Ambrose Evans-Pritchard suggests that a recession might be on the horizon again and Fed decisions are critical: “The risk of a US recession next year is rising fast. The Federal Reserve has no margin for error.
Liquidity is suddenly drying up. Early warning indicators from US ‘flow of funds’ data point to an incipent squeeze, the long-feared capitulation after five successive quarters of declining corporate profits.
Yet the Fed is methodically draining money through ‘reverse repos’ regardless. It has set the course for a rise in interest rates in December and seems to be on automatic pilot.
“We are seeing a serious deterioration on a monthly basis,” said Michael Howell from CrossBorder Capital, specialists in global liquidity. The signals lead the economic cycle by six to nine months.
“We think the US is heading for recession by the Spring of 2017. It is absolutely bonkers for the Fed to even think about raising rates right now,” he said.
The growth rate of nominal GDP – a pure measure of the economy – has been in an unbroken fall since the start of the year, falling from 4.2pc to 2.5pc. It is close to stall speed, flirting with levels that have invariably led to recessions in the post-War era.
“It is a little scary. When nominal GDP slows like that, you can be sure that financial stress will follow. Monetary policy is too tight and the slightest shock will tip the US into recession,” said Lars Christensen, from Markets and Money Advisory.
If allowed to happen, it will be a deeply frightening experience, rocking the global system to its foundations. The Bank for International Settlements estimates that 60pc of the world economy is locked into the US currency system, and that debts denominated in dollars outside US jurisdiction have ballooned to $9.8 trillion.
The world has never before been so leveraged to dollar borrowing costs. BIS data show that debt ratios in both rich countries and emerging markets are roughly 35 percentage points of GDP higher than they were at the onset of the Lehman crisis.
This time China cannot come to the rescue. Beijing has already pushed credit beyond safe limits to almost $30 trillion. Fitch Ratings suspects that bad loans in the Chinese banking system are ten times the official claim.
The current arguments over Brexit would seem irrelevant in such circumstances, both because the City would be drawn into the flames and because the eurozone would face its own a shattering ordeal. Even a hint of coming trauma would detonate a crisis in Italy.
To be clear, the eight-year old US cycle has not yet rolled over definitively. The picture remains fluid, hard to read in a world where key signals have been distorted by central bank repression. The third quarter will almost certainly look a little better.
“We are getting closer and closer to a recession, but we are not quite there yet, looking at our forward-indicators,” said Lakshman Achuthan from the Economic Cycle Research Institute in New York.
“I can understand why people are getting worried. We have been seeing a ‘growth-rate’ cyclical downturn for the last two years. The longer this goes on, the less wiggle room there is,” he said.
“We are sure there will be no recession this year or into the first two months of 2017, but beyond that there are worrying signs. The deterioration of our leading labour market index is very clear,” he said.
Mr Achuthan thinks it is still possible that US growth will pick up again for another short burst – lifted by a global industrial rebound of sorts – before the storm finally hits.
That was broadly my view earlier this year as the global money supply surged and a string of governments seized on Brexit to crank up stimulus, but what is striking is how little traction it has achieved.
The velocity of M1 money in the US has continued to slow, hitting 40-year low of 5.75 over the summer, and markets are only just awakening to the unsettling thought that China’s latest boomlet has already topped out. Beijing is having to hit the brakes again.
Crossborder said new rules for money market funds that came into force this month have complicated the picture, causing the stock of US commercial paper to shrivel by $200bn. Yet there are ways to filter out some of these effects.
The plain fact is that 3-month lending rates in the off-shore ‘eurodollar’ markets in London have tripled since July to 0.93pc, sharply tightening conditions for global finance. Investors may have been too complacent in discounting these gyrations as part of a regulatory hiccup when something more sinister is emerging.
CrossBorder’s liquidity measure for the US is now at levels comparable to the inflection point a few months before the US recessions of 1990 and 2001, and before the recession starting in November 2007 – and a whole year before Lehman Bank collapsed, nota bene.
