Tag Archives: profits

Previous Employment Concerns Becoming An Ugly Reality

Last week, we saw the first glimpse of the employment fallout caused by the shutdown of the economy due to the virus. To wit:

“On Thursday, initial jobless claims jumped by 3.3 million. This was the single largest jump in claims ever on record. The chart below shows the 4-week average to give a better scale.”

This number will be MUCH worse when claims are reported later this morning, as many individuals were slow to file claims, didn’t know how, and states were slow to report them.

The importance is that unemployment rates in the U.S. are about to spike to levels not seen since the “Great Depression.” Based on the number of claims being filed, we can estimate that unemployment will jump to 15-20% over the next quarter as economic growth slides 8%, or more. (I am probably overly optimistic.)

The erosion in employment will lead to a sharp deceleration in economic and consumer confidence, as was seen Tuesday in the release of the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index, which plunged from 132.6 to 120 in March.

This is a critical point. Consumer confidence is the primary factor of consumptive behaviors, which is why the Federal Reserve acted so quickly to inject liquidity into the financial markets. While the Fed’s actions may prop up financial markets in the short-term, it does little to affect the most significant factor weighing on consumers – their jobs.

The chart below is our “composite” confidence index, which combines several confidence surveys into one measure. Notice that during each of the previous two bear market cycles, confidence dropped by an average of 58 points.

With consumer confidence just starting its reversion from high levels, it suggests that as job losses rise, confidence will slide further, putting further pressure on asset prices. Another way to analyze confidence data is to look at the composite consumer expectations index minus the current situation index in the reports.

Similarly, given we have only started the reversion process, bear markets end when deviations reverse. The differential between expectations and the current situation, as you can see below, is worse than the last cycle, and only slightly higher than before the “dot.com” crash.

If you are betting on a fast economic recovery, I wouldn’t.

There is a fairly predictable cycle, starting with CEO’s moving to protect profitability, which gets worked through until exhaustion is reached.

As unemployment rises, we are going to begin to see the faults in the previous employment numbers that I have repeatedly warned about over the last 18-months. To wit:

“There is little argument the streak of employment growth is quite phenomenal and comes amid hopes the economy is beginning to shift into high gear. But while most economists focus at employment data from one month to the next for clues as to the strength of the economy, it is the ‘trend’ of the data, which is far more important to understand.”

That “trend” of employment data has been turning negative since President Trump was elected, which warned the economy was actually substantially weaker than headlines suggested. More than once, we warned that an “unexpected exogenous event” would exposure the soft-underbelly of the economy.

The virus was just such an event.

While many economists and media personalities are expecting a “V”-shaped recovery as soon as the virus passes, the employment data suggests an entirely different outcome.

The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment prior to the onset of a recession. The current cycle peaked at 2.2% in 2015, and has been on a steady decline ever since. At 1.3%, which predated the virus, it was the lowest level ever preceding a recessionary event. All that was needed was an “event” to start the dominoes falling. When we see the first round of unemployment data, we are likely to test the lows seen during the financial crisis confirming a recession has started. 

No Recession In 2020?

It is worth noting that NO mainstream economists, or mainstream media, were predicting a recession in 2020. However, as we noted in 2019, the inversion of the “yield curve,” predicted exactly that outcome.

“To CNBC’s point, based on this lagging, and currently unrevised, economic data, there is ‘NO recession in sight,’ so you should be long equities, right?

Which indicator should you follow? The yield curve is an easy answer.

While everybody is ‘freaking out’ over the ‘inversion,’it is when the yield-curve ‘un-inverts’ that is the most important.

The chart below shows that when the Fed is aggressively cutting rates, the yield curve un-inverts as the short-end of the curve falls faster than the long-end. (This is because money is leaving ‘risk’ to seek the absolute ‘safety’ of money markets, i.e. ‘market crash.’)”

I have dated a few of the key points of the “inversion of the curve.” As of today, the yield-curve is now fully un-inverted, denoting a recession has started.

While recent employment reports were slightly above expectations, the annual rate of growth has been slowing. The 3-month average of the seasonally-adjusted employment report, also confirms that employment was already in a precarious position and too weak to absorb a significant shock. (The 3-month average smooths out some of the volatility.)

What we will see in the next several employment reports are vastly negative numbers as the economy unwinds.

Lastly, while the BLS continually adjusts and fiddles with the data to mathematically adjust for seasonal variations, the purpose of the entire process is to smooth volatile monthly data into a more normalized trend. The problem, of course, with manipulating data through mathematical adjustments, revisions, and tweaks, is the risk of contamination of bias.

We previously proposed a much simpler method to use for smoothing volatile monthly data using a 12-month moving average of the raw data as shown below.

Notice that near peaks of employment cycles the BLS employment data deviates from the 12-month average, or rather “overstates” the reality. However, as we will now see to be the case, the BLS data will rapidly reconnect with 12-month average as reality emerges.

Sometimes, “simpler” gives us a better understanding of the data.

Importantly, there is one aspect to all the charts above which remains constant. No matter how you choose to look at the data, peaks in employment growth occur prior to economic contractions, rather than an acceleration of growth. 

“Okay Boomer”

Just as “baby boomers” were finally getting back to the position of being able to retire following the 2008 crash, the “bear market” has once again put those dreams on hold. Of course, there were already more individuals over the age of 55, as a percentage of that age group, in the workforce than at anytime in the last 50-years. However, we are likely going to see a very sharp drop in those numbers as “forced retirement” will surge.

The group that will to be hit the hardest are those between 25-54 years of age. With more than 15-million restaurant workers being terminated, along with retail, clerical, leisure, and hospitality workers, the damage to this demographic will be the heaviest.

There is a decent correlation between surges in the unemployment rate and the decline in the labor-force participation rate of the 25-54 age group. Given the expectation of a 15%, or greater, unemployment rate, the damage to this particular age group is going to be significant.

Unfortunately, the prime working-age group of labor force participants had only just returned to pre-2008 levels, and the same levels seen previously in 1988. Unfortunately, it may be another decade before we see those employment levels again.

Why This Matters

The employment impact is going to felt for far longer, and will be far deeper, than the majority of the mainstream media and economists expect. This is because they are still viewing this as a “singular” problem of a transitory virus.

It isn’t.

The virus was simply the catalyst which started the unwind of a decade-long period of debt accumulation and speculative excesses. Businesses, both small and large, will now go through a period of “culling the herd,” to lower operating costs and maintain profitability.

There are many businesses that will close, and never reopen. Most others will cut employment down to the bone and will be very slow to rehire as the economy begins to recover. Most importantly, wage growth was already on the decline, and will be cut deeply in the months to come.

Lower wage growth, unemployment, and a collapse in consumer confidence is going to increase the depth and duration of the recession over the months to come. The contraction in consumption will further reduce revenues and earnings for businesses which will require a deeper revaluation of asset prices. 

I just want to leave you with a statement I made previously:

“Every financial crisis, market upheaval, major correction, recession, etc. all came from one thing – an exogenous event that was not forecast or expected.

This is why bear markets are always vicious, brutal, devastating, and fast. It is the exogenous event, usually credit-related, which sucks the liquidity out of the market, causing prices to plunge. As prices fall, investors begin to panic-sell driving prices lower which forces more selling in the market until, ultimately, sellers are exhausted.

It is the same every time.”

Over the last several years, investors have insisted the markets were NOT in a bubble. We reminded them that everyone thought the same in 1999 and 2007.

Throughout history, financial bubbles have only been recognized in hindsight when their existence becomes “apparently obvious” to everyone. Of course, by that point is was far too late to be of any use to investors and the subsequent destruction of invested capital.

It turned out, “this time indeed was not different.” Only the catalyst, magnitude, and duration was.

Pay attention to employment and wages. The data suggests the current “bear market” cycle has only just begun.

Earnings Lies & Why Munger Says “EBITDA is Bull S***”

Earnings Worse Than You Think

Just like the hit series “House Of Cards,” Wall Street earnings season has become rife with manipulation, deceit and obfuscation that could rival the dark corners of Washington, D.C.

What is most fascinating is that so many individuals invest hard earned capital based on these manipulated numbers. The failure to understand the “quality” of earnings, rather than the “quantity,” has always led to disappointing outcomes at some point in the future. 

As Drew Bernstein recently penned for CFO.com:

“Non-GAAP financials are not audited and are most often disclosed through earnings press releases and investor presentations, rather than in the company’s annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Once upon a time, non-GAAP financials were used to isolate the impact of significant one-time events like a major restructuring or sizable acquisition. In recent years, they have become increasingly prevalent and prominent, used by both the shiniest new-economy IPO companies and the old-economy stalwarts.”

Back in the 80’s and early 90’s companies used to report GAAP earnings in their quarterly releases. If an investor dug through the report they would find “adjusted” and “proforma” earnings buried in the back.

Today, it is GAAP earnings which are buried in the back hoping investors will miss the ugly truth.

These “adjusted or Pro-forma earnings” exclude items that a company deems “special, one-time or extraordinary.” The problem is that these “special, one-time” items appear “every” quarter leaving investors with a muddier picture of what companies are really making.

An in-depth study by Audit Analytics revealed that 97% of companies in the S&P 500 used non-GAAP financials in 2017, up from 59% in 1996, while the average number of different non-GAAP metrics used per filing rose from 2.35 to 7.45 over two decades.

This growing divergence between the earnings calculated according to accepted accounting principles, and the “earnings” touted in press releases and analyst research reports, has put investors at a disadvantage of understanding exactly what they are paying for.

As BofAML stated:

“We are increasingly concerned with the number of companies (non-commodity) reporting earnings on an adjusted basis versus those that are stressing GAAP accounting, and find the divergence a consequence of less earnings power. 

Consider that when US GDP growth was averaging 3% (the 5 quarters September 2013 through September 2014) on average 80% of US HY companies reported earnings on an adjusted basis. Since September 2014, however, with US GDP averaging just 1.9%, over 87% of companies have reported on an adjusted basis. Perhaps even more telling, between the end of 2010 and 2013, the percentage of companies reporting adjusted EBITDA was relatively constant, and since 2013, the number has been on a steady rise.

So, why do companies regularly report these Non-GAAP earnings? Drew has the answer:

“When management is asked why they resort to non-GAAP reporting, the most common response is that these measures are requested by the analysts and are commonly used in earnings models employed to value the company. Indeed, sell-side analysts and funds with a long position in the stock may have incentives to encourage a more favorable alternative presentation of earnings results.”

If non-GAAP reporting is used as a supplemental means to help investors identify underlying trends in the business, one might reasonably expect that both favorable and unfavorable events would be “adjusted” in equal measure.

However, research presented by the American Accounting Association suggests that companies engage in “asymmetric” non-GAAP exclusions of mostly unfavorable items as a tool to “beat” analyst earnings estimates.

How The Beat Earnings & Get Paid For It

Why has there been such a rise is Non-GAAP reporting?

Money, of course.

“A recent study from MIT has found that when companies make large positive adjustments to non-GAAP earnings, their CEOs make 23 percent more than their expected annual compensation would be if GAAP numbers were used. This is despite such firms having weak contemporaneous and future operating performance relative to other firms.” – Financial Executives International.

The researchers at MIT combed through the annual earnings press releases of S&P 500 firms for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 and recorded GAAP net income and non-GAAP net income when the firms disclosed it. About 67 percent of the firms in the sample disclose non-GAAP net income.

The researchers then obtained CEO compensation, accounting, and return data for the sample firms and found that “firms making the largest positive non-GAAP adjustments… exhibit the worst GAAP performance.”

The CEOs of these firms, meanwhile, earned about 23 percent more than would be predicted using a compensation model; in terms of raw dollars. In other words, they made about $2.7 million more than the approximately $12 million of an average CEO.

It should not be surprising that anytime you compensate individuals based on some level of performance, they are going to figure out ways to improve performance, legal or not. Examples run rampant through sports from Barry Bonds to Lance Armstrong, as well as in business from Enron to WorldCom.

This was detailed in a WSJ article:

One out of five [20%] U.S. finance chiefs have been scrambling to fiddle with their companies’ earnings.”

This rather “open secret” of companies manipulating bottom line earnings by utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments to flatter earnings is not new.

The tricks are well-known: A difficult quarter can be made easier by releasing reserves set aside for a rainy day or recognizing revenues before sales are made, while a good quarter is often the time to hide a big ‘restructuring charge’ that would otherwise stand out like a sore thumb.

What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.

Manipulating earnings may work in the short-term, eventually, cost cutting, wage suppression, earnings adjustments, share-buybacks, etc. reach an effective limit. When that limit is reached, companies can no longer hide the weakness in their actual operating revenues.

There’s a big difference between companies’ advertised performance, and how they actually did. We discussed this recently by looking at the growing deviation between corporate earnings and corporate profits. There has only been one other point where earnings, and stock market prices, were surging while corporate profits were flat. Shortly thereafter, we found out the “truth” about WorldCom, Enron, and Global Crossing.

The American Accounting Association found that over the past decade or so, more companies have shifted to emphasizing adjusted earnings. But those same companies’ results under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, often only match or slightly exceed analysts’ predictions.

“There are those who might claim that so far this century the U.S. economy has experienced such an unusual period of economic growth that it has taken analysts and investors by surprise each quarter … for almost two decades. This view strains credulity.” – Paul Griffin, University of California & David Lont, University of Otago

After reviewing hundreds of thousands of quarterly earnings forecasts and reports of 4,700 companies over 17 years, Griffin and Lont believe companies shoot well above analysts’ targets because consistently beating earnings per share by only a penny or two became a red flag.

“If they pull out all the accounting tricks to get their earnings much higher than expected, then they are less likely to be accused of manipulation.” 

The truth is that stocks go up when companies beat their numbers, and analysts are generally biased toward wanting the stock they cover to go up. As we discussed in “Chasing The Market”, it behooves analysts to consistently lower their estimates so companies can beat them, and adjusted earnings are making it easier for them to do it.

For investors, the impact from these distortions will only be realized during the next bear market. For now, there is little help for investors as the Securities and Exchange Commission has blessed the use of adjusted results as long as companies disclose how they are calculated. The disclosures are minimal, and are easy to get around when it comes to forecasts. Worse, adjusted earnings are used to determine executive bonuses and whether companies are meeting their loan covenants. No wonder CEO pay, and leverage, just goes up.

Conclusion & Why EBITDA Is BullS***

Wall Street is an insider system where legally manipulating earnings to create the best possible outcome, and increase executive compensation has run amok,. The adults in the room, a.k.a. the Securities & Exchange Commission, have “left the children in charge,” but will most assuredly leap into action to pass new regulations to rectify reckless misbehavior AFTER the next crash.

For fundamental investors, the manipulation of earnings not only skews valuation analysis, but specifically impacts any analysis involving earnings such as P/E’s, EV/EBITDA, PEG, etc.

Ramy Elitzur, via The Account Art Of War, expounded on the problems of using EBITDA.

“One of the things that I thought that I knew well was the importance of income-based metrics such as EBITDA, and that cash flow information is not as important. It turned out that common garden variety metrics, such as EBITDA, could be hazardous to your health.”

The article is worth reading and chocked full of good information, however, here are the four-crucial points:

  1. EBITDA is not a good surrogate for cash flow analysis because it assumes that all revenues are collected immediately and all expenses are paid immediately, leading to a false sense of liquidity.
  2. Superficial common garden-variety accounting ratios will fail to detect signs of liquidity problems.
  3. Direct cash flow statements provide a much deeper insight than the indirect cash flow statements as to what happened in operating cash flows. Note that the vast majority (well over 90%) of public companies use the indirect format.
  4. EBITDA, just like net income is very sensitive to accounting manipulations.

The last point is the most critical. As Charlie Munger recently stated:

“I think there are lots of troubles coming. There’s too much wretched excess.

I don’t like when investment bankers talk about EBITDA, which I call bulls— earnings.

It’s ridiculous. EBITDA does not accurately reflect how much money a company makes, unlike traditional earnings. Think of the basic intellectual dishonesty that comes when you start talking about adjusted EBITDA. You’re almost announcing you’re a flake.”

In a world of adjusted earnings, where every company is way above average, every quarter, investors quickly lose sight of what matters most in investing.

“This unfortunate cycle will only be broken when the end-users of financial reporting — institutional investors, analysts, lenders, and the media — agree that we are on the verge of systemic failure in financial reporting. In the history of financial markets, such moments of mental clarity most often occur following the loss of vast sums of capital.” – American Accounting Association

Imaginary worlds are nice, it’s just impossible to live there.

The Fed & The Stability/Instability Paradox

“Only those that risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” – T.S. Eliot

Well, this certainly seems to be the path that the Federal Reserve, and global Central Banks, have decided take.

Yesterday, the Fed lowered interest rates by a quarter-point and maintained their “dovish” stance but suggested they are open to “allowing the balance sheet to grow.” While this isn’t anything more than just stopping Q.T. entirely, the markets took this as a sign that Q.E. is just around the corner.

That expectation is likely misguided as the Fed seems completely unconcerned of any recessionary impact in the near-term. However, such has always been the case, historically speaking, just before the onset of a recession. This is because the Fed, and economists in general, make predictions based on lagging data which is subject to large future revisions. Regardless, the outcome of the Fed’s monetary policies has always been, without exception, either poor, or disastrous.

“In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has been the catalyst behind every preceding financial event since they became ‘active,’ monetarily policy-wise, in the late 70’s. As shown in the chart below, when the Fed has lifted the short-term lending rates to a level higher than the 2-year rate, bad ‘stuff’ has historically followed.”

The idea of pushing limits to extremes also applies to stock market investors. As we pointed out on Tuesday, the risks of a liquidity-driven event have increased markedly in recent months. Yet, despite the apparent risk, investors have virtually “no fear.” (Bullish advances are supported by extremely low levels of volatility below the long-term average of 19.)

First, “record levels” of anything are records for a reason. It is where the point where previous limits were reached. Therefore, when a ‘record level’ is reached, it is NOT THE BEGINNING, but rather an indication of the MATURITY of a cycle. While the media has focused on employment, record stock market levels, etc. as a sign of an ongoing economic recovery, history suggests caution.”

In the “rush to be bullish” this a point often missed. When markets are hitting “record levels,” it is when investors get “the most bullish.” That is the case currently with retail investors “all in.”

Conversely, they are the most “bearish” at the lows.

It is just human nature.

“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” – T.S. Eliot

The point here is that “all things do come to an end.” The further from the “mean” something has gotten, the greater the reversion is going to be. The two charts below illustrate this point clearly.

Bull markets, with regularity, are almost entirely wiped out by the subsequent bear market.

Despite the best of intentions, market participants never act rationally.

Neither do consumers.

The Instability Of Stability

This is the problem facing the Fed.

Currently, investors have been led to believe that no matter what happens, the Fed can bail out the markets and keep the bull market going for a while longer. Or rather, as Dr. Irving Fisher once uttered:

“Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau.”

Interestingly, the Fed is dependent on both market participants, and consumers, believing in this idea. As we have noted previously, with the entirety of the financial ecosystem now more heavily levered than ever, due to the Fed’s profligate measures of suppressing interest rates and flooding the system with excessive levels of liquidity, the “instability of stability” is now the most significant risk.

The “stability/instability paradox” assumes that all players are rational and such rationality implies an avoidance of complete destruction. In other words, all players will act rationally, and no one will push “the big red button.”

The Fed is highly dependent on this assumption as it provides the “room” needed, after more than 10-years of the most unprecedented monetary policy program in U.S. history, to try and navigate the risks that have built up in the system.

Simply, the Fed is dependent on “everyone acting rationally.”

Unfortunately, that has never been the case.

The behavioral biases of individuals is one of the most serious risks facing the Fed. Throughout history, as noted above, the Fed’s actions have repeatedly led to negative outcomes despite the best of intentions.

  • In the early 70’s it was the “Nifty Fifty” stocks,
  • Then Mexican and Argentine bonds a few years after that
  • “Portfolio Insurance” was the “thing” in the mid -80’s
  • Dot.com anything was a great investment in 1999
  • Real estate has been a boom/bust cycle roughly every other decade, but 2006 was a doozy
  • Today, it’s ETF’s and “Passive Investing,” and levered credit.

As noted Tuesday, the risk to this entire house of cards is a credit-related event.

Anyone wonder what might happen should passive funds become large net sellers of credit risk? In that event, these indiscriminate sellers will have to find highly discriminating buyers who–you guessed it–will be asking lots of questions. Liquidity for the passive universe–and thus the credit markets generally–may become very problematic indeed.

The recent actions by Central Banks certainly suggest risk has risen. Whether this was just an anomalous event, or an early warning, it is too soon to know for sure. However, if there is a liquidity issue, the risk to ‘uniformed investors’ is substantially higher than most realize. 

Risk concentration always seems rational at the beginning, and the initial successes of the trends it creates can be self-reinforcing. That is, until suddenly, and often without warning, it all goes “pear\-shaped.”

In November and December of last year, it was the uniformity of the price moves which revealed the fallacy “passive investing” as investors headed for the door all at the same time. While, that rout was quickly forgotten as markets stormed back to all-time highs, on “hopes” of Central Bank liquidity and “trade deals.”

The difference today, versus then, are the warning signs of deterioration in areas which pose a direct threat to everyone “acting rationally.” 

“While yields going to zero] certainly sounds implausible at the moment, just remember that all yields globally are relative. If global sovereign rates are zero or less, it is only a function of time until the U.S. follows suit. This is particularly the case if there is a liquidity crisis at some point.

It is worth noting that whenever Eurodollar positioning has become this extended previously, the equity markets have declined along with yields. Given the exceedingly rapid rise in the Eurodollar positioning, it certainly suggests that ‘something has broken in the system.’” 

Risk is clearly elevated as the Fed is cutting rates despite the “economic data” not supporting it. This is clearly meant to keep everyone acting rationally for now.

The problem comes when they don’t.

The Single Biggest Risk To Your Money

All of this underscores the single biggest risk to your investment portfolio.

In extremely long bull market cycles, investors become “willfully blind,” to the underlying inherent risks. Or rather, it is the “hubris” of investors they are now “smarter than the market.”

Yet, the list of concerns remains despite being completely ignored by investors and the mainstream media.

  • Growing economic ambiguities in the U.S. and abroad: peak autos, peak housing, peak GDP.
  • Political instability and a crucial election.
  • The failure of fiscal policy to ‘trickle down.’
  • An important pivot towards easing in global monetary policy.
  • Geopolitical risks from Trade Wars to Iran 
  • Inversions of yield curves
  • Deteriorating earnings and corporate profit margins.
  • Record levels of private and public debt.
  •  More than $3 trillion of covenant light and/or sub-prime corporate debt. (now larger and more pervasive than the size of the subprime mortgages outstanding in 2007)

For now, none of that matters as the Fed seems to have everything under control.

The more the market rises, the more reinforced the belief “this time is different” becomes.

Yes, our investment portfolios remain invested on the long-side for now. (Although we continue to carry slightly higher levels of cash and hedges.)

However, that will change, and rapidly so, at the first sign of the “instability of stability.” 

Unfortunately, by the time the Fed realizes what they have done, it has always been too late.

Today’s Melt Up Triggers Tomorrow’s Melt Down

Since November of 2016, the NDX has soared by 72% and is poised to break the recent all-time high of 8027. Today, it seems that sentiment is shifting back to selling bonds and buying riskier equities with hyped estimates. FAANG stocks have fueled an ongoing rally, via stock buybacks, non – GAAP financial gimmicky, and promises of eventual profitability for many unicorn startups.

