Update: Prime Working-Age Population Growing Again
• Research: Much of Recent Decline in Labor Force Participation Rate due to "ongoing structural influences"

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures: the S&P futures are down 2 and DOW futures are down 14 (fair value).

Oil prices were down slightly over the last week with WTI futures at $93.48 per barrel and Brent at $100.80 per barrel.  A year ago, WTI was at $109, and Brent was at $116 - so prices are down solidly year-over-year.

Below is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are around $3.44 per gallon (down almost 15 cents from a year ago).  If you click on "show crude oil prices", the graph displays oil prices for WTI, not Brent; gasoline prices in most of the U.S. are impacted more by Brent prices.

Orange County Historical Gas Price Charts Provided by GasBuddy.com

by Calculated Risk on 9/07/2014 12:23:00 PM

For several years, I've been arguing that "most of the recent decline in the participation rate" was due to demographics and other long term structural trends (like more education). This is an important issue because if most of the decline had been due to cyclical weakness, then we'd expect a significant increase in participation as the economy improved. If the decline was due to demographics and other long term trends, then the participation rate might keep falling (or flatten out) as the economy improves.

 Note: So far this year, the participation rate has moved sideways at 62.8% - probably because demographics and other long term factors are being offset by people returning to the labor force this year.  However, looking forward, the participation rate should continue to decline for the next couple of decades.

From Federal Reserve researchers Stephanie Aaronson, Tomaz Cajner, Bruce Fallick, Felix Galbis-Reig, Christopher L. Smith, and William Wascher: Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects

The evidence we present in this paper suggests that much of the steep decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 owes to ongoing structural influences that are pushing down the participation rate rather than a pronounced cyclical weakness related to potential jobseekers’ discouragement about the weak state of the labor market – in many ways a similar message as was conveyed in the 2006 Brookings Paper. Most prominently, the ongoing aging of the babyboom generation into ages with traditionally lower attachment to the labor force can, by itself, account for nearly half of the decline. In addition, estimates from our model, as well as the supplementary evidence on which we report, show persistent declines in participation rates for some specific age/sex categories that appear to have their roots in longer-run changes in the labor market that pre-date the financial crisis by a decade or more.

In particular, participation rates among youths have been declining since the mid-1990s, in part reflecting the higher returns to education documented extensively by other researchers, but also, we believe, some crowding out of job opportunities for young workers associated with the decline in middle-skill jobs and thus greater competition for the low-skilled jobs traditionally held by teenagers and young adults. Such “polarization” effects also appear to have weighed on the participation of less-educated prime-age men and, more recently, prime-age women. In contrast, increasing longevity and better health status, coupled with changes in social security rules and increased educational attainment, have contributed to an ongoing rise in the participation rates of older individuals, but these increases have not been large enough to provide much offset to the various downward influences on the aggregate participation rate.

That is not to say that all of the decline in labor force participation reflects structural influences. Our cohort-based model suggests that cyclical weakness was depressing the participation rate by about ¼ percentage point in 2014:Q2, while evidence from cross-state regressions suggests that the contribution of cyclical weakness could be as much as 1 percentage point. The greater cyclicality evidenced in the cross-state regressions could be capturing some of the features of the current labor market we discussed outside the context of the model, such as the unusually high level of those out of the labor force who want a job, or any unusual cyclicality in youth participation or retirement.

Looking ahead, demographics will likely continue to play a prominent role in determining the future path of the aggregate labor force participation rate. The youngest members of the baby-boom generation are still in their early fifties, and thus the effects of population aging will continue to put downward pressure on the participation rate for some time. Indeed, on our estimates, the continued aging of the population alone will subtract 2½ percentage points from the aggregate participation rate over the next ten years. And the overall downtrend could be even larger if some of the negative trends evident for particular age-sex groups persist.