Albert Edwards from Societe Generale says gross domestic income (GDI) was the most accurate gauge of the economy as the pre-Lehman crisis unfolded, and this measure has been flat for the last two quarters.
“The pronounced weakness of GDI relative to GDP might be an ominous omen, for it may well be indicating that a US recession is already underway – just as it was in 2007,” he said.
It is certainly odd that the Fed should tighten into these conditions. The unemployment rate has risen to 5pc after bottoming at 4.7pc in May, and small business (NFIB) hiring plans have been flashing soft warnings for months.
“The Fed wants to get ahead of the recovery, and unless this is checked, it will lead to recession,” said David Beckworth, a monetary economist at George Mason University.
Prof Beckwith said the US economy is still reeling from the shock of a 20pc rise in dollar’s trade-weighted index since mid-2014. This in turn is squeezing the world’s ‘shadow-dollar’ nexus.
The Fed faces horrible choices, of course. The longer it delays rate rises, the longer it perpetuates the deformed asset-bubble economy that so disfigures modern polities, and the louder the rebukes from Congress.
Critics are quick to note that price pressures are building, or at least appear to be. The Atlanta Fed’s index of 12-month ‘sticky price‘ inflation has reached 2.6pc, higher than nominal GDP growth itself. Call it ‘stagflation’ or the misery mix.
Yet you can pick your inflation measure to tell any story. The Dallas Fed’s trimmed-mean PCE – supposed to eliminate noise – actually peaked in June and has since been slowing on a six-month basis.
And it is – or should be – a cardinal rule of central banking that you never raise rates in response to rising energy costs. Oil spikes are not in themselves inflationary. They are neutral.
The truth is that nobody knows whether this is the start of a sustained reflation cycle, or just the last feeble flicker before America, Europe, and East Asia are swallowed into a deflationary vortex, the frozen circle from which there is no easy exit – ‘lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate’.
What we do know is that the Fed cannot afford to get this wrong, as it did with such calamitous consequences from March to August 2008, when it talked tough on an inflationary danger that had already peaked and passed, tightening policy into the hurricane.
As we now know – and some warned at the time – the US economy had already buckled. The result of Fed sabre-rattling in those crucial months was the collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie, Lehman, and the Western banking system.
Stanley Fischer, the Fed’s vice-chairman, conceded in a grim speech this week that the Fed has now run out of ammunition and that this “could therefore lead to longer and deeper recessions when the economy is hit by negative shocks.”
His prescription is to try sneak in a few rate hikes while it is still possible to create a buffer. Market monetarists say this is profoundly ill-advised, and may instead bring about exactly what he fears.
A President Hillary Clinton could and certainly would flood the economy with fiscal stimulus if need be. Yet this takes time. There are few ‘shovel-ready’ projects, and Washington is a fractious place. She may face a hostile House. The monetary crunch would have crystallized long before anything fiscal could be done.
The world will not end if premature tightening pushes the US into recession next year. But why court fate?
“A growing number of people in Obamacare are finding out their health insurance plans will disappear from the program next year, forcing them to find new coverage even as options shrink and prices rise.
At least 1.4 million people in 32 states will lose the Obamacare plan they have now, according to state officials contacted by Bloomberg. That’s largely caused by Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and some state or regional insurers quitting the law’s markets for individual coverage.
Sign-ups for Obamacare coverage begin next month. Fallout from the quitting insurers has emerged as the latest threat to the law, which is also a major focal point in the U.S. presidential election. While it’s not clear what all the consequences of the departing insurers will be, interviews with regulators and insurance customers suggest that plans will be fewer and more expensive, and may not include the same doctors and hospitals.
It may also mean that instead of growing in 2017, Obamacare could shrink. As of March 31, the law covered 11.1 million people; an Oct. 13 S&P Global Ratings report predicted that enrollment next year will range from an 8 percent decline to a 4 percent gain.”