Source: Stockcharts.com – 9/12/19

Sentiment has moved prices up as the market has suspended its disbelief of key fundamentals like future earnings, declining sales, job layoffs, contracting world trade, and negative cash flow.

First, let’s look at downward revised earnings forecasts for the rest of the year indicating a decline almost to a contraction level in the U.S.:

Sources: Bloomberg, IIF – 9/10/19

Analysts expect lower earnings and profitability due to declining sales. The pivotal function of any business is sales. The inventory to sales ratio is now at 2008 levels indicating that sales are declining while production is continuing, which is typical of the later stages in the business cycle:

Sources: The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Shot – 9/12/19

Continuing present production levels with flat to declining sales is unsustainable.  Executives are faced with declining sales overseas in part due to tariffs. As such, the number of production shifts must be reduced, as the highest cost for most businesses is payroll.  A key indicator of executives beginning to reduce staff is indicated by an increase in jobless claims in five key manufacturing states starting about when tariffs were first enacted in November of 2018:

Sources: B of A Merrill, Haver, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Shot – 8/30/19

Markets are underestimating the devasting impact that broad tariffs are having on U.S. corporate sales.  S & P 100 corporations generally recognize from 50 – 60 % of total sales from overseas, and profits of 15 – 25 % or more from emerging markets like China and India.  When tariffs hit U.S. products, there is a cascading effect on small businesses, and throughout the worldwide supply chain. Even if a product is produced domestically, many of the sourced parts come from several emerging markets which now face tariffs. China’s tariffs on U.S. farm products like soybeans have reduced sales by 90 %.  Soybean farmers are looking for new markets, but are having a difficult time replacing the massive purchases that China makes each year.  Tariffs are culminating sales headwinds and investment uncertainty at the fastest rate since 2008.

Sources: CPB World Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Shot – 9/11/19

In the midst of all these economic and business headwinds, executives should be running tight finances, right?  Well, not exactly. Due to a surge in debt issuance, corporations now have the highest debt to GDP ratio in history.  However, they may not have learned about how to keep out of financial trouble.  S & P 500 corporations are paying out more cash than they are taking in, creating a cash flow crunch at a – 15 % rate (that’s right they are burning cash) to maintain stock buyback and dividend levels:

Sources: Compustat, Factset, Goldman Sachs – 7/25/19

Source: RIA PRO (www.riapro.net) Chart of the Day -9/10/2019

Unicorn IPO valuations are off the chart, many with unproven business models and large losses. 2019 has seen the highest value of IPOs since 2000, an indicator of high interest in risky investments and soaring investor sentiment. Not surprising, 2019 has the highest number of negative earnings per share IPO companies since 2000 as well.

Sources: Dealogic, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Shot – 6/18/19

Sources: Jay Ritter, University of Florida, The Wall Street Journal – 3/16/18

The lack of profitability and the number of IPOs ‘to cash out before it’s too late’ evokes memories of the 2000 Dotcom Crash.  Then, investors were looking for ‘high tech growth’ stocks, and as it was assumed that companies would figure out their business model later. 

When?  As an example, Uber just recorded a $5.24 billion loss for the 2nd quarter of 2019.  Lyft lost $644 million in the same quarter.  Despite the popularity of their services, the business models for both ride-sharing companies has yet to be proven. Making profitability even harder for these companies, the State of California legislature just passed a bill recognizing ride-sharing drivers as employees and not contractors. Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the legislation.  If Uber and Lyft have to pay salaries, benefits and other costs for full-time employees they will incur staggering costs, and may likely never be profitable.  Uber says it is building a ‘transportation platform’ where drivers are delivering food and packages not transporting passengers so they can avoid being labeled a passenger transportation company.  Both firms are planning to put an initiative on the ballot to declare their drivers as contractors to save their business models.  It is still unclear, even with drivers being recognized as contractors, that they have viable business models. Yet investors just didn’t care at IPO time, though both stocks have since dropped in price dramatically since their IPO dates. Ride sharing is just one small industry and one example. There are many other unicorns with questionable businesses that are flourishing in the markets.

The suspended disbelief we see today is similar to the sentiment that sent the NDX up nearly 400% just before the Y2K crash.   We can learn from what happened beginning 20 months before the Y2K crash.  The NDX started in October of 1998 at 1063 and peaked at 4816 in May of 2000:

That astounding move up was followed by a roller coaster ride down to 2897 for a 38 % decline by May of 2000, followed further by a two year decline to 795, or 84 % decline from the 2000 peak.  The NDX would not reach the 4816 level again for another 16 years!  Investors had to wait a long time just to break even.

One similarity to the Y2K related drop in sales we see today is from tariffs. Companies have pulled purchases forward to avoid tariffs. Similar activity occurred in 1999 as IT departments bought new software and hardware to solve a possible year 2000 (Y2K) software bug. Software and hardware purchases were pulled forward into 1999, then as one IT manufacturer CEO put it ‘the lights went out on sales.’  The hard dates for tariff increases a year ago forced corporations to pull up purchases that would otherwise be made later in the year, resulting in an unnatural boost followed by a contraction of business activity.

Consumer products will be hit with 15 % tariffs in October and 25 % in December, so consumer, like businesses, are likely moving up their purchases. We expect consumer spending to show increases in August, and September, and decline after that.  A contraction in consumer business operations is likely to follow pulled up consumer purchases.

Plus, investors need to be cognizant of the huge transformation of the world trade infrastructure into two competing trade blocks triggered by the trade war by the U.S. and China as discussed in my post: Navigating A Two Block Trading World. The forming of two trade blocks will change the character of world trade, and therefore create uncertainty in international sales for all businesses dependent on overseas customers to maintain growth and profitability.

Today, sentiment is set in suspended disbelief that ‘the Fed will cut rates’ and make the economy grow.  Corporations are swimming in low-cost debt, with negative cash flows and flat to falling sales.  If the Fed governors pick up an attaché case with a sales pitch and get sales going again then the Fed might have an impact on corporate profitability. Yes, cheap money may help stave off layoffs or cost reductions, but in the end businesses will have to cut costs to match new lower sales levels.

The market ‘hopes’ that a trade deal will revive the economy as well.  An ‘interim’ trade deal where China gives up very little except a commitment to purchase agriculture and livestock products in return for a suspension of increased tariffs won’t change the broad-based tariff damage to the economy.  Unless broad-based tariffs are ended, as 1,100 economists recommended in a letter to the Trump administration 18 months ago, the hemorrhaging of sales will continue.

So what can we learn from today’s investor sentiment compared to sentiment observed during the Dotcom crash?  When the market finally ends its disbelief and is hit with the reality of business fundamentals, the decline will be fast and deep. The melt up, or whatever is left of it, will trigger a melt down.  The 4:1 return difference in the 2000 melt up versus today’s melt up today is likely due to the 4.7 % GDP rate in 1999 versus the forecasted 1.7 % GDP forecasted for 2nd quarter this year.  In 2000, the economy was simply growing a lot faster than today, and productivity was rapidly growly. This helped sentiment and provided some basis for the melt up.  Further the melt up in 1999 was fueled by the Fed providing excessive liquidity to help ensure that Y2K did not shut down the economy.

The current melt up is occurring at a much lower level of economic activity. Yet, both instances are based on a disconnect between what is happening in the economy and the valuations of stocks. The longer the disconnect with fundamentals, the longer it will take for the reversion to the mean to rebalance the economy. Plus, the further the disconnect the larger reversion to the mean or even an overshoot and it will take longer to get back to ‘even’ – maybe 16 years from the peak as we saw in Dotcom Crash in 2000.

Patrick Hill is the Editor of The Progressive Ensign, writes from the heart of Silicon Valley, leveraging 20 years of experience as an executive at firms like HP, Genentech, Verigy, Informatica and Okta to provide investment and economic insights. Twitter: @PatrickHill1677.

The August Jobs Report Confirms The Economy Is Slowing

After the monthly jobs report was released last week, I saw numerous people jumping on the unemployment rate as a measure of success, and in this particular case, Trump’s success as President.

  • Unemployment November 2016: 4.7%
  • Unemployment August 2019: 3.7%

Argument solved.

President Trump has been “Yuugely” successful at putting people to work as represented by a 1% decline in the unemployment rate since his election.

But what about President Obama?

  • Unemployment November 2008: 12.6%
  • Unemployment November 2016: 4.7%

Surely, a 7.9% drop in unemployment should be considered at least as successful as Trump’s 1%.

Right?

Here’s a secret, neither one is important.

First, Presidents don’t put people to work. Corporations do. The reality is that President Obama and Trump had very little to do with the actual economic recovery.

Secondly, as shown below, the recovery in employment began before either President took office as the economic recovery would have happened regardless of monetary interventions. Importantly, note the drop in employment has occurred with the lowest level of annual economic growth on record. (I wouldn’t necessarily be touting this as #winning.)

Lastly, both measures of “employment success” are erroneous due to the multitude of problems with how the entire series is “guessed at.” As noted previously by Morningside Hill:

  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been systemically overstating the number of jobs created, especially in the current economic cycle.
  • The BLS has failed to account for the rise in part-time and contractual work arrangements, while all evidence points to a significant and rapid increase in the so-called contingent workforce.
  • Full-time jobs are being replaced by part-time positions, resulting in double and triple counting of jobs via the Establishment Survey.  (Examples: Uber, Lyft, GrubHub, FedEx, Amazon)
  • A full 93% of the new jobs reported since 2008 were added through the business birth and death model – a highly controversial model which is not supported by the data. On the contrary, all data on establishment births and deaths point to an ongoing decrease in entrepreneurship.
  • Jobless claims have recently reached their lowest level on record which purportedly signals job market strength. Since hiring patterns have changed significantly and increasingly more people are joining the contingent workforce, jobless claims are no longer a good leading economic indicator. Part-time and contract-based workers are most often ineligible for unemployment insurance. In the next downturn, corporations will be able to cut through their contingent workforce before jobless claims show any meaningful uptick.

Nonetheless, despite a very weak payroll number, the general “view” by the mainstream media, and the Federal Reserve, is the economy is still going strong.

In reality, one-month of employment numbers tell us very little about what is happening in the actual economy. While most economists obsess over the data from one month to the next, it is the “trend” of the data which is far more important to understand.

The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment prior to the onset of a recession. The current annual rate of employment growth is 1.4% which is lower than any previous employment level in history prior to the onset of a recession.

But while this is a long-term view of the trend of employment in the U.S., what about right now? The chart below shows the civilian employment level from 1999 to present.

While the recent employment report was slightly below expectations, the annual rate of growth is slowing at a faster pace. Moreover, there are many who do not like the household survey due to the monthly volatility in the data. Therefore, by applying a 3-month average of the seasonally-adjusted employment report, we see the slowdown more clearly.

But here is something else to consider.

While the BLS continually fiddles with the data to mathematically adjust for seasonal variations, the purpose of the entire process is to smooth volatile monthly data into a more normalized trend. The problem, of course, with manipulating data through mathematical adjustments, revisions, and tweaks, is the risk of contamination of bias. A simpler method to use for smoothing volatile monthly data is using a 12-month moving average of the raw data as shown below.

Near peaks of employment cycles, the employment data deviates from the 12-month average, but then reconnects as reality emerges.

Sometimes, “simpler” gives us a better understanding of the data.

Importantly, there is one aspect to all the charts above which remains constant. No matter how you choose to look at the data, peaks in employment growth occur prior to economic contractions, rather than an acceleration of growth. 

But there is more to this story.

A Function Of Population

One thing which is not discussed when reporting on employment is the “growth” of the working-age population. Each month, new entrants into the population create “demand” through their additional consumption. Employment should increase to accommodate for the increased demand from more participants in the economy. Either that or companies resort to automation, off-shoring, etc. to increase rates of production without increases in labor costs. The chart below shows the total increase in employment versus the growth of the working-age population.

The missing “millions” shown in the chart above is one of the “great mysteries” about the longest economic booms in U.S. history. This is particularly a conundrum when the Federal Reserve talks about the economy nearing “full employment.” The disparity shows up in both the Labor Force Participation Rate and those “Not In Labor Force.”

Note that since 2009, the number of those “no longer counted” has dominated the employment trends of the economy. In other words, those “not in labor force” as a percent of the working-age population has skyrocketed.

Of course, as we are all very aware, there are many who work part-time, are going to school, etc. But even when we consider just those working “full-time” jobs, particularly when compared to jobless claims, the percentage of full-time employees is still well below levels of the last 35 years.

It’s All The Baby Boomers Retiring

One of the arguments often given for the low labor force participation rate is that millions of “baby boomers” are leaving the workforce for retirement.

This argument doesn’t carry much weight given that the “Millennial” generation, which is significantly larger, is simultaneously entering the workforce. The other problem is shown below, there are more individuals over the age of 55, as a percentage of that age group, in the workforce today than in the last 50-years.

Of course, the reason they aren’t retiring is that they can’t. After two massive bear markets, weak economic growth, questionable spending habits,and poor financial planning, more individuals over the age of 55 are still working because they simply can’t “afford” to retire.

However, for argument sake, let’s assume that every worker over the age of 55 retires. If the “retiring” argument is valid, then employment participation rates should soar once that group is removed. The chart below is full-time employment relative to the working-age population of 16-54.

Nope.

The other argument is that Millennials are going to school longer than before so they aren’t working either. (We have an excuse for everything these days.)

The chart below strips out those of college-age (16-24) and those over the age of 55.

With the prime working-age group of labor force participants still at levels seen previously in 1988, it does raise the question o2f just how robust the labor market actually is?

Michael Lebowitz touched on this issue previously:

“Why are so many people struggling to find a job and terminating their search if, as we are repeatedly told, the labor market is so healthy? To explain the juxtaposition of the low jobless claims number and unemployment rate with the low participation rate and weak wage growth, a calculation of the participation rate adjusted unemployment rate is revealing.”

‘When people stop looking for a job, they are still unemployed, but they are not included in the U-3 unemployment calculation. If we include those who quit looking for work in the data, the employment situation is quite different. The graph below compares the U-3 unemployment rate to one that assumes a constant participation rate from 2008 to today. Contrary to the U-3 unemployment rate of 3.90%, this metric implies an adjusted unemployment rate of 8.69%.

Importantly, this number is much more consistent with the data we have laid out above, supports the reasoning behind lower wage growth, and is further confirmed by the Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Employment Index.”

(The Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Non-Employment Index including People Working Part-Time for Economic Reasons (NEI+PTER) is a weighted average of all non-employed people and people working part-time for economic reasons expressed as the share of the civilian non-institutionalized population 16 years and older. The weights take into account persistent differences in each group’s likelihood of transitioning back into employment. Because the NEI is more comprehensive and includes tailored weights of non-employed individuals, it arguably provides a more accurate reading of labor market conditions than the standard unemployment rate.)

One of the main factors which was driving the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, and reduce its balance sheet, was the perceived low level of unemployment. However, now, they are trying to lower rates despite an even lower level of unemployment than previous.

The problem for the Federal Reserve is they are caught between a “stagflationary economy” and a “recession.” 

“With record low jobless claims, there is no recession on the horizon.” -says mainstream media.

Be careful with that assumption.

In November of 1969 jobless claims stood at 211,000, having risen slightly from the lows recorded earlier that year. Despite the low number of claims, a recession started a month later, and jobless claims would nearly double within six months.

This episode serves as a reminder that every recession followed interim lows in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. We are confident that the dynamics leading to the next recession will not be any different.

But then again, maybe the yield-curve is already giving us the answer.

Strongest Economy Ever? I Warned You About Negative Revisions

Over the last 18-months, there has been a continual drone of political punditry touting the success of “Trumponomics” as measured by various economic data points. Even the President himself has several times taken the opportunity to tweet about the “strongest economy ever.”

But if it is the “strongest economy ever,” then why the need for aggressive rate cuts which are “emergency measures” to be utilized to offset recessionary conditions?

First, it is hard to have an “aggressive rate-cutting cycle” when you only have 2.4% to work with.

Secondly, I am not sure we want to be like China or Europe economically speaking, and running a $1.5 Trillion deficit during an expansion, suspending the debt ceiling, and expanding spending isn’t that much different.

Nonetheless, I have repeatedly cautioned about the risk of taking credit for the economic bump, or the stock market, as a measure of fiscal policy success. Such is particularly the case when you are a decade into the current economic cycle.

Economic growth is more than just a reported number. The economy has been “in motion” following the last recession due to massive liquidity injections, zero interest rates, and a contraction in the labor force. Much like a “snowball rolling downhill,” the continuation of economic momentum should have been of little surprise.

As an example, we can look at full-time employment (as a percentage of 16-54  which removes the “retiring baby boomer” argument) by President. The rise in full-time employment has been on a steady trend higher following the financial crisis as the economic and financial systems repaired themselves.

As discussed previously, economic data is little more than a “wild @$$ guess” when it is initially reported. However, one-year and three-years later, the data is revised to reveal a more accurate measure of the “real” economy.

Unfortunately, we pay little attention to the revisions.

While there are many in the media touting “the strongest economy ever” since Trump took office, a quick look at a chart should quickly put that claim to rest.

Yes, there was a spurt in economic growth during 2018, which did seem to support the claims that Trump’s policies were working. As I warned then, there were factors at play which were obfuscating the data.

“Lastly, government spending has been very supportive to the markets in particular over the last few quarters as economic growth has picked up. However, that “sugar-high” was created by 3-massive Hurricanes in 2017 which has required billions in monetary stimulus which created jobs in manufacturing and construction and led to a temporary economic lift. We saw the same following the Hurricanes in 2012 as well.”

“These “sugar highs” are temporary in nature. The problem is the massive surge in unbridled deficit spending only provides a temporary illusion of economic growth.”

The importance is that economic “estimates” become skewed by these exogenous factors, and I have warned these over-estimations would be reversed when annual revisions are made.

Last week, the annual revisions to the economic data were indeed negative. The chart below shows “real GDP” pre- and post-revisions.

This outcome was something I discussed previously:

With the Fed Funds rate running at near 2%, if the Fed now believes such is close to a ‘neutral rate,’ it would suggest that expectations of economic growth will slow in the quarters ahead from nearly 6.0% in Q2 of 2018 to roughly 2.5% in 2019.”

However, there is further evidence that actual, organic, economic growth is weaker than the current negative revisions suggest. More importantly, the revisions to the 2019 data, in 2020, will very likely be as negative as well.

This is also the case with the employment data which I discussed previously:

“Months from now, the Establishment Survey will undergo its annual retrospective benchmark revision, based almost entirely on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages conducted by the Labor Department. That’s because the QCEW is not just a sample-based survey, but a census that counts jobs at every establishment, meaning that the data are definitive but take time to collect.”

“The Establishment Survey’s nonfarm jobs figures will clearly be revised down as the QCEW data show job growth averaging only 177,000 a month in 2018. That means the Establishment Survey may be overstating the real numbers by more than 25%.”

There is nothing nefarious going on here.

It is the problem with collecting data from limited samples, applying various seasonal adjustment factors to it, and “guesstimating” what isn’t known. During expansions, the data is always overstated and during recessions it is understated. This is why using lagging economic data as a measure of certainty is always erroneous.

Debt-Driven Growth

I recently discussed the “death of fiscal conservatism” as Washington passed another spending bill.

“In 2018, the Federal Government spent $4.48 Trillion, which was equivalent to 22% of the nation’s entire nominal GDP. Of that total spending, ONLY $3.5 Trillion was financed by Federal revenues, and $986 billion was financed through debt.

In other words, if 75% of all expenditures is social welfare and interest on the debt, those payments required $3.36 Trillion of the $3.5 Trillion (or 96%) of revenue coming in.”

The “good news” is, if you want to call it that, is that Government spending does show up in economic growth. The “bad news” is that government spending has a negative “multiplier” effect since the bulk of all spending goes to non-productive investments. (Read this)

Nonetheless, the President suggests we are “winning.”

The problem is that economic growth less government spending is actually “recessionary.” 

As shown in the chart below, since 2010 it has taken continually increases in Federal expenditures just to maintain economic growth at the same level it was nearly a decade ago. Such a “fiscal feat” is hardly indicative of “winning.”

As Mike Shedlock noted, part of the issue with current economic estimates is simply in how it is calculated.

In GDP accounting, consumption is the largest component. Naturally, it is not possible to consume oneself to prosperity. The ability to consume more is the result of growing prosperity, not its cause. But this is the kind of deranged economic reasoning that is par for the course for today.

In addition to what Tenebrarum states, please note that government transfer payments including Medicaid, Medicare, disability payments, and SNAP (previously called food stamps), all contribute to GDP.

Nothing is “produced” by those transfer payments. They are not even funded. As a result, national debt rises every year. And that debt adds to GDP.”

This is critically important to understand.

While government spending, a function of continually increasing debt, does appear to have an economic benefit, corporate profits tell a very different story.

The Real Economy

I have been noting for a while the divergence between “operating earnings” (or rather “earnings fantasy”) versus corporate profits which are what companies actually report for tax purposes. From “Earnings Growth Much Weaker Than Advertised:”

“The benefit of a reduction in tax rates is extremely short-lived since we compare earnings and profit growth on a year-over-year basis.

In the U.S., the story remains much the same as near-term economic growth has been driven by artificial stimulus, government spending, and fiscal policy which provides an illusion of prosperity.”

Since consumption makes up roughly 70% of the economy, then corporate profits pre-tax profits should be growing if the economy was indeed growing substantially above 2%.”

We now know the economy wasn’t growing well above 2% and, as a consequence, corporate profits have been revised sharply lower on a pre-tax basis.

The reason we are looking at PRE-tax, rather than post-tax, profits is because we can see more clearly what is actually happening at the corporate level.

Since corporate revenues come for the sale of goods and services, if the economy was growing strongly then corporate profits should be reflective of that. However, since 2014, profits have actually been declining. If we take the first chart above and adjust it for the 2019-revisions we find that corporate profits (both pre- and post-tax) are the same level as in 2012 and have been declining for the last three-years in particular.

Again, this hardly indicates the “strongest economy in history.”

These negative revisions to corporate profits also highlight the over-valuation investors are currently paying for asset prices.  Historically, such premiums have had rather horrific “paybacks” as markets eventually “reprice” for reality.

Trump’s Political Risk

While the media is quick to attribute the current economic strength, or weakness, to the person who occupies the White House, the reality is quite different.

Most fiscal, and monetary, policy changes can take up to a year before the impact shows in the economic data. While changes to “tax rates” can have a more immediate impact, “interest rate” changes take longer to filter through.

The political risk for President Trump is taking too much credit for an economic cycle which was already well into recovery before he took office. Rather than touting the economic numbers and taking credit for liquidity-driven financial markets, he should be using that strength to begin the process of returning the country to a path of fiscal discipline rather than a “drunken binge” of spending.

With the economy, and the financial markets, sporting the longest-duration in history, simple logic should suggest time is running out.

This isn’t doom and gloom, it is just a fact.

Politicians, over the last decade, failed to use $33 trillion in liquidity injections, near zero interest rates, and surging asset prices to refinance the welfare system, balance the budget, and build surpluses for the next downturn.

Instead, they only made the deficits worse and the U.S. economy will enter the next recession pushing a $2 Trillion deficit, $24 Trillion in debt, and a $6 Trillion pension gap which will devastate many in their retirement years.

While Donald Trump talked about “Yellen’s big fat ugly bubble” before he took office, he has now pegged the success of his entire Presidency on the stock market.

It will likely be something he eventually regrets.

“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” – Matthew 26, 26:52

Questions About The “Stellar” June Jobs Report (Which Also Confirm The Fed’s Concerns)

On Wednesday, Jerome Powell testified before Congress the U.S. economy is “suffering” from a bout of uncertainty caused by trade tensions and slow global growth. To wit:

“Since [the Fed meeting in mid-June], based on incoming data and other developments, it appears that uncertainties around trade tensions and concerns about the strength of the global economy continue to weigh on the U.S. economic outlook.”

That outlook, however, would seem to be askew of the recent employment report for June from the Bureau of Labor Statistics last week. That report showed an increase in employment of 224,000 jobs. It was also the 105th consecutive positive jobs report, which is one of the longest in U.S. history.

However, if employment is as “strong” as is currently believed, which should be a reflection of the underlying economy, then precisely what is the Fed seeing?

Well, I have a few questions for you to ponder concerning to the latest employment report which may actually support the Fed’s case for rate cuts. These questions are also important to your investment outlook as there is a high correlation between employment, economic growth, and not surprisingly, corporate profitability.

Let’s get started.

Prelude: The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment prior to the onset of a recession. The current annual rate of employment growth is 1.5%, which is lower than any previous employment level prior to a recession in history.

More importantly, as noted by Lakshman Achuthan and Anirvan Banerji via Bloomberg:

“A key part of the answer lies with jobs ‘growth,’ which has been slowing much more than most probably realize. Despite the better-than-forecast jobs report for June, the fact is the labor force has contracted by more than 600,000 workers this year. And we’re not just talking about the disappointing non-farm payroll jobs numbers for April and May.

Certainly, that caused year-over-year payroll growth, based on the Labor Department’s Establishment Survey – a broad survey of businesses and government agencies – to decline to a 13-month low. But year-over-year job growth, as measured by the separate Household Survey – based on a Labor Department survey of actual households – that is used to calculate the unemployment rate is only a hair’s breadth from a five-and-a-half-year low.”


Question: Given the issues noted above, does it seem as if the entirety of the economy is as robust as stated by the mainstream media? More importantly, how does 1.5% annualized growth in employment create sustained rates of higher economic growth going forward?


Prelude: One thing which is never discussed when reporting on employment is the “growth” of the working age population. Each month, new entrants into the population create “demand” through their additional consumption. Employment should increase to accommodate for the increased demand from more participants in the economy. Either that or companies resort to automation, off-shoring, etc. to increase rates of production without increases in labor costs. The next chart shows the total increase in employment versus the growth of the working age population.


Question: Just how “strong” is employment growth? Does it seem that 96%+ of the working-age population is gainfully employed?


Prelude: The missing “millions” shown in the chart above is one of the “great mysteries” about one of the longest economic booms in U.S. history. This is particularly a conundrum when the Federal Reserve talks about the economy nearing “full employment.”

The next several charts focus on the idea of “full employment” in the U.S. While Jobless Claims are reaching record lows, the percentage of full time versus part-time employees is still well below levels of the last 35 years. It is also possible that people with multiple part-time jobs are being double counted in the employment data.


Question: With jobless claims at historic lows, and the unemployment rate below 4%, then why is full-time employment relative to the working-age population at just 50.10% (Only slightly above the 1980 peak)?


Prelude: One of the arguments often given for the low labor force participation rates is that millions of “baby boomers” are leaving the workforce for retirement. This argument doesn’t carry much weight given the significantly larger “Millennial” generation that is simultaneously entering the workforce.

However, for argument sake, let’s assume that every worker over the age of 55 retires. If the “retiring” argument is valid, then employment participation rates should soar once that group is removed. The chart below is full-time employment relative to the working-age population of 16-54.


Question: At 50.38%, and the lowest rate since 1981, just how big of an impact are “retiring baby boomers” having on the employment numbers?


Prelude: One of the reasons the retiring “baby boomer” theory is flawed is, well, they aren’t actually retiring. Following two massive bear markets, weak economic growth, questionable spending habits, and poor financial planning, more individuals over the age of 55 are still working than at any other time since 1960.

The other argument is that Millennials are going to school longer than before so they aren’t working either. The chart below strips out those of college age (16-24) and those over the age of 55. Those between the ages of 25-54 should be working.


Question: With the prime working age group of labor force participants still at levels seen previously in 1988, just how robust is the labor market actually?


Prelude: Of course, there are some serious considerations which need to be taken into account about the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment. The first is the calculation of those no longer counted as part of the labor force. Beginning in 2000, those no longer counted as part of the labor force detached from its longer-term trend. The immediate assumption is all these individuals retired, but as shown above, we know this is not exactly the case.


Question: Where are the roughly 95-million Americans missing from the labor force? This is an important question as it relates to the labor force participation rate. Secondly, these people presumably are alive and participating in the economy so exactly how valid is the employment calculation when 1/3rd of the working-age population is simply not counted?


Prelude: The second questionable calculation is the birth/death adjustment. I addressed this in more detail previously, but here is the general premise.

Following the financial crisis, the number of “Births & Deaths” of businesses unsurprisingly declined. Yet, each month, while the market is glued to the headline number, they additions from the “birth/death” adjustment go both overlooked and unquestioned.

Every month, the BLS adds numerous jobs to the non-seasonally adjusted payroll count to “adjust” for the number of “small businesses” being created each month, which in turns “creates a job.”  (The total number is then seasonally adjusted.)

Here is my problem with the adjustment.

The BLS counts ALL business formations as creating employment. However, in reality, only about 1/5th of businesses created each year actually have an employee. The rest are created for legal purposes like trusts, holding companies, etc. which have no employees whatsoever. This is shown in the chart below which compares the number of businesses started WITH employees from those reported by the BLS. (Notice that beginning in 2014, there is a perfect slope in the advance which is consistent with results from a mathematical projection rather than use of actual data.)

These rather “fictitious” additions to the employee ranks reported each year are not small, but the BLS tends even to overestimate the total number of businesses created each year (employer AND non-employer) by a large amount.

How big of a difference are we talking about?

Well, in the decade between 2006 and 2016 (the latest update from the Census Bureau) the BLS added roughly 7.6 million more employees than were created in new business formations.

This data goes a long way in explaining why, despite record low unemployment, there is a record number of workers outside the labor force, 25% of households are on some form of government benefit, wages remain suppressedand the explosion of the “wealth gap.” 


Question: If 1/3rd of the working-age population simply isn’t counted, and the birth-death adjustment inflates the employment roles, just how accurate is the employment data?


Prelude: If the job market was as “tight” as is suggested by an extremely low unemployment rate, the wage growth should be sharply rising across all income spectrums. The chart below is the annual change in real national compensation (less rental income) as compared to the annual change in real GDP. Since the economy is 70% driven by personal consumption, it should be of no surprise the two measures are highly correlated.

Side Question: Has “renter nation” gone too far?


Question: Again, if employment was as strong as stated by the mainstream media, would not compensation, and subsequently economic growth, be running at substantially stronger levels rather than at rates which have been more normally associated with past recessions?


I have my own assumptions and ideas relating to each of these questions. However, the point of this missive is simply to provide you the data for your own analysis. The conclusion you come to has wide-ranging considerations for investment portfolios and allocation models.

Does the data above support the notion of a strongly growing economy that still has “years left to run?”  

Or, does the fact the Fed is considering cutting interest rates to stimulate economic growth suggests the economy may already be weaker than headlines suggest?

One important note to all of this is the conclusion from Achuthan and Banerji:

“But there’s even more cause for concern. Months from now, the Establishment Survey will undergo its annual retrospective benchmark revision, based almost entirely on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages conducted by the Labor Department. That’s because the QCEW is not just a sample-based survey, but a census that counts jobs at every establishment, meaning that the data are definitive but take time to collect. 

The Establishment Survey’s nonfarm jobs figures will clearly be revised down as the QCEW data show job growth averaging only 177,000 a month in 2018. That means the Establishment Survey may be overstating the real numbers by more than 25%.”

These facts are in sharp contrast to strong job growth narrative.

But then again, maybe the yield-curve is already telling the answer to these questions.

The Bankers Vig And The Price We Pay: The Economic Cost Of Repealing Glass-Steagall

When one bets on a sporting event the facilitator of the bet, referred to as a bookie, charges the winner of the bet the vigorish. The vigorish, commonly known as the vig, is a fixed percentage of the bet that serves as compensation to the bookie for providing numerous betting options (liquidity) and the financial surety of collecting on winning bets.

Financial institutions, like bookies, are intermediaries. They link borrowers with lenders and investors and provide financial security similar to bookies. The fees, or vig, they charge can be thought of as a tax on capital transactions and thus a tax on the economy. If the vig is excessive, individuals, businesses, and the government are unnecessarily sacrificing capital and wealth to bolster the profits of financial institutions.

Regulation is a form of interventionism representing a direct or indirect tax on the economy. More often than not, regulations are sand in the gears of the economic engine with few redeemable benefits and a multitude of unintended consequences. However, sometimes regulation is well worth its cost as it provides benefits that outweigh the economic tax and the burden put on others. 

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was one such example. While the act narrowed the lines of business in which banks could participate, it protected the banks and, more importantly, the nation’s populace from economic depression. Many factors have weighed heavily on the economy in recent years, and in our opinion, the repeal of Glass-Steagall is one of them. Its repeal in 1999 provides a clear breakpoint in the history of financial institutions and the activities this regulation once restricted.  

Removing the Handcuffs

Financial institutions serve as a crucial cog in the economic engine by allowing capital to flow more efficiently. Consider how hard it would be to get a mortgage or auto loan if you had to go to family and friends to borrow money. The task is infinitely complicated when one considers companies and governments that seek hundreds of millions, billions and even trillions of dollars.

Financial institutions that facilitate capital transactions of all sorts are paid fees in various forms. When a financial institution acts as a broker in the trading of secondary market securities, they are typically rewarded with a bid/offer spread or a commission. In the case of new equity and debt offerings, they are paid a fee by the issuing entity. Interest rates on traditional loans to individuals and businesses are typically offered at a spread to the institution’s cost of borrowing, thus ensuring compensation for the financial institution providing the loan. Financial institutions require these fees to incent them to commit their capital and, equally importantly, to protect them from the financial risks embedded within these transactions.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was enacted to combat over-reaching banking activities that led to financial instabilities and fueled the Great Depression. The act’s primary purpose was to prevent another banking collapse like the one that was crippling banks and leaving depositors penniless at the time.  The legislation’s main thrust was to separate traditional banking activities from trading and investing practices. From 1933 until its repeal in 1999, banks taking deposits were prohibited from trading and underwriting in non-government and non-investment grade securities. The act did not prevent financial crises from occurring, but it certainly prevented a crisis anywhere near the magnitude of the Great Depression. 

In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also comically known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) which repealed Glass-Steagall. The repeal, heavily lobbied for by the banking sector, was promoted to the public as a means to unleash bankers’ ability to provide more capital and liquidity to spur economic activity. Less than ten years after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed, financial institutions imploded to a degree not seen since the Great Depression. Without the lifeline of massive tax-payer funded bailouts, unprecedented monetary policy, and questionable accounting standards changes, the financial carnage from the crisis of 2008 might have equaled or even surpassed that of the Great Depression. 

The VIG

Many experts warned at the time that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was another instance of greedy bankers looking for a way to pad the bank’s bottom lines and their paychecks with little consideration for the financial stability of their institutions or the potential economic consequences. The bankers won the battle and, as expected, profits in the financial industry soared almost immediately.

The graph below plots quarterly annualized financial corporate profits from 1948 to current. The data is separated by color to highlight the periods before and after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Additionally, the red dotted regression trend line, showing trend profit growth pre-repeal, serves as a useful gauge to estimate the financial benefit to the banks of repealing Glass-Steagall.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED) (NIPA profits with IVA and CC adjustments, Domestic – BEA)

As seen by the gap higher in profits in 1999, and how profits reset to an approximate 50% premium to the pre-1999 trend line, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a windfall to the financial industry.

The financial industry claims that the significant jump in profits, post-repeal, is not just good for them but indicative of the benefits they deliver to corporate America and the economy. Ignorantly, such arguments fail to consider the massive costs shouldered by the citizens of the United States as a result of bailouts and the massive monetary stimulus that continue in unprecedented fashion to this day.

Measuring the Vig

Excluding the 2008 bailouts, whose costs are measured in the trillions, we attempt to quantify how much the repeal of Glass-Steagall is costing or benefiting economic activity. Said differently, how has the Vig, or economic tax, changed since 1999.

If the bankers are correct that deregulating financial institutions increased economic growth, then we should see an uptick in economic growth commensurate with the increased banking profits as shown above. As highlighted in the graph of GDP below, economic growth did not benefit. In fact, over the last 16 years, the GDP growth rate has been about 2.50% less than the pre-Glass Stegall era. Further, there has not been a quarterly increase in GDP higher than the average growth rate of the prior 50 years.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED)

To further highlight the discrepancy claimed in the chart above, the graph below plots financial institution profits as a percentage of GDP.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED) (NIPA profits with IVA and CC adjustments, Domestic – BEA)

Since 1999, bank profits (green) as a percentage of GDP are running about 1% higher than the red trend line of the prior 50 years. Our blunt take based on the graph above is that the repeal of Glass-Steagall effectively increased the VIG on the economy by 1%.

Furthermore, the collapse in profits in 2008 and 2009 was more than restored to financial institutions through the bailouts and extraordinary monetary policies used in the post-financial crisis era. As discussed above, those policies amount to massive subsidies coming at the cost of taxpayers and savers. They are directed at the banks, allowing them to quickly recoup self-inflicted losses.

Corporations are the heart and soul of the economy. They produce our goods, offer our services, pay our wages, and invest in productivity-enhancing projects. Therefore the capital flows of these companies are an important factor in economic growth. The more efficiently they can borrow and invest, the more innovation they can generate.

Before Glass-Steagall was abolished, financial institutions accounted for 20% of total corporate profits. Over the last 18 years, that amount has doubled to 40%. We remind you that banks do not innovate; their profits represent a missed opportunity for someone else to innovate.

Summary

When banks take a bigger share of the economic pie, labor, investment activity, corporations and shareholders suffer. The removal of Glass-Steagall has resulted in a large shift of capital from those that consume and innovate to the financial intermediaries or the economic bookies. You may think it a trivial matter that financial institutions are subsidized and profit at the expense of others. After all, those additional bank profits accrue to shareholders who in turn invest the capital back into the economy. While plausible, the fact of the matter is banking stocks have not reflected the higher profits. 

The KBW Bank Index has risen about 1% on an annualized basis since the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed. In other words, the shareholders have not been the beneficiaries of the enormous profit growth. Therefore, the riches graphed above have largely gone to those executives and other highly paid employees of these institutions. These circumstances have also widened the wealth imbalance that is so prevalent in the working population today.

If you happen to be one of the beneficiaries of the policies aimed at the financial industry, then you probably have done very well and had no complaints. For the other 99% of the working class, there may be some resentment to the fact that they were not only left behind but that they subsidized the policies fueling the wealth of the top 1%.

The Message From The Jobs Report – The Economy Is Slowing

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published the March monthly “employment report” which showed an increase in employment of 196,000 jobs. As Mike Shedlock noted on Friday:

“The change in total non-farm payroll employment for January was revised up from +311,000 to +312,000, and the change for February was revised up from +20,000 to +33,000. With these revisions, employment gains in January and February combined were 14,000 more than previously reported. After revisions, job gains have averaged 180,000 per month over the last 3 months.

BLS Jobs Statistics at a Glance

  • Nonfarm Payroll: +196,000 – Establishment Survey
  • Employment: -201,000 – Household Survey
  • Unemployment: -24,000 – Household Survey
  • Involuntary Part-Time Work: +189,000 – Household Survey
  • Voluntary Part-Time Work: +144,000 – Household Survey
  • Baseline Unemployment Rate: Unchanged at 3.8% – Household Survey
  • U-6 unemployment: Unchanged at 7.3% – Household Survey
  • Civilian Non-institutional Population: +145,000
  • Civilian Labor Force: -224,000 – Household Survey
  • Not in Labor Force: +369,000 – Household Survey
  • Participation Rate: -0.2 to 63.0– Household Survey”

There is little argument the streak of employment growth is quite phenomenal and comes amid hopes the economy will continue to avoid a recessionary contraction. When looking at the average rate of employment growth over the last 3-months, as Mike noted at 180,000, there is a clear slowing in the trend of employment. It is this “trend” we will examine more closely today.

While a tremendous amount of attention is focused on the monthly employment numbers, the series is one of the most highly manipulated, guesstimated, and annually revised series produced by any agency. The whole issue of seasonal adjustments, which try to account for temporary changes to employment due to a variety of impacts, is entirely too systematic to be taken at face value. The chart below shows the swings between the non-seasonally adjusted and seasonally adjusted data – anything this rhythmic should be questioned rather than taken at face value as “fact.”

As stated, while most economists focus at employment data from one month to the next for clues as to the strength of the economy, it is the “trend” of the data which is far more important to understand.

The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment before the onset of a recession. The current annual rate of employment growth is 1.4% which is lower than any previous employment level prior to a recession in history.

But while this is a long-term view of the trend of employment in the U.S., what about right now? The chart below shows employment from 1999 to present.

While the recent employment report was slightly above expectations, the annual rate of growth is slowing. The chart above shows two things. The first is the trend of the household employment survey on an annualized basis. Secondly, while the seasonally-adjusted reported showed 196,000 jobs created, the actual household survey showed a loss of 200,000 jobs. 

Many do not like the household survey for a variety of reasons but even if we use the 3-month average of seasonally-adjusted employment we see the same picture. (The 3-month average simply smooths out some of the volatility.)

But here is something else to consider.

While the BLS continually adjusts and fiddles with the data to mathematically adjust for seasonal variations, the purpose of the entire process is to smooth volatile monthly data into a more normalized trend. The problem, of course, with manipulating data through mathematical adjustments, revisions, and tweaks, is the risk of contamination of bias. A simpler method to use for smoothing volatile monthly data is using a 12-month moving average of the raw data as shown below.

Notice that near peaks of employment cycles the employment data deviates from the 12-month average but tends to reconnect as reality emerges. (Also, note the pickup in employment due to the slate of “natural disasters” in late 2017 which are now fading as reconstruction completes)

Sometimes, “simpler” gives us a better understanding of the data.

Importantly, there is one aspect to all the charts above which remains constant. No matter how you choose to look at the data, peaks in employment growth occur prior to economic contractions rather than an acceleration of growth. 

However, there is more to this story.

A Function Of Population

One thing which is never discussed when reporting on employment is the “growth” of the working age population. Each month, new entrants into the population create “demand” through their additional consumption. Employment should increase to accommodate the increased demand from more participants in the economy. Either that or companies resort to automation, off-shoring, etc. to increase rates of production without increases in labor costs. The chart below shows the total increase in employment versus the growth of the working age population.

The missing “millions” shown in the chart above is one of the “great mysteries” about one of the longest economic booms in U.S. history. This is particularly a conundrum when the Federal Reserve talks about the economy nearing “full employment.” The Labor Force Participation Rate below shows this great mystery.

Since many conservatives continue to credit President Trump with a booming economy and employment gains, we can look at changes to the labor force participation rate by President as a measure of success. Currently, Trump’s gains are either less than Clinton, the same as Reagan, or tracking Bush Sr.; “spin it” as you will.

Of course, as we are all very aware, there are many people who are working part-time, going to school, etc. But even when we consider just those working “full-time” jobs, particularly when jobless claims are reaching record lows, the percentage of full-time employees is still well below levels of the last 35 years.

“With jobless claims at historic lows, and the unemployment rate at 4%, then why is full-time employment relative to the working-age population at just 50.27% which is down from 50.5% last month?”

It’s All The Baby Boomers Retiring

One of the arguments often given for the low labor force participation rate is that millions of “baby boomers” are leaving the workforce for retirement. This argument doesn’t carry much weight given that the “Millennial” generation, which is significantly larger, is simultaneously entering the workforce. The other problem is shown below, there are more individuals over the age of 55, as a percentage of that age group, in the workforce today than in the last 50-years.

Of course, the reason they aren’t retiring is that they can’t. After two massive bear markets, weak economic growth, questionable spending habits,and poor financial planning, more individuals over the age of 55 are still working because they simply can’t “afford” to retire.

However, for argument sake, let’s assume that every worker over the age of 55 retires. If the “retiring” argument is valid, then employment participation rates should soar once that group is removed. The chart below is full-time employment relative to the working-age population of 16-54.

Importantly, note in the first chart above the number of workers over the age of 55 increased last month. However, employment of 16-54 year olds declined from 50.78% to 50.55%. It is also, the lowest rate since 1985, which was the last time employment was increasing from such low levels.

The other argument is that Millennials are going to school longer than before so they aren’t working either. (We have an excuse for everything these days.) The chart below strips out those of college age (16-24) and those over the age of 55. Uhm…

Here is the same chart of employed 25-54 year olds as a percentage of just that group.

When refined down to this level, talk about data mining, we do actually see recovery, however, after the longest economic expansion on record, a record stock market, and record levels of corporate debt to fund expansions and buybacks; employment ratios for this group are at the same level as seen in 1988. Such should raise the question of just how robust the labor market actually is?

Low initial jobless claims coupled with the historically low unemployment rate are leading many economists to warn of tight labor markets and impending wage inflation. If there is no one to hire, employees have more negotiating leverage according to prevalent theory. While this seems reasonable on its face, further analysis into the employment data suggests these conclusions are not so straightforward.

Strong Labor Statistics

Michael Lebowitz recently pointed out some important considerations in this regard.

“The data certainly suggests that the job market is on fire. While we would like nothing more than to agree, there is other employment data which contradicts that premise.”

For example, if there are indeed very few workers in need of a job, then current workers should have pricing leverage over their employers.  This does not seem to be the case as shown in the graph of personal income below.

Furthermore, a closer inspection of the BLS data reveals that, since 2008, 16 million people were reclassified as “leaving the workforce”. To put those 16 million people into context, from 1985 to 2008, a period almost three times longer than the post-crisis recovery, a similar number of people left the workforce.

Why are so many people struggling to find a job and terminating their search if, as we are repeatedly told, the labor market is so healthy? To explain the juxtaposition of the low jobless claims number and unemployment rate with the low participation rate and weak wage growth, a calculation of the participation rate adjusted unemployment rate is revealing.

When people stop looking for a job, they are still unemployed, but they are not included in the U-3 unemployment calculation. If we include those who quit looking for work in the data, the employment situation is quite different. The graph below compares the U-3 unemployment rate to one that assumes a constant participation rate from 2008 to today. Contrary to the U-3 unemployment rate of 3.90%, this metric implies an adjusted unemployment rate of 8.69%.

Importantly, this number is much more consistent with the data we have laid out above, supports the reasoning behind lower wage growth, and is further confirmed by the Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Employment Index.

(The Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Non-Employment Index including People Working Part-Time for Economic Reasons (NEI+PTER) is a weighted average of all non-employed people and people working part-time for economic reasons expressed as the share of the civilian non-institutionalized population 16 years and older. The weights take into account persistent differences in each group’s likelihood of transitioning back into employment. Because the NEI is more comprehensive and includes tailored weights of non-employed individuals, it arguably provides a more accurate reading of labor market conditions than the standard unemployment rate.)

One of the main factors driving the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and reduce its balance sheet is the perceived low level of unemployment. Simultaneously, multiple comments from Fed officials suggest they are justifiably confused by some of the signals emanating from the jobs data. As we have argued in the past, the current monetary policy experiment has short-circuited the economy’s traditional traffic signals. None of these signals is more important than employment.