To see Obamacare enrollment shrink this coming year would be another devastating blow to the already fiscally precarious situation. Enrollment is not nearly what was predicted in 2010 when the law passed — and the program needs — to stay afloat. Obamacare is certain to receive an overhaul next year, but what kind of reform will depend largely on who is in charge of the White House and Congress.
Nonfarm payrolls increased 156,000 for the month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected 176,000 new jobs and the jobless rate to hold at 4.9 percent. The total was a decline from the upwardly revised 167,000 jobs in August (compared with the original number of 151,000).
A broad measure of unemployment and underemployment was 9.7% last month, holding steady from August and July but down from 10% a year earlier. The gauge known as the U-6 includes unemployed Americans, workers who are stuck in part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time work, and people who are marginally attached to the labor force.
The report is as expected: mediocre for Americans after more than eight years.
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues bad results (a weak jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes UP? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was weak, one would assume the stock market would respond negatively. But that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do well? And why is it so important for interest rates to stay low? I think I have figured it out. Low rates are not good for the economy, but they ARE good for the stock market. See, the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When rates stay low, investors have to put their money in the stock market because there is no alternative.
Think about it — with non-existent interest rates, you don’t get an return on investment (ROI) anywhere. People have no alternative avenues for investing their money except to put it in the stock market. So even though this economy is performing very sluggishly, the Feds can point to the strong market as evidence that their policies are succeeding, because most people consider the economy and stock market to be fairly synonymous with each other — but they are not.
The economy is still underperforming because of so many terrible policies: over-regulation, increased business fines, higher taxes, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank — these are all major reasons why businesses are struggling, but that doesn’t necessarily affect the stock market; that’s why the stock market doesn’t react the same way when business data is terrible.
Keeping interest rates low is not helping the economy at all — but it does help the stock market, which mask the inherent policy problems. Virtually every part of Hillary’s economic plans are terrible, for the economy, jobs, etc. The economy will never really recover until the systemic problems are fixed.
Data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that government employees in the United States outnumber manufacturing employees by 9,932,000, according to data released today. CNS news has the highlights:
Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.
The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment data for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. For half a century—from January 1939 through July 1989—manufacturing employment always exceeded government employment in the United States, according to these numbers.
Then, in August 1989, the seasonally-adjusted employment numbers for government exceeded the employment numbers for manufacturing for the first time. That month, manufacturing employed 17,964,000 and government employed 17,989,000.
Manufacturing employment in the United States had peaked a decade before that in June 1979 at 19,553,000
From August 2015 to August 2016 seasonally-adjusted manufacturing employment declined by 37,000–dropping from 12,318,000 last August to 12,281,000 this August.
The 22,213,000 government employees in August, according to the BLS, included 2,790,000 federal employees, 5,120,000 state government employees, and 14,303,000 local government employees.
Earlier in the month, Steven Russolillo correctly reported on weak business investment as a key reason for poor economic growth. However, it was incredibly frustrating that as an economic writer, Russolillo, could actually suggest this was a surprising phenomenon. It’s not surprising. In fact, it’s downright predictable. The Obama Administration has been steadily undermining businesses for years and this is the fallout of their policies.
Even though Russolillo should have known this, he could have also easily interviewed any number of business owners for his article; if he did, he would have found a multitude of reasons for weak business investment, including 1) anti-business attitudes; 2) threats of higher taxes; 3) actual higher taxes; and 4) increased government regulations. Instead, Russolillo made the rookie mistake of only talking to fellow economists, the ones who look at data and trends instead of actually being in the trenches of everyday business activity.
Russolillo acts as if low rates are the only key to business spending; they’re not. Businesses won’t spend if they continue to feel the threat of the government’s heavy-hand. Better to keep the company stabilized than attempt to stretch and expand and invest; you have no idea what new regulation or new tax will continue to wreak havoc on your long-term business plans and cash flow — they way this administration has done for the last seven years.