As Michael noted:

“Logic and evidence argue that, despite the self-congratulations of central bankers, good wage-paying jobs are not as plentiful as advertised and the embedded risks in the economy are higher. We must consider the effects that these sequences of policy error might have on the economy – one where growth remains anemic and jobs deceptively elusive.

Given that wages translate directly to personal consumption, a reliable interpretation of employment data has never been more important. Oddly enough, it appears as though that interpretation has never been more misleading. If we are correct that employment is weak, then future rate hikes and the planned reduction in the Fed’s balance sheet will begin to reveal this weakness soon.”

As an aside, it is worth noting that in November of 1969 jobless claims stood at 211,000, having risen slightly from the lows recorded earlier that year. Despite the low number of claims, a recession started a month later, and jobless claims would nearly double within six months. This episode serves as a reminder that every recession followed interim lows in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. We are confident that the dynamics leading to the next recession will not be any different.

But then again, maybe the yield-curve is already giving us the answer.

You Have A “Trading” Problem – 10 Steps To Fix It

In April of 2018, I wrote an article entitled “10-Reasons The Bull Market Ended In 2018” in which I concluded:

“There is a reasonably high possibility, the bull market that started in 2009 has ended. We may not know for a week, a month or even possibly a couple of quarters. Topping processes in markets can take a very long time.

If I am right, the conservative stance and hedges in portfolios will protect capital in the short-term. The reduced volatility allows for a logical approach to further adjustments as the correction becomes more apparent. (The goal is not to be forced into a ‘panic selling’ situation.)

If I am wrong, and the bull market resumes, we simply remove hedges and reallocate equity exposure.

‘There is little risk, in managing risk.’

The end of bull markets can only be verified well after the fact, but therein lies the biggest problem. Waiting for verification requires a greater destruction of capital than we are willing to endure.”

It is important to remember, that “Risk” is simply the function of how much you will lose when you are wrong in your assumptions.

2018 has been a year of predictions gone horribly wrong.

Not surprisingly, after a decade-long bull market, individuals who were betting on a more positive outcome this year are now clinging to “hope.”

Do you remember all of the analysis about how:

  • Rate hikes won’t matter
  • Surging earnings due to tax cuts will power the market higher
  • Valuations are reasonable

These were all issues which we have heavily questioned over the last couple of years.

And the majority of our warnings “fell on deaf ears” as just being simply “bearish.” 

Of course, you really can’t blame the average investor for ignoring fundamental realities considering they have been repeatedly told the stock market is a “sure thing.” Just “buy and hold” and the market will return 10% a year just as it has over the last 100 years.

This fallacy has been so repeatedly espoused by pundits, brokers, financial advisors, and the media that it has become accepted as “truth.”

But, if it were true, then explain why roughly 80% of Americans, according to numerous surveys, have less than one years salary saved up on average? Furthermore, no one who simply bought and held the S&P 500 has ever lost money over a 10- or 20-year time span. Right? 

Not exactly.

Here is the problem.

No matter how resolute people think they are about buying and holding, they usually fall into the same old emotional pattern of “buying high” and “selling low.”

Investors are human beings. As such, we gravitate towards what feels good and we seek to avoid pain. When things are euphoric in the market, typically at the top of a long bull market, we buy when we should be selling. When things are painful, at the end of a bear market, we sell when we should be buying.

In fact, it’s usually the final capitulation of the last remaining “holders” that sets up the end of the bear market and the start of a new bull market. As Sy Harding says in his excellent book “Riding The Bear:” 

“No such creature as a ‘buy and hold’ investor ever emerged from the other side of the subsequent bear market.”

Statistics compiled by Ned Davis Research back up Harding’s assertion. Every time the market declines more than 10%, (and “real” bear markets don’t even officially begin until the decline is 20%), mutual funds experience net outflows of investor money. To wit:

“Lipper also found the largest outflows on record from stocks ($46BN)the largest outflows since December 2015 from taxable bond ($13.4BN) and Investment Grade bond ($3.7BN) funds, and the 4th consecutive week of outflows from high yield bonds ($2.1BN), offset by a panic rush into cash as money market funds attracted over $81BN in inflows, the largest inflow on record.”

“Fear is a stronger emotion than greed.”

Most bear markets last for months (the norm), or even years (both the 1929 and 1966 bear markets), and one can see how the torture of losing money week after week, month after month, would wear down even the most determined “buy and hold” investor.

But the average investor’s pain threshold is a lot lower than that. The research shows that it doesn’t matter if the bear market lasts less than 3 months (like the 1990 bear) or less than 3 days (like the 1987 bear). People will still sell out, usually at the very bottom, and almost always at a loss.

So THAT is how it happens.

And the only way to avoid it – is to avoid owning stocks during bear markets. If you try to ride them out, odds are you’ll fail. And if you believe that we are in a “New Era,” and that bear markets are a thing of the past, your next of kin will have our sympathies.

But you can do something about it.

Just like any “detox” program, these are the steps to follow to becoming a better long-term investor.

10-Step Process To Curing The Addiction

STEP 1: Admitting there is a problem 

The first step in solving any problem is to realize that you have a “trading” problem. Be willing to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation

STEP 2: You are where you are

It doesn’t matter what your portfolio was in March of 2000, March of 2009, or last Friday.  Your portfolio value is exactly what it is, rather it is realized or unrealized. The loss is already lost, and understanding that will help you come to grips with needing to make a change. Open those statements and look at them – shock therapy is usually effective in bringing about awareness.

STEP 3:  You are not a loser

Most people have a tendency to believe that if they “sell a loser,” then they are a “loser” by extension. They try to ignore the situation, or hide the fact they lost money, which in turn causes more mistakes. This only exacerbates the entire problem until they then try to assign blame to anyone and anything else.

You are not a loser. You made an investment mistake. You lost money. 

It has happened to every person that has ever invested in the stock market, and there are many others who lost more than you.

STEP 4:  Accept responsibility

In order to begin the repair process, you must accept responsibility for your situation. It is not the market’s fault. It is not your advisor’s or money manager’s fault, nor is it the fault of Wall Street. 

It is your fault.

Once you accept that it is your fault and begin fixing the problem, rather than postponing the inevitable and suffering further consequences of inaction, only then can you begin to move forward.

STEP 5:  Understand that markets change

Markets change due to a huge variety of factors from interest rates to currency risks, political events, to geo-economic challenges.

If this is a true statement, then how does it make sense to buy and hold?

If markets are in a constant state of flux, and your portfolio remains in a constant state, then the law of change must apply: 

The law of change:  Change will occur and the elements in the environment will adapt or become extinct and that extinction in and of itself is a consequence of change. 

Therefore, if you are a buy and hold investor then you have to modify and adapt to an ever-changing environment or you will become extinct.

STEP 6:  Ask for help

This market has baffled, and confused, even the best of investors and will likely continue to do so for a while. So, what chance do you have doing it on your own?

Don’t be afraid to ask, or get help, if you need it. This is no longer a market which will forgive mistakes easily and while you may pay a little for getting help, a helping hand may keep you from making more costly investment mistakes in the future.

STEP 7:  Make change gradually

No one said that change was going to easy or painless. Going against every age-old philosophy and piece of advice you have ever been given about investing is tough, confusing and froth with doubt.

However, make changes gradually at first – test the waters and measure the results. For example, sell the positions that are smallest in size with the greatest loss. You will make no noticeable change in the portfolio right away, but it will make you realize that you can actually execute a sell order without suffering a negative consequence.

Gradually work your way through the portfolio on rallies and cleanse the portfolio of the evil seeds of greed that now populate it, and replace them with a garden of investments that will flourish over time.

STEP 8:  Develop a strategy 

Now that you have cleaned everything up you should be feeling a lot more in control of your portfolio and your investments. Now you are ready to start moving forward in the development of a goal-based investment strategy.

If your portfolio is a hodge-podge of investments, then how do you know whether or not your portfolio will generate the return you need to meet your goals. A goal-based investment strategy builds the portfolio to match investments, and investment vehicles, in an orderly structure to deliver the returns necessary with the least amount of risk possible. Ditch the benchmark index and measure your progress against your investment destination instead.

STEP 9:  Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Once you have designed the strategy, including monthly contributions to the plan, it is time to implement it. This is where the work truly begins.

  • You must learn the plan inside and out so every move you make has a reason and a purpose. 
  • You must live the plan so that adjustments are made to the plan, and the investments, to match performance, time and value horizons.
  • Finally, you must love the plan so that you believe in it and will not deviate from it. 

It must become a part of your daily life, otherwise, it will be sacrificed for whims and moments of weakness.

STEP 10:  Live your life 

That’s it.

You are in control of your situation rather than the situation controlling you.

The markets will continue to remain volatile as a more important “bear market” takes hold in the next year or so.

The good news is that there will be lots of opportunities to make money along the way.

But that is just how it works. As long as you work your plan, the plan will work for you, and you will reach your goals…eventually.

There is no “get rich quick” plan.

So, live your life, enjoy your family, and do whatever it is that you do best. Most importantly, make your portfolio work as hard for you as you did for the money you put into it.

Did The Market Miss Powell’s Real Message?

Last week, I discussed the recent message from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell which sent the markets surging higher.

“During his speech, Powell took to a different tone than seen previously and specifically when he stated that current rates are ‘just below’ the range of estimates for a ‘neutral rate.’ This is a sharply different tone than seen previously when he suggested that a “neutral rate” was still a long way off.

Importantly, while the market surged higher after the comments on the suggestion the Fed was close to ‘being done’ hiking rates, it also suggests the outlook for inflation and economic growth has fallen. With the Fed Funds rate running at near 2%, if the Fed now believes such is close to a ‘neutral rate,’ it would suggest that expectations of economic growth will slow in the quarters ahead from nearly 6.0% in Q2 of 2018 to roughly 2.5% in 2019.”

Since then, the bond market has picked up on that realization as the yield has flattened considerably over the last few days as the 10-year interest rate broke back below the 3% mark. The chart below shows the difference between the 2-year and the 10-year interest rate.

Now, there are many who continue to suggest “this time is different” and an inverted yield curve is not signaling a recession, and Jerome Powell’s recent comments are “in line” with a “Goldilocks economy.”

Maybe.

But historically speaking, while an inversion of the yield curve may not “immediately” coincide with a recessionary onset, given its relationship to economic activity it is likely a “foolish bet” to suggest it won’t. A quick trip though the Fed’s rate hiking history and “soft landing” scenarios give you some clue as to their success.

While the Fed has been acting on previously strong inflationary data due to surging oil prices, the real long-term drivers of inflation pressures weren’t present. I have commented on this previously, but Kevin Giddis from Raymond James had a good note on this:

“We have always known that the bond market wasn’t as worried about inflation as the Fed, but it really needed the Fed to come out and indicate a ‘shift’ in that way of thought to seal the deal.”

This is exactly correct, and despite the many arguments to the contrary we have repeatedly stated the rise in interest rates was a temporary phenomenon as “rates impact real economic activity.” The “real economy,” due to a surge in debt-financed activity, was not nearly strong enough to withstand substantially higher rates. Of course, such has become readily apparent in the recent housing and auto sales data.

Flat As A Pancake

All of sudden, the bond market has woken up to reality after a year-long slumber. The current spread between the 2-year note and the 10-year note is as tight as it has been in many years and has rarely occurred when the economic fundamentals were as strong as many believe.

The reality, of course, is much of the current strength in economic activity is not from organic inputs in a consumer-driven economy, but rather from one-off impacts of several natural disasters, a surge in consumer debt, and a massive surge in deficit spending. To wit:

“The problem is the massive surge in unbridled deficit spending only provides a temporary illusion of economic growth. Over the long-term, debt leads to economic suppression. Currently, the deficit is rapidly approaching $1 Trillion, and will exceed that level in 2019, which will require further increases in the national debt.”

“There is a limited ability to issue debt to pay for excess spending. The problem with running a $1 Trillion deficit during an economic expansion is that it reduces the effectiveness of that tool during the next recession.”

Our assessment of Powell’s change in tone comes from the message the bond market is sending about the risk to the economy. Since economic data is revised in arrears, the onset of a recession will likely surprise most economists when they learn about it “after the fact.”  Let’s go back to Kevin:

“Here is what we know right now:

1) The U.S. economy seems to be slowing, falling under the weight of higher borrowing costs. What’s hard to predict is whether this is a trend change or a temporary pause.

2) The Fed appeared to blink last week, but we won’t know for sure until December 19th when they release their Rate Decision and ‘tell’ the market what the forward-looking path looks like to them.

3) Inflation is well-contained. For all of you who left town riding on the ‘inflation train,’ welcome back.

4) Global economies are weakening and could get weaker.

5) Friday’s release of the Employment Report should give the market guidance on wages, but not much else.

Kevin is correct, take a look at inflation breakeven rates.

It is quite likely these are not temporary stumbles, but rather a more important change in the previous trends. More importantly, the “global weakness” has continued to accelerate and given that roughly 40% of corporate profits are driven by exports, this does not bode well for extremely lofty earnings forecasts going into 2019.

What Powell Really Said

Caroline Baum had an interesting comment on MarketWatch on Tuesday morning:

“I read with interest the articles last week about the Federal Reserve’s new “unpredictable” and “flexible” approach to monetary policy. No longer can financial markets rely on the gradual, premeditated and practically pre-announced adjustments to the benchmark overnight interest rate, according to these analyses. From now on, the Fed will be ‘data dependent.’”

The whole article is worth a read, but the point being made is that the Fed has always been “data dependent” even if their ability to read and interpret the data has been somewhat flawed. The table below is the average range of their predictions for GDP they publish each quarter versus what really happened.

As Caroline noted, the September projections pegged the “neutral rate” range at 2.5-3.5% with a median estimate of 3%. If Powell is indeed suggesting that the neutral rate has fallen to the low-end of that range, he is likely only confirming what the “yield curve” has been telling us for months. As I quoted previously:

“The yield curve itself does not present a threat to the U.S. economy, but it does reflect a change in bond investor expectations about Federal Reserve actions and about the durability of our current economic expansion.”

Importantly, yield curves, like valuations, are “terrible” with respect to the “timing” of the economic slowdown and/or the impact to the financial markets. So, the longer the economy and markets continue to grow without an event, or sign of weakness, investors begin to dismiss the indicator under the premise “this time is different.” 

The spread between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury rates, historically a good predictor of economic recessions, is also suggesting that Powell may have “woken up to smell the coffee.” While the curve is not inverted as of yet, the trend of the spread is clearly warning the economy is much weaker much of the mainstream economists suggests. (The boosts to economic growth are now all beginning to fade and the 2nd-derivative of growth will begin to become more problematic starting in Q4.)

Mr. Powell most likely also realizes that continuing to tighten monetary policy will simply accelerate the time frame to the onset of the next recession. In fact, there have been absolutely ZERO times in history that the Federal Reserve has begun an interest-rate hiking campaign that has not eventually led to a negative outcome.

The only question is the timing.

There are currently too many indicators already suggesting higher rates are impacting interest rate sensitive, and economically important, areas of the economy. The only issue is when investors recognize the obvious and sell in the anticipation of a market decline.

As I discussed previously, the stock market is a strong leading indicator of economic turns and the turmoil this year may be signaling just that.

Believing that professional investors will simply ignore the weight of evidence to contrary in the “hopes” this “might” be different this time is not a good bet as “risk-based” investors will likely act sooner, rather than later. Of course, the contraction in liquidity causes the decline in asset prices which will contribute to the economic contraction as consumer confidence is shattered. Importantly, since recessions are only identified in hindsight when current data is negatively revised in the future, it won’t become “obvious” the yield curve was sending the correct message until far too late to be useful.

While it is unwise to use the “yield curve” as a “market timing” tool, it is just as unwise to completely dismiss the message it is currently sending.

Jeremy Grantham’s Best Long-Term Advice For Investors

Over the weekend, I was reviewing some old commentary and stumbled across a piece from 2012 which contained an excerpt from Jeremy Grantham who is the famed investor at GMO.

I have spoken, and written many times in the past, that the media and Wall Street alike promotes the bullish and optimistic views not because it is correct – but because it sells product. There is no value in telling the retail investor the truth about the risks in the market because investors would pull money out of the market which would reduce Wall Street’s profitability. In other words, the bullish and optimistic marketing machines are good for their bottom line – just not necessarily yours.  This is one of the primary points that Jeremy Grantham brought out in his commentary.

This is a read which is well worth your time and consideration. It speaks to the very issues that we address most often about understanding the long-term risks to your portfolio, investment rules, and the legacy that we are leaving to our children.

It was refreshing and enlightening in 2012. It is just as important and educational today. I have added illustrations to support his points.

Advice From Uncle Polonius

by Jeremy Grantham, GMO

For individual investors setting out on dangerous investment voyages.

Believe in history. In investing Santayana is right: history repeats and repeats, and forget it at your peril. All bubbles break, all investment frenzies pass away. You absolutely must ignore the vested interests of the industry and the inevitable cheerleaders who will assure you that this time it’s a new high plateau or a permanently higher level of productivity, even if that view comes from the Federal Reserve itself. No. Make that, especially if it comes from there. The market is gloriously inefficient and wanders far from fair price but eventually, after breaking your heart and your patience (and, for professionals, those of their clients too), it will go back to fair value. Your task is to survive until that happens. Here’s how.

Neither a lender nor a borrower be.” If you borrow to invest, it will interfere with your survivability. Unleveraged portfolios cannot be stopped out, leveraged portfolios can. Leverage reduces the investor’s critical asset: patience. (To digress, excessive borrowing has turned out to be an even bigger curse than Polonius could have known. It encourages financial aggressiveness, recklessness, and greed. It increases your returns over and over until, suddenly, it ruins you. For individuals, it allows you to have today what you really can’t afford until tomorrow. It has proven to be so seductive that individuals en masse have shown themselves incapable of resisting it, as if it were a drug. Governments also, from the Middle Ages onwards and especially now, it seems, have proven themselves equally incapable of resistance. Any sane society must recognize the lure of debt and pass laws accordingly. Interest payments must absolutely not be tax deductible or preferred in any way. Governments must apparently be treated like Polonius’s children and given limits. By law, cumulative government debt should be given a sensible limit of, say, 50% of GDP, with current transgressions given 10 or 20 years to be corrected.) But, back to investing …

Don’t put all of your treasure in one boat. This is about as obvious as any investment advice could be. It was learned by merchants literally thousands of years ago. Several different investments, the more the merrier, will give your portfolio resilience, the ability to withstand shocks. Clearly, the more investments you have and the more different they are, the more likely you are to survive those critical periods when your big bets move against you.

Be patient and focus on the long term. Wait for the good cards. If you’ve waited, and waited some more, until finally a very cheap market appears, this will be your margin of safety. Now all you have to do is withstand the pain as the very good investment becomes exceptional. Individual stocks usually recover, entire markets always do. If you’ve followed the previous rules, you will outlast the bad news.

Try to contain natural optimism. Optimism has probably been a positive survival characteristic. Our species is optimistic, and successful people are probably more optimistic than average. Some societies are also more optimistic than others: the U.S. and Australia are my two picks. I’m sure (but I’m glad I don’t have to prove it) that it has a lot to do with their economic success. The U.S. in particular encourages risk-taking: failed entrepreneurs are valued, not shunned. But optimism comes with a downside, especially for investors: optimists don’t like to hear bad news. Tell a European you think there’s a housing bubble and you’ll have a reasonable discussion. Tell an Australian and you’ll have World War III. Been there, done that! And in a real stock bubble like that of 2000, bearish news in the U.S. will be greeted like news of the bubonic plague; bearish professionals will be fired just to avoid the dissonance of hearing the bear case, and this is an example where the better the case is made, the more unpleasantness it will elicit. Here again it is easier for an individual to stay cool than it is for a professional who is surrounded by hot news all day long (and sometimes irate clients too). Not easy, but easier.

But on rare occasions, try hard to be brave. You can make bigger bets than professionals can when extreme opportunities present themselves because, for them, the biggest risk that comes from temporary setbacks – extreme loss of clients and business – does not exist for you. So, if the numbers tell you it’s a real outlier of a mispriced market, grit your teeth and go for it. This goes against the natural psychological behaviors of humans.

Resist the crowd: cherish numbers only. We can agree that in real life as opposed to theoretical life, this is the hardest advice to take: the enthusiasm of a crowd is hard to resist. Watching neighbors get rich at the end of a bubble while you sit it out patiently is pure torture. The best way to resist is to do your own simple measurements of value, or find a reliable source (and check their calculations from time to time). Then hero-worship the numbers and try to ignore everything else. Ignore especially short-term news: the ebb and flow of economic and political news is irrelevant. Stock values are based on their entire future value of dividends and earnings going out many decades into the future. Shorter-term economic dips have no appreciable long-term effect on individual companies, let alone the broad asset classes that you should concentrate on. Leave those complexities to the professionals, who will on average lose money trying to decipher them

Remember too that for those great opportunities to avoid pain or make money – the only investment opportunities that really matter – the numbers are almost shockingly obvious: compared to a long-term average of 15 times earnings, the 1929 market peaked at 21 times, but the 2000 S&P 500 tech bubble peaked at 35 times! Conversely, the low in 1982 was under 8 times. This is not about complicated math!

In the end it’s quite simple. Really. GMO predicts asset class returns in a simple and apparently robust way: we assume profit margins and price earnings ratios will move back to long-term average in 7 years from whatever level they are today. We have done this since 1994 and have completed 40 quarterly forecasts. (We started with 10-year forecasts and moved to 7 years more recently.) Well, we have won all 40 in that every one of them has been usefully above random and some have been, well, surprisingly accurate. These estimates are not about nuances or PhDs. They are about ignoring the crowd, working out simple ratios, and being patient. (But, if you are a professional, they would also be about colossal business risk.) These forecasts were done with a robust but simple methodology. The problem is that though they may be simple to produce, they are hard for professionals to implement. Some of you individual investors, however, may find it much easier.

This above all: to thine own self be true.” Most of us tennis players have benefited from playing against non-realists: those who play to some romanticized vision of that glorious September day 20 years earlier, when every backhand drive hit the corner and every drop shot worked, rather than to their currently sadly atrophied skills and diminished physical capabilities. And thank Heavens for them. But doing this in investing is brutally expensive. To be at all effective investing as an individual, it is utterly imperative that you know your limitations as well as your strengths and weaknesses. If you can be patient and ignore the crowd, you will likely win. But to imagine you can, and to then adopt a flawed approach that allows you to be seduced or intimidated by the crowd into jumping in late, or getting out early, is to guarantee a pure disaster. You must know your pain and patience thresholds accurately and not play over your head.

Good luck. Uncle Polonius

Let’s Be Like Japan

There has been a lot of angst lately over the rise in interest rates and the question of whether the government will be able to continue to fund itself given the massive surge in the fiscal deficit since the beginning of the year.

While “spending like drunken sailors” is not a long-term solution to creating economic stability, unbridled fiscal stimulus does support growth in the short-term. Spending on natural disaster recovery last year (3-major hurricanes and two wildfires) led to a pop in Q2 and Q3 economic growth rates. The two recent hurricanes that slammed into South Carolina and Florida were big enough to sustain a bump in activity into early 2019. However, all that activity is simply “pulling forward” future growth.

But the most recent cause of concern behind the rise in interest rates is that there will be a “funding shortage” of U.S. debt at a time where governmental obligations are surging higher. I agree with Kevin Muir on this point who recently noted:

“Well, let me you in on a little secret. The US will have NO trouble funding itself. That’s not what’s going on.