Businesses are tired of being treated as an both a source of extra government revenue and a playground for intrusive, burdensome policies that hurt, rather than help, our economy. It’s a no-brainer to anyone who is anyone in the business world why businesses are hesitant to invest; it’s a shame that more economists don’t know how to engage in critical thinking and basic journalism.
Massachusetts launched a new (modest) fee within the transportation industry with the stated attempt at modernization. But this isn’t that at all. It is a nickel taken for every transaction from one group of companies, and the proceeds will benefit another group of companies — their own competitors.
This new fee is imposed on “transportation network companies, or TNCs, such as Uber, Lyft, and Fasten. When Governor Charlie Baker signed a law earlier this month regulating TNCs, it included a little-discussed component. For every trip, the TNCs will have to contribute a nickel to a new fund to support modernization, training, and improvement of the taxi and livery industry. The 5-cent fee will stay in effect until the final day of 2021.”
Imagine having to involuntarily contribute to a fund whose stated purpose is the very companies/industry with whom you compete! That’s exactly what is happening here. It’s estimated that the nickel fee will generate about $15 million in revenue over the next few years, collected by Mass Development, the state economic development agency.
What’s worse is that there is no actual plan on how the money will be spent support modernize, train, and improve the taxi and livery industry — it’s still up in the air. But since the fee is now a given, this article here gives a wealth of interesting suggestions for the agency; it simultaneously exposes the fact that the Massachusetts bureaucrats are engaging in crony capitalism at its finest. Why is the government in the business of picking winners and losers among businesses?
This is an excellent editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal discussing the surprise announcement that Aetna, one of the leading insurers in this country, was withdrawing from the vast majority of Obamacare exchanges. But instead of sitting up and seriously considering this massive defection as a wake-up call (unlike all the previous failures), the Democrats want to blame Aetna itself in order to safeguard the narrative that Obamacare is working perfectly well. I have reproduced the piece in its entirety below; it’s worth the read.
“Democrats claimed for years that ObamaCare is working splendidly, though anybody acquainted with reality could see the entitlement is dysfunctional. Now as the law breaks down in an election year, they’ve decided to blame private insurers for their own failures.
Their target this week is Aetna, which has announced it is withdrawing two-thirds of its ObamaCare coverage, pulling out of 536 of 778 counties where it does business. The third-largest U.S. insurer has lost about $430 million on the exchanges since 2014, and this carnage is typical. More than 40 other companies are also fleeing ObamaCare.
The mass exodus will leave consumers consigned to the exchanges with surging premiums and fewer options, but don’t mention these victims to Democrats. They’re trying to change the subject by claiming Aetna is retaliating because the Justice Department is trying to block Aetna’s $37 billion acquisition of Humana.
The 2010 ObamaCare law makes it nearly impossible for non-mega insurers to operate, and a tide of regulations has encouraged consolidation. Aetna says the Humana tie-up will create economies of scale that could sustain the money-losing exchange policies.
But Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is now emoting on Facebook that “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will.” This week the Administration also released a July 5 letter from Aetna in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Democrats claim the document shows CEO Mark Bertolini conditioning Aetna’s ObamaCare cooperation on merger approval.
This is some gall. Aetna was answering a June 28 “civil investigative demand,” in which Justice’s antitrust division specifically asked how blocking the merger would “affect Aetna’s business strategy and operations, including Aetna’s participation of the public exchanges related to the Affordable Care Act.”
Soliciting sensitive internal information that Aetna is legally compelled to provide—and then making it public to sandbag the company—is the behavior of political plumbers, not allegedly impartial technocrats. If police tried this, it’d be entrapment.
Mr. Bertolini had merely replied that the legal costs of an antitrust suit would strain Aetna’s performance. The insurer would have “no choice but to take actions to steward its financial health” and “face market realities,” such as reducing unprofitable business. Public companies have a responsibility to shareholders, and the wonder is that any insurer is still part of the exchanges.
ObamaCare’s troubles aren’t the result of any business decision. The entire industry is caught in the law’s structural undertow. Despite subsidies, overall enrollment is flat, there’s too much monthly churn, and the exchanges aren’t attracting enough healthy people to make the economics work.
Blame the law’s architects, not Mr. Bertolini, who must wonder what happened to the political goodwill he has tried to bank over the years. Aetna was inclined to accept the exchanges as loss leaders to support ObamaCare’s mission of universal coverage. The company led ObamaCare’s industry pep squad in 2009 and 2010.
The calculation then was that subsidies would open a new market, and consumers would be mandated to buy their products. But in the final frenzy to pass the law, Democrats decided that insurers made too much money and they imposed price controls on profit margins. Now insurers are accused of declining to throw away more money.
The ObamaCare implosion means that about a quarter of U.S. counties will have only one or two plans, and in some zero. Areas in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas seem to be hardest hit, though the extent of the damage is still emerging.
Democrats figure they have insurers over a barrel because a Hillary Clinton Presidency is coming. She’s running on higher subsidies for beneficiaries, a taxpayer bailout for the industry, and a “public option” akin to Medicare for the middle class. In health care the solution to a problem caused by government is always more government, which will create new problems and beget more government.
Republicans have no obligation to participate. They had no hand in creating this mess and they’ve been mocked by Democrats and the media for years for warning about ObamaCare’s flaws and trying to repeal and replace the law. Assuming the GOP holds at least the House, they should insist that any “fixes”—which are fast becoming inevitable—create a rational health-care market. Democrats deserve to be held accountable for the collapse of their ideas.”
Aetna’s decision to withdraw from 11 out of 15 state exchanges is a big deal; it follows the paths of UnitedHealth Group and Humana, both large insurance companies who have also chosen to cut ties with Obamacare. (Incidentally, the DoJ is trying to block a Aetna-Humana merger; are they worried about competition?)
A short analysis by Market Watch provides some insight into the decision and the current state of Obamacare:
**Aetna explained the decision as a way to “limit our financial exposure moving forward,” after pretax losses of $200 million in the second quarter and losses totaling $430 million on individual products since January 2014. The company did not specify what portion of the losses was attributable to individual public plan offerings.
**The company criticized the ACA’s “inadequate” risk-adjustment mechanism, which is meant to limit insurers’ losses as they start covering sicker individuals. It’s a common criticism from health insurers, which have long said that the risk-pool program isn’t working the way it’s supposed to, though others say big insurance companies should instead change their model to keep costs down.
**Of Aetna’s exchange membership this year, more than half is new, with those needing expensive care making up “an even larger share” in the second quarter, the company said.
**Coupled with the risk pool, this makes premiums costlier and “creates significant sustainability concerns,” the company said.
The affect of these withdrawls means fewer insurers and fewer choices for consumers than when the law first began several years ago. That’s not good. The law needs some reform. MarketWatch notes, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has indicated a willingness to make changes to the risk-pool mechanism, although it’s unclear whether legislation to that end would be passed.
Any fixes will also depend on strong enrollment figures. Premiums have increased for 2017, but the financial penalty for not having health insurance has also increased. Whether that penalty, an average of $969 per household, according to a Kaiser analysis, will prompt increased enrollment is a “big wild card,” according to a co-author of the Kaiser report. A rise in premium costs “suggests additional enrollment growth is not a given,” said Riggs, having potential negative implications for hospital and managed care, along with investors in those spaces.”
Will this have an impact on the 2016 election? It will be interesting to see — especially since the open enrollment period is slated to begin on November 1, just days before the 2016 election. The cost of premiums, especially if they are substantially higher, may affect people’s voting decisions. Of course, don’t put it past the Administration to delay open enrollment until Nov 15 and shift everything by two weeks, in order to avoid a “November surprise”. The only thing that’s not a surprise at this point is that the law continues to founder considerably, at the expense and disruption of everyday citizens.