If the bond market was truly worried about US government’s deficits, they would be monkey-hammering the long-end of the bond market. Yet the US 2-year note yields 2.88% while the 30-year bond is only 55 basis points higher at 3.43%. That’s not a yield curve worried about US fiscal situation.

And let’s face it, if Japan can maintain control of their bond market with their bat-shit-crazy debt-to-GDP level of 236%, the US will be just fine for quite some time.”

That’s not a good thing by the way.

Let’s Be Like Japan

“Bad debt is the root of the crisis. Fiscal stimulus may help economies for a couple of years but once the ‘painkilling’ effect wears off, U.S. and European economies will plunge back into crisis. The crisis won’t be over until the nonperforming assets are off the balance sheets of US and European banks.” – Keiichiro Kobayashi, 2010

While Kobayashi will ultimately be right, what he never envisioned was the extent to which Central Banks globally would be willing to go. As my partner Michael Lebowitz pointed out previously:

“Global central banks’ post-financial crisis monetary policies have collectively been more aggressive than anything witnessed in modern financial history. Over the last ten years, the six largest central banks have printed unprecedented amounts of money to purchase approximately $14 trillion of financial assets as shown below. Before the financial crisis of 2008, the only central bank printing money of any consequence was the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC).”

The belief was that by driving asset prices higher, economic growth would follow. Unfortunately, this has yet to be the case as debt both globally and specifically in the U.S. has exploded.

“QE has forced interest rates downward and lowered interest expenses for all debtors. Simultaneously, it boosted the amount of outstanding debt. The net effect is that the global debt burden has grown on a nominal basis and as a percentage of economic growth since 2008. The debt burden has become even more burdensome.”

Not surprisingly, the massive surge in debt has led to an explosion in the financial markets as cheap debt and leverage fueled a speculative frenzy in virtually every asset class.

The continuing mounting of debt from both the public and private sector, combined with rising health care costs, particularly for aging “baby boomers,” are among the factors behind soaring US debt. While “tax reform,” in a “vacuum”  should boost rates of consumption and, ultimately, economic growth, the economic drag of poor demographics and soaring costs, will offset many of the benefits.

The complexity of the current environment implies years of sub-par economic growth ahead as noted by the Fed last week as their long-term projections, along with the CBO, remain mired at 2%.

The US is not the only country facing such a gloomy outlook for public finances, but the current economic overlay displays compelling similarities with Japan in the 1990s.

Also, while it is believed that “tax reform” will fix the problem of lackluster wage growth, create more jobs, and boost economic prosperity, one should at least question the logic given that more expansive spending, as represented in the chart above by the surge in debt, is having no substantial lasting impact on economic growth. As I have written previously, debt is a retardant to organic economic growth as it diverts dollars from productive investment to debt service.

One only needs to look at Japan for an understanding that QE, low-interest rate policies, and expansion of debt have done little economically. Take a look at the chart below which shows the expansion of the BOJ assets versus the growth of GDP and levels of interest rates.

Notice that since 1998, Japan has not achieved a 2% rate of economic growth. Even with interest rates still near zero, economic growth remains mired below one-percent, providing little evidence to support the idea that inflating asset prices by buying assets leads to stronger economic outcomes.

But yet, the current Administration believes our outcome will be different.

With the current economic recovery already pushing the long end of the economic cycle, the risk is rising that the next economic downturn is closer than not. The danger is that the Federal Reserve is now potentially trapped with an inability to use monetary policy tools to offset the next economic decline when it occurs.

This is the same problem that Japan has wrestled with for the last 25 years. While Japan has entered into an unprecedented stimulus program (on a relative basis twice as large as the U.S. on an economy 1/3 the size) there is no guarantee that such a program will result in the desired effect of pulling the Japanese economy out of its 30-year deflationary cycle. The problems that face Japan are similar to what we are currently witnessing in the U.S.:

  • A decline in savings rates to extremely low levels which depletes productive investments
  • An aging demographic that is top heavy and drawing on social benefits at an advancing rate.
  • A heavily indebted economy with debt/GDP ratios above 100%.
  • A decline in exports due to a weak global economic environment.
  • Slowing domestic economic growth rates.
  • An underemployed younger demographic.
  • An inelastic supply-demand curve
  • Weak industrial production
  • Dependence on productivity increases to offset reduced employment

The lynchpin to Japan, and the U.S., remains demographics and interest rates. As the aging population grows becoming a net drag on “savings,” the dependency on the “social welfare net” will continue to expand. The “pension problem” is only the tip of the iceberg.

If interest rates rise sharply it is effectively “game over” as borrowing costs surge, deficits balloon, housing falls, revenues weaken and consumer demand wanes. It is the worst thing that can happen to an economy that is currently remaining on life support.

Japan, like the U.S., is caught in an on-going “liquidity trap”  where maintaining ultra-low interest rates are the key to sustaining an economic pulse. The unintended consequence of such actions, as we are witnessing in the U.S. currently, is the ongoing battle with deflationary pressures. The lower interest rates go – the less economic return that can be generated. An ultra-low interest rate environment, contrary to mainstream thought, has a negative impact on making productive investments and risk begins to outweigh the potential return.

More importantly, while there are many calling for an end of the “Great Bond Bull Market,” this is unlikely the case for two reasons.

  1. As shown in the chart below, interest rates are relative globally. Rates can’t rise in one country while a majority of global economies are pushing low to negative rates. As has been the case over the last 30-years, so goes Japan, so goes the U.S.
  2. Increases in rates also kill economic growth which drags rates lower. Like Japan, every time rates begin to rise, the economy rolls into a recession. The U.S. will face the same challenges. 

Unfortunately, for the current Administration, the reality is that cutting taxes, tariffs, and sharp increases in debt, is unlikely to change the outcome in the U.S. The reason is simply that monetary interventions, and government spending, don’t create organic, sustainable, economic growth. Simply pulling forward future consumption through monetary policy continues to leave an ever-growing void in the future that must be filled. Eventually, the void will be too great to fill.

But hey, let’s just keep doing the same thing over and over again, which hasn’t worked for anyone as of yet, but we can always hope for a different result. 

What’s the worst that could happen?  

All Markets Are Cyclical – When Will This One End?

I always enjoy reading John Stepek’s work at MoneyWeek. Just recently he addressed the question of where are we in the current market cycle. To wit:

“In his latest memo to clients, [Howard Marks] outlines his basic philosophy and how it affects Oaktree’s investment process at the moment. Marks’ basic point – which appears pretty self-evident, though you’d be surprised by how many people try to deny it – is that markets move in cycles.

The tricky part is trying to work out when the cycle is going to turn.”

This is a fascinating point as it is not just individuals who try and deny that markets, and the economy, move in cycles but also the Federal Reserve and Government agencies. As I noted last week, the Congressional Budget Office is currently estimating the next 10-years of growth in the economy at a steady 2%.

Given this is already approaching the longest economic growth cycle in history, at the lowest rate of growth, and with the Federal Reserve hiking rates, it is highly unlikely the economy will remain “recession free” for another decade. It is also important to note the CBO didn’t predict the recessions in 2001-2002 or in 2008. In fact, in 2000 the CBO predicted the U.S. would be running a $1 Trillion surplus by 2010. They were only off by $2 Trillion when 2010 finally rolled around.

What is clear is that both markets and the economy do not only cycle, but cycle together.

However, knowing when these cycles will occur isn’t that simple. As John notes:

“Of course, it’s not that simple. You might know that winter is coming; you’ll also know when it’s here. But can that knowledge tell you when the first snow will fall – or if it will fall at all?

And there’s your problem right there. Markets might be cyclical but timing them is almost impossible. You might know that the equivalent of an asset-market winter is coming. But you don’t know when it will hit and you don’t know how severe it will be.

So – to put it bluntly – what is the use of a theory of market cycles if it can’t tell you when to invest and when to pull out?”

That is absolutely correct. But it also the same analysis given for valuations.

Just like market and economic cycles, valuations are a horrible “timing” indicator. But like cycles, valuations are simply an indication of expected returns in the future.

As Marks noted there is no magic formula, or timing device, that can tell you “go to cash now” or “go all in today”. However, it is quite obvious that when valuations are elevated, and interest rates are rising, taking on excessive portfolio risk will have a very low future return.

The same goes for market and economic cycles. Today, there are plenty of warning signs which suggest we are nearer the top of this particular cycle versus than not.

As I noted previously:

“Timing, as they say, is everything.

It is worth noting that valuations clearly run in cycles over time. The current evolution of valuations has been extended longer than previous cycles due to 30-years of falling interest rates, massive increases in debt and leverage, unprecedented amounts of artificial stimulus, and government spending.”

No matter how you look at the markets currently, there are substantial signs of excess:

  • Corporate leverage is at all time highs
  • Margin debt is a record levels
  • Investor allocations to equities are pushing record levels
  • Investor allocations to cash are at record lows
  • Investor confidence is at record levels
  • Economic confidence is at record levels
  • Rates are rising
  • Jobless claims are at record lows
  • Stock valuations are at the second highest level in history

Marks also cited several points as well:

  • Private equity funds are raising record amounts of money to invest
  • A record proportion of loans are now classed as “covenant-lite” (ie, few if any protections for the lenders)
  • The quality of debt is deteriorating, and;
  • Investors are paying ever-higher multiples for increasingly-indebted companies.

All of these signs suggest an economy, and a market, that is fully matured with investors are behaving imprudently. In other words, things are as “good as they can get,” which happens at the end of a cycle rather than the beginning.

So, How Long Until This Cycle Ends?

Throughout history, interest rates are at the heart of every cyclical recovery and decline. As I discussed in “Did Something Just Break?”:

“With housing and auto sales already a casualty of higher rates, it won’t be long before it filters through the rest of the economy. The chart below shows nominal GDP versus the 24-month rate of change (ROC) of the 10-year Treasury yield. Not surprisingly, since 1959, every single spike in rates killed the economic growth narrative.”

I urge you not to fall prey to the “This Time Is Different” thought process.

Despite the consensus belief that global growth is gathering steam, there is mounting evidence of financial strain rising throughout the financial ecosystem. The recent spurt of economic growth has been a direct result of massive fiscal stimulus which will fade, wage growth has been weak, and job growth remains below the rate of working-age population growth.

While the talking points of the economy being as “strong as an ox” is certainly “media friendly,” the yield curve, as shown below, is telling a different story. While the spread between 2-year and 10-year Treasury rates has not fallen into negative territory as of yet, they are certainly headed in that direction.

Of course, the yield curve has been a strong predictor of the end of economic and market cycles. As such can it provide us with a clue as to when this cycle is likely to end? As Jesse Colombo recently noted in Forbes:

At the current rate the yield curve is flattening, many economists estimate that the yield curve may invert as soon as December 2018, so we will use that time frame for this exercise. It took an average of 9.7 months between the time that the yield curve inverted and the stock market peaked, which means that the current bull market would peak in September 2019. It also took an average of 5 months between historic market peaks and the start of recessions, which means that the next U.S. recession would start in February 2020, assuming the current cycle follows the historic average perfectly.”

Jesse’s analysis fits with the expectations of two-thirds of economists predictions on the timing of the next recession:

Two-thirds of business economists in the U.S. expect a recession to begin by the end of 2020, while a plurality of respondents say trade policy is the greatest risk to the expansion, according to a new survey.

About 10 percent see the next contraction starting in 2019, 56 percent say 2020 and 33 percent said 2021 or later, according to the Aug. 28-Sept. 17 poll of 51 forecasters issued by the National Association for Business Economics on Monday.

Forty-one percent said the biggest downside risk was trade policy, followed by 18 percent of respondents citing higher interest rates and the same share saying it would be a substantial stock-market decline or volatility.”

See, nothing to worry about for another 12-months.

Not so fast.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Recession

The majority of the analysis of economic data is short-term focused with prognostications based on single data points. For example, let’s take a look at the data below of real economic growth rates:

  • January 1980:        1.43%
  • July 1981:                 4.39%
  • July 1990:                1.73%
  • March 2001:           2.30%
  • December 2007:    1.87%

Each of the dates above shows the growth rate of the economy immediately prior to the onset of a recession.

You will remember that during the entirety of 2007, the majority of the media, analyst, and economic community were proclaiming continued economic growth into the foreseeable future as there was “no sign of recession.”

I myself was rather brutally chastised in December of 2007 when I wrote that:

“We are now either in, or about to be in, the worst recession since the ‘Great Depression.’”

Of course, a full year later, after the annual data revisions had been released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis was the recession officially revealed. Unfortunately, by then it was far too late to matter.

The chart below shows the S&P 500 index with recessions and when the National Bureau of Economic Research dated the start of the recession.

There are three lessons that should be learned from this:

  1. The economic “number” reported today will not be the same when it is revised in the future.
  2. The trend and deviation of the data are far more important than the number itself.
  3. “Record” highs and lows are records for a reason as they denote historical turning points in the data.

Here is the important point.

When will this cycle end? No one really knows for sure.

Will it end? Absolutely. 

The recent spike in rates, combined with rising oil prices, is a toxic brew for a heavily indebted consumer both domestically and globally. The recent rise in rates has already accelerated the timing of the next recession and it is now only a function of time until “something breaks.” 

As Mr. Stepek concludes:

“Be defensive when everyone else is being aggressive. 

Why? So that when the time comes when there are lots of opportunities but hardly any money around (and it will come, because markets are cyclical and winter eventually arrives again), you’ll be in a position to take advantage.

And keep an eye on corporate debt. That’s where we’ll see the strains first.”

While the call of a “recession” may seem far-fetched based on today’s economic data points, no one was calling for a recession in early 2000, or 2007, either. By the time the data is adjusted, and the eventual recession is revealed, it won’t matter as the damage will have already been done.

But then again, “no one could have seen it coming.” Right?

The Two Biggest Threats To This Bull Market

This bull market seems unstoppable.

Regardless of short-term events, investors have quickly looked beyond those risks to in a bid to push stock prices higher. For example, in February of this year the markets dove roughly 10% as “trade wars” became a “thing.”  Over the next two months, the markets vacillated coming to grips with what “Trump’s war with China” would actually mean. Last week, the Administration announced a further $200 billion in tariffs against China, China cancels talks with the U.S., and China imposes similar tariffs against the U.S. – and the market barely budges..

Seemingly, nothing can derail this bull market which is now the “longest in history” by some counts.

However, in my opinion, the two biggest threats to the bull market may very well be the two issues which are the most visible currently – tariffs and interest rates.

Tariffs

One of the biggest drivers of the “bullish thesis” is the explosion in earnings due to the tax cuts passed in December of 2017. However, the issue is that tax cuts only provide a very short-term benefit and, since we compare earnings on a year-over-year basis, growth will drop back towards the growth rate of the economy next year.

For now, the issue has been overlooked due to the surge in earnings from the changes to the tax code as well as the massive surge in repatriated dollars from overseas due to that lower tax rate. As shown by the Federal Reserve:

“Balance of payments data show that U.S. firms repatriated just over $300 billion in 2018:Q1, roughly 30 percent of the estimated stock of offshore cash holdings. For reference, the 2004 tax holiday, which provided a temporary one-year reduction in the repatriation tax rate, resulted in $312 billion repatriated in 2005, of an estimated $750 billion held abroad.”

Of course, while it was expected to go to CapEx and wages, it went to share buybacks instead.

The top 15 firms account for roughly 80 percent of total offshore cash holdings, and roughly 80 percent of their total cash (domestic plus foreign) is held abroad. Following the passage of the TCJA in late December 2017, share buybacks spiked dramatically for the top 15 cash holders, with the ratio of buybacks to assets more than doubling in 2018:Q1.”

Not surprisingly, since buybacks reduce the number of shares outstanding, bottom line EPS surged sharply despite a quarterly decline in revenues/share which slumped from $329.59/share in Q4 to $320.39/share in Q1. 

While the bull market thesis continues to be that earnings expansion will justify higher valuations, such may not be the case. Tariffs, which are a “tax on profits,” could effectively eliminate the majority of the temporary benefits provided by tax cuts to begin with.

“As I wrote recently, the estimated reported earnings for the S&P 500 have already started to be revised lower (so we can play the “beat the estimate game”) but an ongoing trade war could effectively wipe out the entire benefit of the tax cut bill. For the end of 2019, forward reported estimates have declined by roughly $9.00 per share.”

But it isn’t just this year where estimates are falling, but into 2019 as well. The chart below shows the changes in estimates a bit more clearly. It compares where estimates were on January 1st versus April, June, and September 1st. Currently, optimism is exceedingly “optimistic” for the end of 2019.

However, those estimates are likely to be revised down sharply in the months ahead as the number of S&P 500 companies issuing negative EPS guidance is now the highest since 2016.

The more tariffs that are laid on companies which do international business, the more likely we are going to see further decreases in earnings expectations. This is particularly the case given the divergence between the U.S. and the global economy.

“The trade war is now a reality. The recently announced imposition of US tariffs on a further $200 billion of imports from China will have a material impact on global growth and, even though we have now included the 25 percent tariff shock in our GEO [Global Economic Outlook – Ed.] baseline, the downside risks to our global growth forecasts have also increased.” – Fitch Chief Economist Brian Coulton.

Of course, the other issue that will weigh on corporate profitability and earnings is interest rates.

Interest Rates Matter

Yesterday, the Fed hiked interest rates for a third time this year and is set to raise again by the end of the year. With the Fed Funds rate now at 2%, it is equivalent to the Fed’s long-term outlook of the economy and inflation. More importantly, the Fed removed the word “accommodative” from their statement which also suggests they may be nearing the “neutral rate policy setting.” 

Nonetheless, markets have continued to discount the risk of rising rates.

They most likely shouldn’t.

Rising interest rates, like tariffs, are a “tax” on corporations and consumers as borrowing costs rise. When combined with a stronger dollar, which negatively impacts exporters (exports make up roughly 40% of total corporate profits), the catalysts are in place for a problem to emerge.

The chart below compares total non-financial corporate debt to GDP to the 2-year annual rate of change for the 10-year Treasury. As you can see sharply increasing rates have typically preceded either market or economic events. Of course, it is during those events which loan default rates rise, and leverage is reduced, generally not in the most “market-friendly” way.

The same applies for heavily levered households. With household debt is also at historic highs, rising rates eventually lead to a reversion in household net worth.

With leverage, both corporate and household, at historical peaks, the question is not “if” but “when” rising interest rates pricks the debt balloon.

As Doug Kass recently noted – rising interest rates do matter:

  1. The private and public sector have inflated debt loads today. Rising interest rates raise the cost of servicing that debt and reduce spending and productive investment.
  2. Private sector activity is importantly influenced by interest rates:
    • Rising mortgage rates and higher mortgage payments reduce home affordability and hurt home turnover and refinancings.
    • Slowing home sales and reduced refinancings hurt spending on renovations and remodeling.
    • Given record-high auto prices and the difficulty in further lengthening out already long auto loan maturities, rising interest rates will hurt auto sales by raising monthly payments.
    • Consumer, mortgage and corporate loans that are variable rate are hurt by climbing interest rates.
    • The credit markets fall when interest rates rise, serving to have a negative wealth effect on consumers and corporations that own bonds.
    • Rising interest rates impede corporate profit margins, overall profits and earnings per share
    • Debt is issued by corporations in order to buy back stock and pay dividends. Advancing rates reduce a company’s return on investment on those buybacks.
    • Corporate capital spending is partially dependent on borrowings. Higher borrowing costs could lead to lower capital spending.
  3. Public sector activity and profitability are greatly influenced by interest rates:
    • The deficit/GDP ratio will increase as interest rates rise and the expectation for lower future deficits will crumble.
  4. Dividend discount models are based on future estimates of cash flow discounted back at an appropriate interest rate:
    • Rising interest rates reduce the value of those future cash flows and, in turn, the value or worth of a company’s stock.
  5. There is now an alternative to stocks as the yield on the one-month Treasury bill (2.06%) and two-year Treasury note (2.85%) compare favorably to the S&P’s dividend yield of only 1.75%. Additional increases in interest rates will serve as an even more competitive and attractive alternative to stocks.

As I noted previously, the Fed has a bad habit of hiking rates until something breaks.

Stock Market Implications

As long as the backdrop is healthy, in this case strong earnings and economic growth, the markets can fend off attacks from higher rates and geopolitical issues. However, as tariffs attack corporate profitability, and weakens economic growth, it makes the system much more susceptible to the virus of higher rates. This will most likely expose itself as credit-related event which will be blamed for a bigger correction in the market. However, “Patient Zero” will be the Federal Reserve.

Even one of the most bullish individuals on Wall Street, Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel, is now turning cautious. While he isn’t abandoning his bullish backdrop for stocks, particularly since he is involved in everything from ETF’s to Robo-advisors, he suggests it is vital for investors to be aware of growing risks stemming from tariffs and interest rates which could spark a sell-off.

“This market has had a great run, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see another correction. We have some major challenges. The trade war is not yet resolved.

We’re going to see how hawkish [the Fed] is with the labor market as tight as it is. I still believe that they’re going to be on track for four increases this year. The question is how will they feel about another raise in December. And, I think between the trade situation and the interest rate situation, and then, of course, the midterms in November, there are a lot of challenges facing Wall Street.” – Trading Nation.

While Siegel only expects a sell-off like the one we saw in February of this year, the real risk is of one much deeper in nature. As noted just recently in “Ingredients Of An Event.”

“The risk to investors is NOT just a market decline of 40-50%. The real crisis comes when there is a ‘run on pensions.’ 

This is a $4-5 Trillion problem with no resolve to “fix” the problem before it occurs. This leaves a large number of pensioners already eligible for their pension at risk and the next decline will likely spur the “fear” benefits will be lost entirely. The combined run on the system, which is grossly underfunded at a time when asset prices are dropping, will cause a debacle. With consumers are once again heavily leveraged with sub-prime auto loans, mortgages, and student debt, they too will be forced to liquidate assets to meet payment demands.

All the ingredients for a more severe market correction are currently present. Between Trump’s “trade war” and the Fed insistence on hiking rates,  it certainly seems as if they are “hell-bent” on lighting the fuse.

Employment: It’s The Trend That Matters

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published the August monthly “employment report” which showed an increase in employment of 201,000 jobs. It was also the 94th consecutive positive jobs report which is one of the longest in U.S. history.

There is little argument the streak of employment growth is quite phenomenal and comes amid hopes the economy is beginning to shift into high gear.

But while there were a reported 201,000 jobs created in the month of August, the two prior months were quietly revised lower by 50,000 jobs. For the 3-months combined, the average rate of job growth between June and August was just 185,333 which stands decently below the 211,000 average rates of job growth over the last five years.

Then there is the whole issue of seasonal adjustments which try to account for temporary changes to employment due to seasonal workers. The chart below shows the swings between the non-seasonally adjusted and seasonally adjusted data.

But while most economists focus at employment data from one month to the next for clues as to the strength of the economy, it is actually the “trend” of the data which is far more important to understand.

The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment prior to the onset of a recession. The current annual rate of employment growth is 1.6% which is lower than any previous employment level prior to a recession in history.

But while this is a long-term view of the trend of employment in the U.S., what about right now? The chart below shows employment from 1999 to present.

While the recent employment report was slightly above expectations, the annual rate of growth is slowing. The chart above shows two things. The first is the trend of the household employment survey on an annualized basis. Secondly, while the seasonally-adjusted reported showed 201,000 jobs being created, the actual household survey showed a loss of 423,000 jobs which wiped out all of the job gains in June and July as summer workers returned to school. 

There are many that do not like the household survey for a variety of reasons. However, even if we use the 3-month average of the seasonally-adjusted employment report, we see the exact same picture. (The 3-month average simply smooths out some of the volatility.)

But here is something else to consider.

While the BLS continually adjusts and fiddles with the data to mathematically adjust for seasonal variations, the purpose of the entire process is to smooth volatile monthly data into a more normalized trend. The problem, of course, with manipulating data through mathematical adjustments, revisions, and tweaks, is the risk of contamination of bias. A simpler method to use for smoothing volatile monthly data is using a 12-month moving average of the raw data as shown below.

Notice that near peaks of employment cycles the employment data deviates from the 12-month average but tends to reconnect as reality emerges.

Sometimes, “simpler” gives us a better understanding of the data.

Importantly, there is one aspect to all the charts above which remains constant. No matter how you choose to look at the data, peaks in employment growth occur prior to economic contractions rather than an acceleration of growth. 

But there is more to this story.

A Function Of Population

One thing which is never discussed when reporting on employment is the “growth” of the working age population. Each month, new entrants into the population create “demand” through their additional consumption. Employment should increase to accommodate for the increased demand from more participants in the economy. Either that or companies resort to automation, off-shoring, etc. to increase rates of production without increases in labor costs. The chart below shows the total increase in employment versus the growth of the working age population.

The missing “millions” shown in the chart above is one of the “great mysteries” about one of the longest economic booms in U.S. history. This is particularly a conundrum when the Federal Reserve talks about the economy nearing “full employment.” The Labor Force Participation Rate below shows this great mystery.

Of course, as we are all very aware, there are many people who are working part-time, going to school, etc. But even when we consider just those working “full-time” jobs, particularly when jobless claims are reaching record lows, the percentage of full-time employees is still well below levels of the last 35 years.

“With jobless claims at historic lows, and the unemployment rate at 4%, then why is full-time employment relative to the working-age population at just 49.82% which is down from 49.9% last month?”

It’s All The Baby Boomers Retiring

One of the arguments often given for the low labor force participation rate is that millions of “baby boomers” are leaving the workforce for retirement. This argument doesn’t carry much weight given that the “Millennial” generation, which is significantly larger, is simultaneously entering the workforce. The other problem is shown below, there are more individuals over the age of 55, as a percentage of that age group, in the workforce today than in the last 50-years.

Of course, the reason they aren’t retiring is that they can’t. After two massive bear markets, weak economic growth, questionable spending habits,and poor financial planning, more individuals over the age of 55 are still working because they simply can’t “afford” to retire.

However, for argument sake, let’s assume that every worker over the age of 55 retires. If the “retiring” argument is valid, then employment participation rates should soar once that group is removed. The chart below is full-time employment relative to the working-age population of 16-54.

Importantly, note in the first chart above the number of workers over the age of 55 increased last month. However, employment of 16-54 year olds declined from 50.43% to 50.35%. It is also, the lowest rate since 1985, which was the last time employment was increasing from such low levels.

The other argument is that Millennials are going to school longer than before so they aren’t working either. (We have an excuse for everything these days.) The chart below strips out those of college age (16-24) and those over the age of 55.

With the prime working age group of labor force participants still at levels seen previously in 1988, it does raise the question of just how robust the labor market actually is?

Low initial jobless claims coupled with the historically low unemployment rate are leading many economists to warn of tight labor markets and impending wage inflation. If there is no one to hire, employees have more negotiating leverage according to prevalent theory. While this seems reasonable on its face, further analysis into the employment data suggests these conclusions are not so straightforward.

Strong Labor Statistics

Michael Lebowitz recently pointed out some important considerations in this regard.

“The data certainly suggests that the job market is on fire. While we would like nothing more than to agree, there is other employment data which contradicts that premise.”

For example, if there are indeed very few workers in need of a job, then current workers should have pricing leverage over their employers.  This does not seem to be the case as shown in the graph of personal income below.

Furthermore, a closer inspection of the BLS data reveals that, since 2008, 16 million people were reclassified as “leaving the workforce”. To put those 16 million people into context, from 1985 to 2008, a period almost three times longer than the post-crisis recovery, a similar number of people left the workforce.

Why are so many people struggling to find a job and terminating their search if, as we are repeatedly told, the labor market is so healthy? To explain the juxtaposition of the low jobless claims number and unemployment rate with the low participation rate and weak wage growth, a calculation of the participation rate adjusted unemployment rate is revealing.

When people stop looking for a job, they are still unemployed, but they are not included in the U-3 unemployment calculation. If we include those who quit looking for work in the data, the employment situation is quite different. The graph below compares the U-3 unemployment rate to one that assumes a constant participation rate from 2008 to today. Contrary to the U-3 unemployment rate of 3.90%, this metric implies an adjusted unemployment rate of 8.69%.

Importantly, this number is much more consistent with the data we have laid out above, supports the reasoning behind lower wage growth, and is further confirmed by the Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Employment Index.

(The Hornstein-Kudlyak-Lange Non-Employment Index including People Working Part-Time for Economic Reasons (NEI+PTER) is a weighted average of all non-employed people and people working part-time for economic reasons expressed as the share of the civilian non-institutionalized population 16 years and older. The weights take into account persistent differences in each group’s likelihood of transitioning back into employment. Because the NEI is more comprehensive and includes tailored weights of non-employed individuals, it arguably provides a more accurate reading of labor market conditions than the standard unemployment rate.)

One of the main factors driving the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and reduce its balance sheet is the perceived low level of unemployment. Simultaneously, multiple comments from Fed officials suggest they are justifiably confused by some of the signals emanating from the jobs data. As we have argued in the past, the current monetary policy experiment has short-circuited the economy’s traditional traffic signals. None of these signals is more important than employment.

As Michael noted:

“Logic and evidence argue that, despite the self-congratulations of central bankers, good wage-paying jobs are not as plentiful as advertised and the embedded risks in the economy are higher. We must consider the effects that these sequences of policy error might have on the economy – one where growth remains anemic and jobs deceptively elusive.

Given that wages translate directly to personal consumption, a reliable interpretation of employment data has never been more important. Oddly enough, it appears as though that interpretation has never been more misleading. If we are correct that employment is weak, then future rate hikes and the planned reduction in the Fed’s balance sheet will begin to reveal this weakness soon.”

As an aside, it is worth noting that in November of 1969 jobless claims stood at 211,000, having risen slightly from the lows recorded earlier that year. Despite the low number of claims, a recession started a month later, and jobless claims would nearly double within six months. This episode serves as a reminder that every recession followed interim lows in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. We are confident that the dynamics leading to the next recession will not be any different.

But then again, maybe the yield-curve is already giving us the answer. With the Fed already slated to hike interest rates further, the only question is “what breaks first?”

Don’t Fear The Yield Curve?

In July of this year, James McCusker penned an article entitled “Don’t Fear The Yield Curve” in which he stated:

“There are always a lot of things to worry about in our economy — short range and long range. The yield curve, however. isn’t one of them. It just shows that some other people are worried, too. It doesn’t mean that they are right.”

I didn’t think much of the article at the time as it was an outlier. However, now, given the yield curve continues to trail lower, despite the many calls of “bond bears” swearing rates are going to rise, the number of voices in the “this time is different” camp has grown.

“Contrary to what many people think, inverted yield curves don’t always sound the alarm to sell. In fact, looking at the past five recessions, the S&P 500 didn’t peak for more than 19 months on average after the yield curve inverted, along the way adding more than 22% on average at the peak,”Ryan Detrick, LPL

“In fact, an inversion is often a buying opportunity. During each of the past seven economic cycles, the S&P 500 has gained in the six-months before a yield-curve inversion.” Tony Dwyer, analyst at Canaccord Genuity.

First, the yield curve is simply the difference in the yields of different maturities of bonds. However, in this particular case, we are discussing the difference between the 2-year and the 10-year rate on U.S. Treasury bonds.

Historically speaking, the yield curve has been a consistent predictor of weaker economic times in the U.S. As James noted:

“The yield curve itself does not present a threat to the U.S. economy, but it does reflect a change in bond investor expectations about Federal Reserve actions and about the durability of our current economic expansion.”

Importantly, yield curves, like valuations, are “terrible” with respect to the “timing” of the economic slowdown and/or the impact to the financial markets. So, the longer the economy and markets continue to grow without an event, or sign of weakness, investors begin to dismiss the indicator under the premise “this time is different.” 

James did hit on an important point but misses the mark.

“Much of our economy relies on debt, and the so-called ‘entitlement’ sector of government spending is dependent on investors parting with cash to purchase trillions of dollars of the federal government’s debt. That means that the investor expectations reflected in the yield curve have some weight. However, it is good to remember that the negative yield curve may simply be the result of a delayed reaction of long-term interest rates to the economy’s expansion. If long-term rates were to rise, the inversion of the yield curve would disappear.”

He is right that we are in a debt-driven economy. Corporate, household, margin, student, and government debt are at all- time highs. That debt has a cost. It must be serviced. Therefore, as rates rise, the cost of servicing rises commensurately. This is particularly the case with variable rate, credit card, and other debt which are tied directly to short-term rates which is impacted by changes in the overnight lending rates (aka Fed monetary policy).

As rates rise on the short-end, and as expected rates of future returns fall, money is shifted toward the “safety” of longer-dated U.S. Treasuries not only by domestic investors, but also foreign investors which are seeking safety from a stronger dollar, weaker economic growth, or reduced financial market expectations.

While there are many calls to ignore the yield curve, some of the most economically sensitive commodities. like Copper, are providing a cause for concern. Per Jesse Colombo: 

“Copper, which is known as “the metal with a PhD in economics” due to its historic tendency to lead the global economy, is down nearly 4 percent today alone and 22 percent since early-June. Copper’s bear market of the past couple of months is worrisome because it signals that a global economic slowdown is likely ahead.”

Copper Daily Chart

Even exports from South Korea, which acts as a leading indicator of economic activity has turned sharply lower as well.

While “sentiment” data was previously extremely elevated over “hopes” that “Trumponics” would create an broad-based economic surge, as noted recently, such has not been the case and “sentiment” is now catching “down” with reality.

Of course, one really needs to look no further than the bond market which is also screaming the Fed is once again, as they always have, making a monetary policy mistake. The chart below shows, GDP as compared to both the 5- and 10-year inflation “breakeven” rates. As noted, there was a significant boost to economic activity following three massive hurricanes and two major wildfires in 2017. That bump to activity only served to “pull forward” future economic activity, increasing short-term inflationary pressures, which are now beginning to subside.

The message is quite simple.

The spread between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury rates, historically a good predictor of economic recessions, is also suggesting the Fed may be missing the bigger picture in their quest to normalize monetary policy. While not inverted as of yet, the trend of the spread is clearly warning the economy is much weaker than the Fed is suggesting. (The boosts to economic growth are now all beginning to fade and the 2nd-derivative of growth will begin to become more problematic starting in Q3)

Furthermore, the AAA-Junk yield curve is also beginning to suggest problems for companies which have binged on debt issuance to support share buybacks over the last decade.

The annual rate of change for bank loans and leases as well has residential homes loans have all started declined as higher rates are crimping demand.

While none of this suggests a problem is imminent, nor does it RULE OUT higher highs in the markets first, there is mounting evidence the Fed is headed towards making another mistake in their long line of creating “boom/bust” cycles.

Looking back through history, the evidence is quite compelling that from the time the first rate hike is induced into the system, it has started the countdown to the next recession.

The Federal Reserve is quickly becoming trapped by its own “data-dependent” analysis. Despite ongoing commentary of improving labor markets and economic growth, their own indicators have been suggesting something very different. This is why the scrapped their Labor Market Conditions Index and are now trying to come up with a “new and improved” yield curve to support their narrative. 

Tightening monetary policy further will simply accelerate the time frame to the onset of the next recession. In fact, there have been absolutely ZERO times in history that the Federal Reserve has begun an interest-rate hiking campaign that has not eventually led to a negative outcome.

The only question is the timing.

It is unlikely this time is different. There are too many indicators already suggesting higher rates are impacting interest rate sensitive, and economically important, areas of the economy. The only issue is when investors recognize the obvious and sell in the anticipation of a market decline.

Believing that investors will simply ignore the weight of evidence to contrary in the “hopes” this “might” be different this time is not a good bet. The yield curve is clearly sending a message that shouldn’t be ignored and it is a good bet that “risk-based” investors will likely act sooner rather than later. Of course, it is simply the contraction in liquidity that causes the decline which will eventually exacerbate the economic contraction. Importantly, since recessions are only identified in hindsight when current data is negatively revised in the future, it won’t become “obvious” the yield curve was sending the correct message until far too late to be useful.

While it is unwise to use the “yield curve” as a “market timing” tool, it is just as unwise to completely dismiss the message it is currently sending.

The Longest Bull Market In History & What Happens Next

“Barring a breathtaking plunge, the bull market in U.S. stocks on Aug. 22 will become the longest in history, and optimistic investors argue it has miles to go before it rests.”Sue Chang, MarketWatch

Depending on how you measure beginnings and endings, or what constitutes a bear market or the beginning of a bull market, makes the statement a bit subjective. However, there is little argument the current bull market has had an exceptionally long life-span.

But rather than a “siren’s song” luring investors into the market, maybe it should serve as a warning.

“Record levels” of anything are “records for a reason.”

It should be remembered that when records are broken that was the point where previous limits were reached.  Also, just as in horse racing, sprinting or car races, the difference between an old record and a new one are often measured in fractions of a second.

Therefore, when a “record level” is reached it is NOT THE BEGINNING, but rather an indication of the PEAK of a cycle. Records, while they are often broken, are often only breached by a small amount, rather than a great stretch. While the media has focused on record low unemployment, record stock market levels, and record confidence as signs of an ongoing economic recovery, history suggests caution. For investors, everything is always at its best at the end of a cycle rather than the beginning.

The chart below has been floating around the “web” in several forms as “evidence” that investors should just stay invested at all times and not worry about the downturns. When taken at “face value,” it certainly appears to be the case. (The chart is based up Shiller’s monthly data and is inflation-adjusted total returns.)

The problem is the entire chart is incredibly deceptive.

More importantly, for those saving and investing for their retirement, it’s dangerous.

Here is why.

The first problem is the most obvious, and a topic I have addressed many times in past missives, you must worry about corrections.

Most investors don’t start seriously saving for retirement until they are in their mid-40’s. This is because by the time they graduate college, land a job, get married, have kids and send them off to college, a real push toward saving for retirement is tough to do as incomes, while growing, haven’t reached their peak. This leaves most individuals with just 20 to 25 productive work years before retirement age to achieve investment goals. 

This is where the problem is. There are periods in history, where returns over a 20-year period have been close to zero or even negative.”

Currently, we are in one of those periods.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics

Secondly, percentages are deceptive.

Back to the first chart above, while the mainstream media and bloggers love to talk about gains and losses in terms of percentages, it is not an apples to apples comparison.

Let’s look at the math.

Assume that an index goes from 1000 to 8000.

  • 1000 to 2000 = 100% return
  • 1000 to 3000 = 200% return
  • 1000 to 4000 = 300% return
  • 1000 to 8000 = 700% return

A 700% return is outstanding, so why worry about a 50% correction in the market when you just gained 700%?

Here is the problem with percentages.

A 50% correction does NOT leave you with a 650% gain.

A 50% correction is a subtraction of 4000 points which reduces your 700% gain to just 300%.

Then the problem now becomes the issue of having to regain those 4000 lost points just to break even.

Let’s look at the S&P 500 inflation-adjusted total return index in a different manner.

The first chart shows all of the measurement lines for all the previous bull and bear markets with the number of years required to get back to even.

What you should notice is that while the original chart above certainly makes it appear as if “bear markets” are no “big deal,” the reality is that in many cases bear markets wiped out essentially a substantial portion, if not all, of the the previous bull market advance. This is shown more clearly when we convert the percentage chart above into a point chart as shown below.

Here is another way to view the same data. The table and chart below overlays the point AND percentage of gain and loss for each bull and bear market period going back to 1900 (inflation-adjusted).

Again, the important thing to note is that while record “bull markets” are a great thing in the short-term, they are just one half of the full-market cycle. With regularity, the following decline has mostly erased the previous gain.

Broken Records

While the financial media is anticipating a new “record” being set for this “bull market,” here is something to think about.

  • Bull markets END when everything is as “good as it can get.”
  • Bear markets END when things simply can’t “get any worse.”

While everything is certainly firing on all cylinders in the market and economy currently, for investors this should be taken as a warning sign rather than an invitation to pile on additional risk.

In the near term, over the next several months, or even a year, markets could very likely continue their bullish trend as long as nothing upsets the balance of investor confidence and market liquidity.

This bull market will easily set a “new bull market record.”

But, as I said, “records are records” for a reason. As Ben Graham stated back in 1959:

“‘The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.’ I have always thought this motto applied to the stock market better than anywhere else. Now the really important part of the proverb is the phrase, ‘the more it changes.’

The economic world has changed radically and will change even more. Most people think now that the essential nature of the stock market has been undergoing a corresponding change. But if my cliché is sound,  then the stock market will continue to be essentially what it always was in the past, a place where a big bull market is inevitably followed by a big bear market.

In other words, a place where today’s free lunches are paid for doubly tomorrow. In the light of recent experience, I think the present level of the stock market is an extremely dangerous one.”

He is right, of course, things are little different now than they were then.

For every “bull market” there MUST be a “bear market.” 

While “passive indexing” sounds like a winning approach to “pace” the markets during the late stages of an advance, it is worth remembering “passive” approaches will also “pace” the decline.

Understanding that your investment returns are driven by actual dollar losses, and not percentages, is important in the comprehension of what a devastating effect corrections have on your financial outcome. So, before sticking your head in the sand and ignoring market risk based on an article touting “long-term investing always wins,” ask yourself who really benefits?

This time will not be “different.”

If the last two bear markets haven’t taught you this by now, I am not sure what will.

Maybe the third time will be the “charm.”

Boiling A Turkey

There is an age old fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will try and save itself. However, if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The metaphor is often ascribed to the inability, or unwillingness, of people to react to or be aware of threats which arise gradually rather than suddenly.

This metaphor was brought to mind as I was writing last weekend’s newsletter discussing the issue of Turkey and the potential threat posed to the global economy. Specifically, I was intrigued by the following points from Daniel Lacalle:

“The collapse of Turkey was an accident waiting to happen and is fully self-inflicted.”

It is yet another evidence of the train wreck that monetarists cause in economies. Those that say that ‘a country with monetary sovereignty can issue all the currency it wants without risk of default’ are wrong yet again. Like in Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela, monetary sovereignty means nothing without strong fundamentals to back the currency.

Turkey took all the actions that MMT lovers applaud. The Erdogan government seized control of the central bank, and decided to print and keep extremely low rates to ‘boost the economy’ without any measure or control.

Turkey’s Money Supply tripled in seven years, and rates were brought down massively to 4,5%.

However, the lira depreciation was something that was not just accepted by the government but encouraged.  Handouts in fresh-printed liras were given to pensioners in order to increase votes for the current government, subsidies in rapidly devaluing lira soared by more than 20% (agriculture, fuel, tourism industry) as the government tried to compensate the loss of tourism revenues due to security concerns with subsidies and grants.

Loss of foreign currency reserves ensued, but the government soldiered on promoting excessive debt and borrowing. Fiscal deficits soared, and the rapidly devaluing lira led to a rising amount of loans in US dollars.

This is the typical flaw of monetarists, they believe monetary sovereignty shields the country from external shocks and loans in foreign currencies soar because no one wants to lend in a constantly-debased currency at affordable rates. Then the central bank raises rates but the monetary hole keeps rising as the money supply continues to grow to pay for handouts in local currency.”

Frog Meets Water 

If any of Daniel’s commentary sounds familiar, you shouldn’t be surprised. The U.S. has been doing much of the same for the last several decades under the same faulty Keynesian/MMT set of beliefs.

But, lets make a big distinction, the U.S. is not Turkey.

While the U.S. may be vastly different than Turkey in many respects, such doesn’t mean pursing the same policies will have a different result.

For example, as Daniel notes, Turkey has provided “handouts” to secure votes. But the U.S. has done, and continues to do the same thing via programs like “paid leave,” “child tax credits,” a smörgåsbord of welfare and entitlement programs. In fact, government assistance programs now make up a record level of disposable personal incomes as 1-in-4 households depend on some form of government program.

This continued push to provide more governmental assistance, and the rise of “socialist” political leanings, should not come as a surprise in an economy where there is an annual deficit of more than $3250 to maintain the standard of living after consumers have exhausted wages, savings and credit.

This is not just about securing votes of the less fortunate. For example, military spending, corporate tax cuts and banking de-regulation to name a few examples, help line the pockets of shareholders and corporate executives and certainly influence their voting patterns.

Since there is simply not enough tax revenue to fund these programs, the government must rely on debt issuance to fund the shortfall. More importantly, since fiscal policies like “tax reform” lower government revenue, when those programs are not offset with real spending cuts, deficits increase more quickly.

Despite assurances from the current Administration that tax reform would lead to higher tax revenues and reduce the deficit – it is actually quite the opposite that has occurred. As shown below, spending has surged while tax receipts have stagnated. As a result the deficit is set to explode and the amount of government debt outstanding will increase by over $1 trillion in each of the next four years.

While most modern economists believe that debt and deficits have little to no consequence, the data suggests otherwise. While deficits continue to be a “talking point” for conservative politicians wanting to win elections, unbridled spending has become the “fiscal policy” of choice. Of course, economic growth has been the ultimate sacrifice. The surge in the deficit in the coming months will reverse the recent spat of economic growth as the boost from a slew of natural disasters last year and tax related boosts fade.

As I stated, in order to fund that spending, the money has to come from either taxpayers or debt issuance. As shown in the next two charts, government debt as percentage of economic growth continues to climb.

The saving grace currently is that interest rates remain at some of the lowest levels on record historically speaking. While that may seem good, lower rates only feed more economic problems as Michael Lebowitz recently discussed in Wicksell’s Elegant Model:

“Where capital is involved, discipline is either applied or neglected through the mechanism of interest rates. To apply a simple analogy, in those places where water is plentiful, cheap, and readily available through pipes and faucets, it is largely taken for granted. It is used for the basic necessities of bathing and drinking but also to wash our cars and dogs. In countries where clean water is not easily accessible, it is regarded as a precious resource and decidedly not taken for granted or wasted for sub-optimal uses. In much the same way, when capital is easily accessible and cheap, how it is used will more often be sub-optimal.”

Those low rates have allowed the government to issue substantial levels of debt without having to “pay” a significant financial consequence as of yet. However, even with the government currently paying some of the lowest effective interest rates in history for the debt outstanding, debt payments have risen to the highest level on record.

At the current run rate, which will massively accelerate if rates do indeed rise, the “debt service” will become on the largest budget items for the U.S. in the not too distant future. Currently, debt service and social welfare consume almost 75% of every tax dollar and in the next decade are slated to consume almost 100%. This leaves all other spending, and there is a lot of it, a function of debt issuance.

Issuing more debt to fund a debt problem is not economically viable long-term as the majority of socialist countries eventually come to realize.

Not unlike Turkey, the U.S. has also engaged in a massively increasing its money supply. The result of which has not been surprising. Beginning in 1980, the surge in the monetary base along with household debt has led to an unsurprising and very predictable outcome.

Of course, with wages and economic growth stagnant, and the purchasing power of the dollar continuing its long-term decline, the need for debt and government assistance will continue to increase.