I recently posted an article from the National Review, which was an update from a previous article written 20 years ago — in 1995 — on the same subject: Hillary Clinton’s too-good-to-be-true commodity trading luck. The article provides an excellent analysis on all the things inconsistent with Hillary’s trade activity from the 1970s, documented the inconsistencies with Hillary’s explanations of how she seemingly got lucky, defied the odds, and made large sums of money.
Here’s a primer on commodity trading, and why Hillary Clinton’s trade deals are important for this election cycle. It’s very clear for anyone that Hillary really didn’t do any trading as she claimed; she allowed her broker to execute trades on her behalf.
With commodity trading: say you want 100 shares of X. You buy it with your trader, the trader goes down to the floor, does the transaction, it gets recorded under your name, and that’s that. So for instance, if you are buying futures — say 1000 head of cattle at a certain price — you are not actually buying the cattle, you are buying a future price. That means, you buy what you think the price will be at a certain point in time. With commodity trading you have the right to buy or sell these contracts, you have margins in which to operate,, and you can end up earning money or losing money if the price fluctuates widely.
,
Now back in the day when Hillary was trading, the futures were often handled differently than they are currently. The brokers were so busy, they didn’t have the time or ability to record who did what in real-time like they do today; it was done after the market closed — but that’s also when a lot of buying and selling. happened. So Hillary Clinton’s broker, who had tied to Tyson Food and was a cattle producer could engage in beneficial trading; folks like him were always buying and selling futures because they were directly in the market.
The National Review article (Clinton’s Cattle Futures) is important because it provides a very detailed explanation of Hillary’s transactions. Hillary Clinton really wasn’t buying cattle; she was getting payoffs through her broker and who was just throwing profits into her account.
Three important points can be gleaned from the information. First, Hillary told everyone that anyone could have profited from the type of trading she (supposedly) did. But she really didn’t do the trading; in fact, it’s quite obvious that she didn’t even understand what kind of transactions were taking place. Most of her deals were actually downward movements when the market in general was going up, but she didn’t know that. It’s called trading on the short side — and no rational, inexperienced trader would know to or understand the thought of trading against the market trends, yet she did on several occasions, quite lucratively. Even today, she talks about riding a strong market, showing she doesn’t obviously understand that much of her profits were made by doing the exact opposite.
The second important point was the margin. Especially today, but even back then, no professional broker would allow you to execute a trade and any penny of movement that would make you lose thousands or cause your balance to be severely in the negative. For their own sake, they’d make sure you had collateral your account, and you need to have decent margin in case the cattle price changed 4-5 cents (which would translate into thousands). But Hillary Clinton regularly made trades with risks in the thousands, even if she only had hundreds in her account — and even negative on occasion. Hillary and Bill also lived on meager salaries with very little (if any) collateral. The fact that she was allowed to trade with consistently little-to-no margin is actually a violation of trade rules because it also puts the trader at risk — there’s no way any regular customer could do that.
3) The third salient point is in regard to the trading activity. There were a series of trades that she bought within 10% of the lowest price of the day, and when she sold, she sold within 10% of the highest price of the day. As any serious trader knows, there is no way anyone could consistently do that — unless there was help. If the broker was waiting at the end of the day, he could put the buys at below price and sells at the high price, so that she always made money; it is quite plausible this was the case, due to the record keeping methods and the name misspelling (HILARY) substantiate this.
It’s quite annoying to read the National Review article and consider how it squares up with the people who investigated Hillary’s trades at one point and declared there was no problem. Given what we know now, do these experts still think they were correct, or do they know they were bamboozled along with the rest of us.
There’s no possibility Hillary is telling the truth in this matter.