Given the slowing demographic trends, the structural changes to the economy which continues to erode productivity, and the inevitable increase in debt, the net effect will continue to slow rates of economic growth as deflationary pressures build.

As Jesse Colombo noted earlier this week:

“Turkey’s economy has become reliant on cheap credit, and the recent interest rate hikes mean that the country’s cheap credit era has come to an end. Higher interest rates are going to cause a credit bust in Turkey, leading to a serious economic crisis.

While most commentators believe that Turkey’s current turmoil is the result of U.S. sanctions, the reality is that the country’s crisis was already ‘baked into the cake’ years ago. The recent political clash with the U.S. is simply the catalyst for the coming Turkish economic crisis, but it is not the actual cause. I am also highly concerned that Turkey’s current turmoil will lead to further contagion in emerging markets, which have also similarly thrived due to ultra-loose global monetary conditions that are now coming to an end.”

The U.S. Is Not Turkey.

However, there are many more similarities than most politicians and economists wish to admit. The biggest of which is our current dependence on “cheap debt” to fund everything from Government handouts to corporate buybacks, capital expenditures, and household consumption.

Despite hopes of economic resurgence, the reality is likely quite the opposite. Economic trends are hard to reverse and governmental policy trends are impossible to change.

The good news is that the U.S. will eventually start making meaningful fiscal policy reforms. The bad news, like Turkey, is that those changes will come through “force” rather than “choice.” 

But such has been the case for every empire in history from the Romans, to the Greeks, to the British.

Without real, substantive change, the U.S. will likely face a similar outcome.

We have the time to make the right choices.

The only question is do we have the will?

Or, are we simply the “Turkey” in the pot of water.

8-Measures Say A Crash Is Coming, Here’s How To Time It

Mark Hulbert recently penned a very good article discussing the “Eight Best Predictors Of The Stock Market,” to wit:

“The stock market’s return over the next decade is likely to be well below historical norms.

That is the unanimous conclusion of eight stock-market indicators with what I consider the most impressive track records over the past six decades. The only real difference between them is the extent of their bearishness.

To illustrate the bearish story told by each of these indicators, consider the projected 10-year returns to which these indicators’ current levels translate. The most bearish projection of any of them was that the S&P 500 would produce a 10-year total return of 3.9 percentage points annualized below inflation. The most bullish was 3.6 points above inflation.

The most accurate of the indicators I studied was created by the anonymous author of the blog Philosophical Economics. It is now as bearish as it was right before the 2008 financial crisis, projecting an inflation-adjusted S&P 500 total return of just 0.8 percentage point above inflation. Ten-year Treasuries can promise you that return with far less risk.”

Here is one of the eight indicators, a chart of Livermore’s Equity-Q Ratio which is essentially household’s equity allocation to net worth:

The other seven are as follows:

As Hulbert states:

“According to various tests of statistical significance, each of these indicators’ track records is significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when assessing whether a pattern is genuine.

However, the differences between the R-squared of the top four or five indicators I studied probably aren’t statistically significant, I was told by Prof. Shiller. That means you’re overreaching if you argue that you should pay more attention to, say, the average household equity allocation than the price/sales ratio.”

As I discussed in “Valuation Measures and Forward Returns:”

“No matter, how many valuation measures I use, the message remains the same. From current valuation levels, the expected rate of return for investors over the next decade will be low.”

This is shown in the chart below, courtesy of Michael Lebowitz, which shows the standard deviation from the long-term mean of the “Buffett Indicator,” or market capitalization to GDP, Tobin’s Q, and Shiller’s CAPE compared to forward real total returns over the next 10-years. Michael will go into more detail on this graph and what it means for asset allocation in the coming weeks.

The Problem With Valuation Measures

First, let me explain what “low forward returns” does and does not mean.

  • It does NOT mean the stock market will have annual rates of return of sub-3% each year over the next 10-years.
  • It DOES mean the stock market will have stellar gains in some years, a big crash somewhere in between, or several smaller ones, and the average return over the decade will be low. 

This is shown in the table and chart below which compares a 7% annual return (as often promised) to a series of positive returns with a loss, or two, along the way. (Note: the annual average return without the crashes is 7% annually also.)

From current valuation levels, two-percent forward rates of return are a real possibility. As shown, all it takes is a correction, or crash, along the way to make it a reality.

The problem with using valuation measures, as Mark Hulbert discusses, is that there can be a long period between a valuation warning and a market correction. This was a point made by Eddy Elfenbein from Crossing Wall Street:

“For the record, I’m a bit skeptical of these metrics. Sure, they’re interesting to look at, but I try to place them within a larger framework.

It’s not terribly hard to find a measure that shows an overvalued market and then use a long time period to show the market has performed below average during your defined overvalued period. That’s easy.

The difficulty is in timing the market.

Even if you know the market is overpriced, that doesn’t tell you much about how to invest today.”

He is correct.

So, if valuation measures tell you a problem is coming, but don’t tell you what to do, then Wall Street’s answer is simply to “do nothing.” After all, you will eventually recover the losses….right?

However, getting back to even and actually reaching your financial goals are two entirely different things as we discussed recently in “Crashes Matter.”

There is an important point to be made here. The old axioms of “time in the market” and the “power of compounding” are true, but they are only true as long as the principal value is not destroyed along the way. The destruction of the principal destroys both “time” and “the magic of compounding.”

Or more simply put – “getting back to even” is not the same as “growing.”

Is there a solution?

Linking Fundamentals To Technicals

I have often discussed an important point in reference to our portfolio management process:

“Fundamentals tell us ‘what’ to buy or sell, technicals tell us the ‘when.'”

Fundamentals are a long-term view on an investment. From these fundamental underpinnings, we can assess and assign a “valuation” to an investment to determine whether it is over or undervalued. Of course, in the famous words of Warren Buffett:

“Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” 

In the financial markets, however, psychology can drive prices farther, and further, than logic would dictate. But such is the nature of every stage of a bull market cycle where the “momentum” chase, or rather the physical manifestation of “greed,” comes to life. This is also the point where statements such as “this time is different,” “fundamentals have changed,” or a variety of other excuses, are used to justify rampant speculation in the markets.

Despite the detachment from valuations, as markets continue to escalate higher, the fundamental warnings are readily dismissed in exchange for any data point which supports the bullish bias.

Eventually, it has always come to a rather ignominious ending.

But why does it have to be one or the other?

Currently, the Equity Q-ratio, as graphed above, is at levels that have historically denoted very poor future returns for investors. In other words, if you went to cash today, it is quite likely that over the next 10-years the value of your portfolio would be roughly the same. 

However, before that “mean reverting event” occurs the market will most likely continue to advance. So, there you are, sitting on the sidelines waiting for the crash.

“Damn it, I am missing out. I should have just stayed in.” 

The feeling of “missing out” can be overpowering as the momentum driven market rises. Like gravity, the more the market rises, the greater the pull to “jump back in” becomes. Eventually, and typically near the peak of the market cycle, investors capitulate to the pressure.

Understanding that price is a reflection of short-term market psychology, the trend of prices can give us some clue as to the direction of the market. As the old saying goes:

“The trend is your friend, until it isn’t.” 

While the Equity Q-ratio implies low forward returns, technical analysis can give us the “timing” as to when “psychology” has begun to align with the underlying “fundamentals.”.

In the chart below we have added vertical “gold” bars which denote when negative price changes warrant reducing equity risk in portfolios. (The chart uses quarterly data and triggers a signal when the 6-month moving average crosses the 2-year moving average.)

Since 1951, this “equity reduction” signal has only occurred 17-times. Yes, since these are long-term quarterly moving averages, investors would not have necessarily “top ticked” and sold at the peak, nor would they have bought the absolute bottoms. However, they would have succeeded in avoiding much of the capital destruction of the declines and garnered most of the gains.

The last time the Equity-Q ratio was above 40% was during the late 2015/2016 correction and the technical signal warned that a reduction of risk was warranted.

The mistake most investors make is not getting “back in” when the signal reverses. The value of technical analysis is providing a glimpse into the “stampede of the herd.” When the psychology is overwhelmingly bullish, investors should be primarily allocated towards equity risk. When its not, equity risk should be greatly reduced.

Unfortunately, investors tend to not heed signals at market peaks because the belief is that stocks can only go up from here. At bottoms, investors fail to “buy” as the overriding belief is the market is heading towards zero.

In a recent post, It’s Not Too Early To Be Late, Michael Lebowitz showed the historical pain investors suffered by exiting a raging bull market too early. However, he also showed that those who exited markets three years prior to peaks, when valuations were similar to today’s, profited in the long-run.

While technical analysis can provide timely and useful information for investors, it is our “behavioral issues” which lead to underperformance over time.

Currently, with the Equity Q-ratio pushing the 3rd highest level in history, investors should be very concerned about forward returns. However, with the technical trends currently “bullish,” equity exposure should remain near target levels for now.

That is until the trend changes.

When the next long-term technical “sell signal” is registered, investors should consider heeding the warnings.

Yes, even with this, you may still “leave the party” a little early.

But such is always better than getting trapped in rush for the exits when the cops arrive.

Was Q2-GDP Really All That Extraordinary?

Last week, while I was on vacation, I penned a report prior to the release of the second quarter GDP report in which I noted the following:

“Tomorrow, the US Department of Commerce will report its advance estimate of 2Q GDP which will be the long-awaited evidence that “Trumponomics” is working. The current estimates for the initial print run the gamut from 3.9% to over 5% annualized growth. Regardless of the actual number, the White House spokesman will be quick to take credit for success in turning America’s economy around.

But is that really the case? First, there are several things to remember about the initial print on economic growth.

  • The initial estimate is based on the collection of estimates from Wall Street economists.  With no real data in just yet, the initial estimate just a “guess.”
  • The number is annualized. So, a growth of 1% in the economy is reported as 4%. However, as we know from the first quarter, quarterly growth can vary widely in a given year.
  • Lastly, a one-quarter surge in economic growth doesn’t make much difference in the long-term trajectory of economic growth, or in this case, ongoing weakness.  The chart below shows the change in economic growth by decade.”

As noted, the 1% growth rate in the second quarter was multiplied by 4-quarters to reach the proclaimed 4.1% growth rate. However, there is little evidence to support the notion that such mathematical projections have much validity. The chart below shows inflation-adjusted GDP growth on a quarterly basis as compared to economist expectations of sustained growth over the next 3-quarters. Not surprisingly, economic growth tends to vary widely from those expectations. More importantly, spikes in economic growth tend to lead lower rates over subsequent quarters.  

As we now know, the actual first estimate aligned with the 4% assumption made last week along with the expectation the current Administration, and media pundits, would go “all giddy.”

However, from a portfolio management standpoint, I am more interested in the “devil in the details” as economic growth is key to sustained growth in corporate revenue and profits. From an investment standpoint, it is more important to understand the sustainability of economic growth when projecting forward returns and modeling asset allocations around those assumptions. There are also several other important considerations with respect to the most recent GDP report.

Economy Gets A $1 Trillion Boost

With the release of the Q2 GDP report, and not covered by any of the mainstream media, was an adjustment the economic data going all the way back to 1929.

As noted by Wolf Richter:

“What the Bureau of Economic Analysis released Friday as part of its GDP report was a huge pile of revisions and adjustments going back years. It included an adjustment to the tune of nearly $1 trillion in ‘real’ GDP. And it lowered further its already low measure of inflation.

Comprehensive updates of the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs), which are carried out about every five years, are an important part of BEA’s regular process for improving and modernizing its accounts to keep pace with the ever-changing U.S. economy. Updates incorporate newly available and more comprehensive source data, as well as improved estimation methodologies. The timespan for this year’s comprehensive update is 1929 through the first quarter 2018.

Where did a bulk of the change come from? A change in the calculation of “real” GDP from using 2009 dollars to 2012 dollars which boosted growth strictly from a lower rate of inflation.  As noted by the BEA:

“For 2012-2017, the average rate of change in the prices paid by U.S. residents, as measured by the gross domestic purchasers’ price index, was 1.2 percent, 0.1 percentage point lower than in the previously published estimates.”

Of course, when you ask the average household about “real inflation,” in terms of healthcare costs, insurance, food, energy, etc., they are likely to give you quite an earful that the cost of living is substantially higher than 1.2%. Nonetheless, the chart below shows “real” GDP both pre- and post-2018 revisions.

Importantly, the entire revision is almost entirely due to a change in the inflation rate. On a nominal basis, there was virtually no real change at all. In other words, stronger economic growth came from a mathematical adjustment rather than increases in actual economic activity.

Population Matters

When the media reports on economic growth, employment gains, retail sales, personal consumption expenditures or a variety of other measures, there is little consideration given to increases in the population.

With respect to economic growth, population increases matter. In an economy that is 70% driven by personal consumption expenditures, adding more consumers to the population will positively impact economic growth. The increase in demand from additional consumers will lead to an increase in retail sales, employment gains, etc. However, as we showed previously, while there is much “hype” about employment gains in the economy, the reality is that employment has failed to keep pace with population growth.

The chart below shows the difference between “real” GDP growth and “real” GDP growth per capita.

As you can see, once you adjust for population, the growth rate of the economy looks very different. However, we can see a clearer representation of the difference when looking at the average growth rate per decade. I have projected the data out, based on current assumptions, through 2025.

There is a significant difference between reported economic growth rates and GDP per capita. Currently, at just a 1.4% annual growth rate in GDP per capita going forward, the expectations for higher returns on investments must be reconsidered. It is unlikely, with debt to GDP ratios elevated, interest rates rising, and wages stagnant that higher rates of growth can be sustained.

It Wasn’t Really 4%

As was quoted previously, the second quarter GDP report was inflated by a number of one-off factors that will dissipate in the quarters ahead.

An unusually large number of one-off factors appear to have boosted 2Q GDP, many of which are directly related to escalating trade concerns. As companies and countries race to secure supplies that may become expensive later on, exports have surged and inventories have swelled. If these trends are one-time adjustments (and our economists believe they are), the ‘payback’ in 2H could be significant. Enjoy the 2Q GDP number, which may be the last best print for a while.”

Our friends at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget provided a good piece of commentary showing the impacts of recent legislation and political actions.

Most of this growth comes from the one-time surge in consumption that accompanies deficit-financed legislation. We recently estimated that other deficit-financed bills would generate a further 0.2 percent of growth.

At the same time, many analysts believe the second-quarter growth numbers are artificially inflated by shifts in consumption to avoid the new tariffs announced this quarter. Most significantly, China appears to have accelerated purchases of soybeans, crude oil, and other exports before new tariffs went into effect. Pantheon Macroeconomics estimated the soybean surge alone could account for as much 0.6 percentage points of the growth rate. These accelerated purchases mean faster growth now at the expense of slower growth later.

Assuming CBO’s numbers apply evenly on a quarterly basis and Pantheon’s numbers are correct, these temporary factors alone account for 1.4 percentage points of annual growth – meaning without them the second-quarter growth rate would fall to 2.7 percent. Even this 2.7 percent figure is likely inflated by the accelerated export of other goods, as well as one-time recovery effects.”

“Growth of 4.1 percent is a fast quarterly growth rate, the highest since the third quarter of 2014 (4.9 percent). Nevertheless, it’s notable that this growth rate is based on several temporary and predictable factors. But importantly, growth often fluctuates quarter to quarter – and over the course of the year, economic growth is likely to be significantly slower.”

We concur with that outlook and expect a significant softening of economic growth over the next couple of quarters. Furthermore, while a one-quarter anomaly is certainly good for media sound bytes, it is a far different matter when it comes to investing capital. The recent pop in economic growth did little to change the long-run dynamics of the economy as I showed previously. More importantly, the quality of economic growth continues to deteriorate due to structural shifts in the economic backdrop.

In modeling assumptions for future returns on invested capital, expectations of weaker economic growth rates must be considered. As we discussed in our third chapter of “Myths of Stocks For The Long Run” if:

  • GDP maintains a 2% annualized growth rate, AND
  • There are NO recessions….ever, AND
  • Current market cap/GDP stays flat at 1.25, AND
  • The current dividend yield of roughly 2% remains,

Using Dr. John Hussman’s formula we would get forward returns of:

(1.02)*(.8/1.25)^(1/30)-1+.02 = 2.5%

But there’s a “whole lotta ifs” in that assumption.

More importantly, if we assume that inflation remains stagnant at 2%, as the Fed hopes, this would mean a real rate of return of just 0.5%.

Economic growth matters, and it matters a lot.

As an investor, it is important to remember that in the end corporate earnings and profits are a function of the economy and not the other way around. Historically, GDP growth and revenues have grown at roughly equivalent rates.

Forget the optimism surrounding “Trumpenomics” and focus on longer-term economic trends which have been declining for the past 30+ years. The economic trend is a function of a growing burden of debt, increasing demographic headwinds and, very importantly, declining productivity growth. I see little to make me believe these are changing in a meaningful way.

Lastly, do not forget that interest rates, despite recent increases, are near historical lows and the Feds balance sheet is still 4 times as large as it was before the financial crisis of 2008. Further, the U.S. Treasury will borrow $1.3 trillion this year which will directly feed economic growth. Just ask yourself where would the economy be if this extreme monetary and fiscal policy were not in place.

Still think everything is “hunky dory?”

The Mirage That Will Be Q2-GDP

Tomorrow, the US Department of Commerce will report its advance estimate of 2Q GDP which will be the long-awaited evidence that “Trumponomics” is working. The current estimates for the initial print run the gamut from 3.9% to over 5% annualized growth. Regardless of the actual number, the White House spokesman will be quick to take credit for success in turning America’s economy around.

But is that really the case? First, there are several things to remember about the initial print on economic growth.

  • The initial estimate is based on the collection of estimates from Wall Street economists.  With no real data in just yet, the initial estimate just a “guess.”
  • The number is annualized. So, a growth of 1% in the economy is reported as 4%. However, as we know from the first quarter, quarterly growth can vary widely in a given year.
  • Lastly, a one-quarter surge in economic growth doesn’t make much difference in the long-term trajectory of economic growth, or in this case, ongoing weakness.  The chart below shows the change in economic growth by decade.

  • In both the chart above, and below, I have penciled in a 4% increase in economic growth for the second quarter. Making similar adjustments for wages and productivity, we find the 5-year averages change very little. More importantly, current action is more typical of a late cycle expansion as opposed to the beginning of a new one.

Secondly, while the print will undoubtedly be a strong one, and not unexpected following a weak Q1 growth rate, the question is whether it is sustainable? A recent note from Goldman Sachs suggests some caution:

“An unusually large number of one-off factors appear to have boosted 2Q GDP, many of which are directly related to escalating trade concerns. As companies and countries race to secure supplies that may become expensive later on, exports have surged and inventories have swelled. If these trends are one-time adjustments (and our economists believe they are), the ‘payback’ in 2H could be significant. Enjoy the 2Q GDP number, which may be the last best print for a while.”

This is likely correct. As 2018 has seen a steady increase in trade tensions, and trade actions, between the US and its trading partners, we have already begun to see some of the negative impacts from those actions. Just this past week Boeing ($BA), General Motors ($GM) and Whirlpool ($WHR) all had disappointing reports with comments directly related to the negative impact of tariffs on their results. They are surely not going to be the last as the US has slapped tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January, on steel and aluminum in March, and on US$34 billion of goods from China on July 6. Now, the administration is talking about another 25% tariff on close to $200 billion in foreign-made automobiles later this year.

Morgan Stanley also made very similar comments in their recent analysis about the unusually large number of one-off factors which appear to have boosted 2Q GDP, most of which are directly related to escalating trade concerns.

“As companies and countries race to secure supplies that may become expensive later on, exports have surged and inventories have swelled. If these trends are one-time adjustments (and our economists believe they are), the ‘payback’ in 2H could be significant. Enjoy the 2Q GDP number, which may be the last best print for a while.

The ‘stockpiling’ in exports could be responsible for 1.5 percentage points of our 4.7% 2Q GDP estimate. ‘Stockpiling’ also appears to be at work for US companies, albeit to a more limited extent. The inventory build in 2Q is tracking at +US$38 billion, versus a +US$10 billion rate in the prior two quarters. And what’s more interesting is the areas where those inventories are building, which have material overlaps with trade: electrical goods, machinery equipment, motor vehicles and parts.”

In other words, the contribution to Q2 GDP from inventories alone would be roughly 2.2%, or roughly 50%, of the total increase. Such would be the single biggest combined contribution since 4Q11 when the U.S. was restocking auto inventories following the tsunami-related shutdown of Japan. 

These one-off adjustments are unsustainable and simply represent the pull-forward of demand that will be given back over the subsequent quarters. Following the economic reboot in Q4 of 2011, as Japan’s manufacturing came back online, the next five quarters averaged just 1.6%.

Another reason, the second quarter economic growth print may be a “one-time” bonanza, is that tariffs are not only impacting U.S. companies and their profitability, it is also filtering through the rest of the economy as recently noted by ECRI:

“As the chart shows, real personal income and consumer spending growth are both in cyclical downturns.”

“Contrary to the notion of a ‘strengthening’ economy, consumer spending growth has fallen to a 4 ¼-year low, as personal income growth continues to undershoot spending growth.

The consumer — which makes up about 70% of the economy — is getting hit with a six-year highs in inflation, so real wages are actually lower than a year ago.

The chart also shows that the income shortfall relative to spending is increasing, and since 2015 the cumulative shortfall is over 1% of GDP. Necessarily, that gap is financed by consumers taking on more debt.

Away from the trade war rhetoric, which hasn’t really made a big impact yet, the lack of real income gains is why many are having a harder time making ends meet.

The expected strength in Q2 GDP growth comes in large part from energy production and a temporary fiscal boost, which are both non-cyclical events. Of course, higher gas prices also hurt the consumer.”

With wage growth stagnant, corporations struggling to pass through rising commodity and tariff related costs and debt service requirements on the rise as the Fed continues to hike rates, the drag from the consumption side of the economic equation will likely dwarf the current boosts in the next two quarters.

Furthermore, as I noted previously, tax cuts and reform, tariffs and other fiscal remedies promoted by the current administration fail to address the main drag to economic growth over time. The debt.

“It now requires $3.71 of debt to create $1 of economic growth which will only worsen as the debt continues to expand at the expense of stronger rates of growth.”

In fact, as recently noted by our friends at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the U.S. deficit is set to surge. To wit:

“The White House Office of Management and Budget recently released its annual mid-session review which updated deficit projections in its fiscal year 2019 budget request. The report projected deficits will reach $1.085 trillion in FY 2019 under their budget, which is double the $526 billion called for in the FY 2018 budget.”

The report specifically addresses the biggest point of concern:

“The last time the nation experienced trillion-dollar deficits was during a serious economic downturn, no less – lawmakers took the issue seriouly. PAYGO laws were established, a fiscal commission was formed, new discretionary spending caps were implemented and policymakers entered a multi-year debate on how best to bring down long-term debt levels.

This time around, with the emergence of trillion-dollar deficits during a period of economic strength – when we should be saving for future downturns – few seem to even take notice. On our current course, debt will overtake the size of the entire economy in about a decade, and interest will be the largest government program in three decades or less. This will weaken both our economy and our role in the world.”

Of course, the debt commission failed, what few spending cuts that were put in place have been fully repealed and unsurprisingly surging debt levels continue to surge as economic growth remains weak.

Furthermore, while many in the current administration like to use the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections as they are always overly optimistic, it is important to note the CBO gives no weight to the structural changes which continue to plague economic assumptions. The combination of tariffs and tax cuts combined with the major headwinds to economic growth are daunting.

  • Spending hikes
  • Demographics
  • Surging health care costs
  • Structural employment shifts
  • Technological innovations
  • Globalization
  • Financialization 
  • Global debt

These factors will continue to send the debt to GDP ratios to record levels. The debt, combined with these numerous challenges, will continue to weigh on economic growth, wages and standards of living into the foreseeable future.

So, while the economic report on Friday will be a “rosy” picture in the short-term, it is likely going to be the best print we see between now and the onset of the next recession.

The Data Is In: Tax Cuts And The Failure To Trickle Down

Back in February, I discussed some of the early indications of what we were seeing following the passage of “tax cut” bill last December. To wit:

“The same is true for the myth that tax cuts lead to higher wages. Again, as with economic growth, there is no evidence that cutting taxes increases wage growth for average Americans. This is particularly the case currently as companies are sourcing every accounting gimmick, share repurchase or productivity increasing enhancement possible to increase profit growth.

Not surprisingly, our guess that corporations would utilize the benefits of ‘tax cuts’ to boost bottom line earnings rather than increase wages has turned out to be true. As noted by Axios, in just the first two months of this year companies have already announced over $173 BILLION in stock buybacks.  This is ‘financial engineering gone mad’ and something RIA analyst, Jesse Colombo, noted recently:

‘How have U.S. corporations been deploying their new influx of capital? Unlike in prior cycles – when corporations favored long-term business investments and expansions – corporations have largely focused on juicing their stock prices via share buybacks, dividends, and mergers & acquisitions. While this pleases shareholders and boosts executive compensation, this short-term approach is detrimental to the long-term success of American corporations. The chart below shows the surge in share buybacks and dividends paid, which is a direct byproduct of the current artificially low interest rate environment. Even more alarming is the fact that share buybacks are expected to exceed $1 trillion this year, which would blow all prior records out of the water. The passing of President Donald Trump’s tax reform plan was the primary catalyst that encouraged corporations to dramatically ramp up their share buyback plans.'”

SP500 Buybacks & Dividends By Year

“What is even more unwise about the current share buyback mania is the fact that it is occurring at extremely high valuations, which is tantamount to ‘throwing good money after bad.’”

And, in the time since that writing, there is scant evidence that wages, or employment, are improving for the masses versus those in the executive “C-suite.” 

Nonetheless, while the markets have been rising, investors continue to bank on strong earnings going forward, but should they?

Jamie Powell tackles that question for the Financial Times:

Zion Research Group, an independent consultancy focused on Accountancy and Tax based in New York City, have combed over last quarter’s earnings- sifting out the organic growth from the accountancy and tax shenanigans. Yet the degree to which it boosted profits may come as a surprise, particularly when broken down by sector.

First off, we should note that Zion Research limited its analysis to 351 of the S&P 500’s constituents, removing businesses whose first quarter did not end on March 31, and only keeping those whose effective tax rate was between 0 to 45 per cent as to, in its words, ‘remove whacky outliers’.

Here are the key findings:

‘On average, it appears as if tax rates dropped by 588 bps from 25.7 per cent in 1Q17 to 19.8 per cent in 1Q18 for the S&P 500 companies analyzed. We estimate that lower tax rates boosted GAAP earnings in the aggregate by 9%.

In the aggregate, we estimate that lower tax rates resulted in about $18.3 billion of incremental net income in 1Q18, accounting for nearly half of the $37.0 billion (17.6%) in year-over-year earnings growth for the 351 companies we analyzed.’

In other words, nearly half of the quarter’s earnings growth came from tax cuts for those selected companies. Furthermore, of the 351 companies analyzed, only 273 got a boost to 1Q18 earnings from lower taxes, while 63 companies had a “tax drag” due to write-downs of deferred tax assets.

More from Zion:

“98 companies [of the 258] relied on taxes for more than half of their earnings growth, including 35 where all the growth was tax related. At the other end of the spectrum, 41 companies actually saw a tax-related drag on earnings growth.”

Buyback Bonanza

However, there is more to Zion’s story. While earnings growth was indeed derived from tax cuts, it was also the extensive use of buybacks used to boost bottom lines earnings per share that is important. While the mainstream media, and the Administration, rushed to claim that tax cuts would lead to surging economic growth, wages, and employment, such has yet to be the case. Instead, companies have used their tax windfall to buyback shares instead.

As Matt Egan noted for CNN Money:

“Corporate America threw Wall Street a record-shattering party last quarter. Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.”

The Heisenberg Report looked at the divisor change in the major indices to confirm the same.

There’s an argument to be made that if you’re looking to explain how it is that U.S. equities held up in Q2 amid all the headline risk, buybacks are a good place to start. I highlighted the following chart from JPMorgan in a previous post, but I’ll use it again here in the interest of backing up that contention:”

“Normative discussions aside, the corporate bid is in place and that’s a form of real-life ‘plunge protection’. You don’t need any conspiracy theories to employ the ‘plunge protection’ characterization. Recall that back in February, amid the equity rout, Goldman’s buyback desk had its second busiest week in history. Here’s a quote from a note dated February:

‘The Goldman Sachs Corporate Trading Desk recently completed the two most active weeks in its history and the desk’s executions have increased by almost 80% YTD vs. 2017.’

The point here, is that when it comes to the ‘who will be the marginal buyer of U.S. equities?’ question, I’m not entirely sure it needs answering in the near term as long as buybacks continue and as long as earnings continue to come in strong. Additionally, you can expect the buyback bid to be even more pronounced in the event there’s a sell off.”

The “buyback bid” not only supports stock prices in the short-term, but as I discussed recently in “Q1-Earnings Review,” there is evidence which suggests the economy is not as fully robust as may appear in headline data.

“Looking back it is interesting to see that much of the rise in ‘profitability’ since the recessionary lows have come from a variety of cost-cutting measures and accounting gimmicks rather than actual increases in top-line revenue. As shown in the chart below, there has been a stunning surge in corporate profitability despite a lack of revenue growth. Since 2009, the reported earnings per share of corporations has increased by a total of 336%. This is the sharpest post-recession rise in reported EPS in history. However, that sharp increase in earnings did not come from revenue which has only increased by a marginal 49% during the same period.”

“Furthermore, while the majority of buybacks have been done with ‘repatriated’ cash, it just goes to show how much cash has been used to boost earnings rather than expanding production, making productive acquisitions or returning cash to shareholders. 

Ultimately, the problem with cost-cutting, wage suppression, labor hoarding and stock buybacks, along with a myriad of accounting gimmicks, is that there is a finite limit to their effectiveness. Eventually, you simply run out of people to fire, costs to cut and the ability to reduce labor costs.” 

When Does The Party End?

While tax cuts have been, and will be, fantastic for bottom line earnings in the first half of this year, the real question becomes who will be the marginal buyer of equities once the “windfall bonanza” for corporations subsides. There are two points of concern which should be considered.

The first is those profit expectations are on the decline already as noted by BofA in a recent report:

“A a net -9% of respondents think global profits will not improve in the next 12 months, down 53ppt from Jan’18 and the lowest since Feb’16. This means that a majority of investors now believe that profits have topped out and will slide in the coming year.

The second is margin expansion. Going forward increasing margins will become tougher as higher labor costs, rising energy prices, higher interest costs, tariffs and a stronger dollar weigh on bottom line profitability. More importantly, the dramatic surge in earnings growth in the first two quarters will dissipate quickly as year-over-year comparisons become more problematic.

As Eric Parnell recently penned:

“Share buyback activity is currently breaking records, perhaps in unsustainable ways. Eventually, this activity will slow. If history and logic is any guide, it will be when the U.S. economy falls back into recession and corporations need to circle the wagons and keep the cash that might otherwise be allocated to buybacks on their balance sheets instead. And if the forecasters along with the Treasury yield curve that are predicting an economic slowdown as soon as 2019 prove to be correct, this scaling back in buyback activity may be coming sooner rather than later once the tax cut sugar high finally wears off.

While the key market trends remain decidedly positive for now, and portfolios should remain tilted toward equity exposure, understand that all cycles end. The only questions are “when” and “what causes it?” 

As we have repeatedly written since last December, tax cuts were destined to only wind up in one place – in the pockets of shareholders and C-suite executives. But in an economy which is nearly 70% driven by the consumption of the bottom 90%, a fiscal policy which specifically targeted corporations (which are major political donors) was not likely the best strategy to promote a long-term increase in economic prosperity.

Unsurprisingly, with the data now in, we once again come to find out that “trickle down” economics never actually trickles.

Some Questions On Employment & Wages

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published the latest monthly “employment report” which showed an increase in employment of 213,000 jobs. It was also the 93rd consecutive positive jobs report which is one of the longest in U.S. history. Not surprisingly, the report elicited exuberant responses from across the financial media spectrum such as this from Steve Rick, chief economist for CUNA Mutual Group:

“The employment report this month demonstrates yet again the robust strength of the labor market. After a red-hot May, June kept up steady momentum in jobs and certainly hit back at any worries among economists who thought hiring was beginning to plateau after an inconsistent past few months.”

There is little argument the steak of employment growth is quite phenomenal and comes amid hopes the economy is beginning to shift into high gear.

But if employment is as “strong” as is currently believed, then I have a few questions for you to ponder. These questions are important to your investment outlook as there is a high correlation between employment, economic growth and, not surprisingly, corporate profitability.

Let’s get started.

Prelude: The chart below shows the peak annual rate of change for employment prior to the onset of a recession. The current annual rate of employment growth is 1.6% which is lower than any previous employment level prior to a recession in history.

Question: Given the low rate of annual growth in employment, and the length of the employment gains, just how durable is the job market against an exogenous economic event? More importantly, how does 1.6% annualized growth in employment create sustained rates of higher economic growth?


Prelude: One thing which is never discussed when reporting on employment is the “growth” of the working age population. Each month, new entrants into the population create “demand” through their additional consumption. Employment should increase to accommodate for the increased demand from more participants in the economy. Either that or companies resort to automation, off-shoring, etc. to increase rates of production without increases in labor costs. The next chart shows the total increase in employment versus the growth of the working age population.

Question: Just how “strong” is employment growth, really? 


Prelude: The missing “millions” shown in the chart above is one of the “great mysteries” about one of the longest economic booms in U.S. history. This is particularly a conundrum when the Federal Reserve talks about the economy nearing “full employment.”

The next several charts focus on the idea of “full employment” in the U.S. While Jobless Claims are reaching record lows, the percentage of full time versus part-time employees is still well below levels of the last 35 years. It is also possible that people with multiple part-time jobs are being double counted in the employment data.

Question: With jobless claims at historic lows, and the unemployment rate at 4%, then why is full-time employment relative to the working age population at just 49.9%?


Prelude: One of the arguments often given for the low labor force participation rates is that millions of “baby boomers” are leaving the workforce for retirement. This argument doesn’t carry much weight given the significantly larger “Millennial” generation which is entering into the workforce simultaneously.

However, for argument sake, let’s assume that every worker over the age of 55 retires. If the “retiring” argument is valid, then employment participation rates should soar once that group is removed. The chart below is full-time employment relative to the working-age population of 16-54.

Question: At 50.43%, and the lowest rate since 1981, just how big of an impact are “retiring baby boomers” having on the employment numbers?


Prelude: One of the reasons the retiring “baby boomer” theory is flawed is, well, they aren’t actually retiring. Following two massive bear markets, weak economic growth, questionable spending habits and poor financial planning, more individuals over the age of 55 are still working than at any other time since 1970.

The other argument is that Millennials are going to school longer than before so they aren’t working either. The chart below strips out those of college age (16-24) and those over the age of 55. Those between the ages of 25-54 should be working.

Question: With the prime working age group of labor force participants still at levels seen previously in 1988, just how robust is the labor market actually?


Prelude: Of course, there are some serious considerations which need to be taken into account about the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment.  The first is the calculation of those no longer counted as part of the labor force. Beginning in 2000, those no longer counted as part of the labor force detached from its longer-term trend. The immediate assumption is all these individuals retired, but as shown above, we know this is exactly the case.

Question: Where are the roughly 95-million Americans missing from the labor force? This is an important question as it relates to the labor force participation rate. Secondly, these people presumably are alive and participating in the economy so exactly how valid is the employment calculation when 1/3 of the working-age population is simply not counted?


Prelude: The second questionable calculation is the birth/death adjustment. I addressed this in more detail previously, but here is the general premise.

Following the financial crisis, the number of “Births & Deaths” of businesses unsurprisingly declined. Yet, each month, when the market gets the jobs report, we see roughly 200,000 plus jobs attributed to positive net business creation.

Included in those reports is the ‘ADJUSTMENT’ to account for the net number of new businesses (jobs) that were “birthed” (created) less “deaths” (out of business) during the reporting period. Since 2009, the number has consistently “added” roughly 800,000 jobs annually to the employment numbers despite the fact the number of businesses was actually declining.

The chart below shows the differential in employment gains since 2009 when removing the additions to the monthly employment number through the “Birth/Death” adjustment. Real employment gains would be roughly 7.04 million less if you actually accounted for the LOSS in jobs. 

We know this number is roughly correct simply by looking at the growth in the population versus the number of jobs that were estimated to have been created.

Question: If we were truly experiencing the strongest streak in employment growth since the 1990’s would not national compensation be soaring?


Prelude: If the job market was as “tight” as is suggested by an extremely low unemployment rate, the wage growth should be sharply rising across all income spectrums. The chart below is the annual change in real national compensation (less rental income) as compared to the annual change in real GDP. Since the economy is 70% driven by personal consumption, it should be of no surprise the two measures are highly correlated.

Side Question: Has “renter nation” gone too far?

However, if we dig in a bit further, we see that real rates of average hourly compensation remains virtually non-existent.

Question: Again, if employment was as strong as stated by the mainstream media, would not compensation, and subsequently economic growth, be running at substantially strong levels rather than at rates which have been more normally associated with past recessions?


I have my own assumptions and ideas relating to each of these questions. However, the point of this missive is simply to provide you the data for your own analysis. The conclusion you come to has wide-ranging considerations for investment portfolios and allocation models.

Does the data above support the notion of a strongly growing economy that still has “years left to run?”  

Or, considering the fact the Fed is tightening monetary policy by raising rates and reducing liquidity, does the data suggest a “monetary policy” accident and recession are an under-appreciated risk?

But then again, maybe the yield-curve is already telling the answer to these questions. That however depends on which yield curve you look at. For our latest on the Fed’s shifting narrative on the value of the yield curve please read our latest article – The Mendoza Line.

Is There A Problem With The BLS Employment Reports?

Since the end of the financial crisis, economists, analysts, and the Federal Reserve have continued to point to the monthly employment reports as proof of the ongoing economic recovery. Even the White House has jumped on the bandwagon as the President has proudly latched onto the headlines of the “longest stretch of employment gains since the 1990’s.”

Yes, there has definitely been an improvement in the labor market since the financial crisis. I am not arguing that point. The financial markets, investors, and analysts eagerly anticipate the release of the employment report each month while the Federal Reserve has staked its monetary policy actions on them as well.

My problem is the discrepancy between the reports and what is happening in the underlying economy. The chart below shows employment gains from 1985-2000 versus wages and economic growth rates.

Employment-Wages-GDP-1-042516

As compared to 2000-2016.

Employment-Wages-GDP-2-042516

See the problem here?

IF employment was indeed growing at the fastest pace since the 1990’s, then wage growth, and by extension, economic growth should be at much stronger levels as well. That has YET to be the case.

Part of the reporting problem that has yet to corrected by the BLS is the continued overstatement of jobs through the “Birth/Death Adjustment” which I addressed recently in greater detail.

“For example, take a look at the first slide below.”

Employment-BirthDeath-Analysis-033116

“This chart CLEARLY shows that the number of “Births & Deaths” of businesses since the financial crisis have been on the decline. Yet, each month, when the market gets the jobs report, we see roughly 200k plus jobs.

Included in those reports is an ‘ADJUSTMENT’ by the BEA to account for the number of new businesses (jobs) that were “birthed” (created) during the reporting period. This number has generally ‘added’ jobs to the employment report each month.

The chart below shows the differential in employment gains since 2009 when removing the additions to the monthly employment number though the “Birth/Death” adjustment. Real employment gains would be roughly 4.43 million less if you actually accounted for the LOSS in jobs discussed in the first chart above.”

Employment-BirthDeath-Adjusted-033116

Think about it this way. IF we were truly experiencing the strongest streak of employment growth since the 1990’s, should we not be witnessing:

  1. Surging wage growth as a 4.9% unemployment rate gives employees pricing power?
  2. Economic growth well above 3% as 4.9% unemployment leads to stronger consumption?
  3. A rise in imports as rising consumption leads to demand for goods.
  4. Falling inventories as sales outpace production.
  5. Rising industrial production as demand for goods increases.

None of those things exist currently.

Unreal Retail

Furthermore, as Jeffrey Snider just addressed, the surging jobs in “retail sales” does not jive with actual retail sales. To wit:

“On the sales side, the last year has been appreciably worse than the dot-com recession and recovery yet employment is moving in the exact opposite direction and with that strange intensity of late. Not only are employment figures showing a more robust hiring scenario now than the late 1990’s, the pace is significantly better than even the housing mania of the middle 2000’s. From April 2003 until August 2005, retail sales clearly accelerated, with the overall average 6.0% during those two and a half years (and the short-term, 6-month MA 7.25% by the end of them). It would make sense, then, that hiring would be sustained and relatively robust, with the BLS suggesting 458k total new retail jobs to go along with those increasingly better sales estimates.”

ABOOK-Mar-2016-Payrolls-Retail-Trade-Housing-Mania

That means we have worse than dot-com recession levels in terms of sales over the past year from early 2015, but not the contraction in retail employment that went along with them prior. Instead, the BLS suggests that hiring is more robust now than during either the heights of the dot-com or housing bubbles even though sales are nowhere near those periods.”

Something is clearly amiss in what is happening in retail trade. We are likely going to see fairly sharp negative revisions to the data when the BLS eventually gets around to accounting for “retail reality.” 

Profits Drive Employment

Let’s set all of the above data points aside for a moment and just talk about the single most important driver of employment – profits.

Business owners are the single most astute allocators of capital on the planet. Why? Simple. If businesses continually misallocate capital over an extended period of time, they will not be in business for long. If sales are declining – companies tend to reign in hiring as a defense against falling profitability.  If profits are declining due to cost increases, like spiraling healthcare premiums, employment tends to be curtailed. Employment, which is the largest expense for companies, is driven by the rise and fall of profits.

I have smoothed the annual variability of inflation-adjusted corporate profits with real GDP to provide a clearer picture of its relationship to the annual rate of change in employment.

Employment-Profits-042516

We are currently witnessing what is very likely the peak in employment for the current economic cycle. With layoff announcement rising from virtually every sector of the economy, it will likely not take much more economic weakness to see a rise in unemployment rates.

LMCI Leads

Lastly, the Fed’s on Labor Market Conditions Index (LMCI) tends to lead the overall change in the BLS employment reports. The chart below is a 12-month average of the LMCI as compared to the annual change in employment.

LMCI-Employment-042516

Despite the Fed’s “jawboning” about the strength of the labor market as a reason to “normalize” interest rates, their own indicator likely confirms why they have not done so as of yet. The historic correlation is extremely high and the recent divergence will likely not last long as the LMCI approaches ZERO growth. With economic data continuing to weaken, it will likely not be long before employment reports begin to consistently miss overly optimistic expectations.

It is quite evident there is something amiss about the BLS’ employment reports. Is the disparity simply an anomaly in the seasonal adjustments caused by the depth of the financial crisis? Is there an exceptional and unaccounted for margin of error in the surveys? Or, is it something more intentional by government-related agencies to keep “confidence” elevated as Central Banks globally “paddle like crazy” to keep global economies afloat.

I honestly don’t know those answers. I do know the only question that really matters is:

“Who gets to the end of the race first?”


Lance Roberts

lance_sig

Lance Roberts is a Chief Portfolio Strategist/Economist for Clarity Financial. He is also the host of “The Lance Roberts Show” and Chief Editor of the “Real Investment Advice” website and author of “Real Investment Daily” blog and “Real Investment Report“. Follow Lance on Facebook, Twitter, and Linked-In

3 Things: Fed Problem, Oil – Ain’t 2009, NFIB Un-Optimism

“3 Things” is a weekly post of thoughts I am pondering, usually contrarian, with respect to the markets, economy or portfolio management. Comments and thoughts are always welcome via email,  Twitter, and/or Facebook.


The Fed’s Got A Problem

The most recent employment report sent the financial market pundits abuzz claiming that the economy was on solid footing with no recession in sight. The problem, for anyone willing to actually look at the data, was the underlying data was mostly disappointing.

While the BLS trumpeted 242,000 new jobs in February, wages declined 0.1% and the average workweek fell by 0.2 hours along with aggregate hours worked falling a hefty 0.4%. Furthermore, part-time work soared in February while full-time job growth was mediocre.

But even stranger was that out of the 242,000 jobs, retailing saw a massive jump of 55,000 jobs. This is in a month when stores are not hiring a lot of part-time work to deal with a shopping season. Jeffrey Snider at Alhambra Partners picked up on this by pointing out the differential between actual retail sales and “hiring.”

Starting April 2015, overall retail sales (again, including auto sales) fell below 3% on a 6-month average basis (meaning more than a one-month drop in growth rate) – and have remained closer to 2% than even 3%. In past cycles, that has meant initiation of contraction in retail trade employment and widespread recession. Not this time, however, as the BLS gives us a remarkable +313k gain (including February 2016) over the last 11 months. That equates to an astounding 28.5k per month.”

Alhambra-RetailTrade-Employment-030916

Pretty amazing.  This is even more confounding when you look at the NFIB’s Small Business Survey which shows real retail sales and expectations of sales both on the decline.

NFIB-Retail-Sales-030916

But it is not just in “retail trade” that employment gains are an issue but rather throughout the entirety of the report. The obfuscation of the data is coming from the mathematical “seasonal adjustments” along with the “birth/death” adjustment which are adding jobs that aren’t actually there.

Think about it this way. If the unemployment rate were truly 4.9%, and jobs were actually being created at the fast clip since the 90’s, then labor force participation rates, along with wage growth, should be at similar levels. Right? Uhm....

Employment-Population-16-54-030916

Of course, the reason that labor force participation rates remain so low is that job creation has failed to exceed the growth rate of the working-age population. With the population growing faster than employment, the number of unemployed living in the shadows continues to swell.

Employment-Population-NetChange-030916

Of course, herein lies the problem for the Federal Reserve, who remains intent on further rate hikes this year, which could lead to a major policy error. The Fed’s own Labor Market Conditions Index, which has now declined into contraction, also suggests that something is very wrong with the employment data over the last several months.

LMCI-FedFunds-030916

If the employment gains were indeed as strong as the Fed, and the BLS, currently suggest; the labor force participation rate should be rising strongly. This has been the case during every other period in history where employment growth increased. Since the financial crisis, despite employment gains, the labor force participation rate has continued to fall.

This suggests that at some point in the future, we will likely see negative revisions to the employment data showing weaker growth than currently thought. 

The issue for the Fed is by fully committing to hiking interest rates, and promoting the economic recovery meme, changing direction now would lead to a loss of confidence and a more dramatic swoon in the financial markets. Such an event would create the very recession they are trying to avoid.

Oil – This Ain’t 2009

I live in Houston where oil is literally the life-blood of the economy. My wife works in the oil field related sales, my friends work for oil companies as well as my clients who are working and saving for their retirement. I would love nothing more than oil prices to go much higher as it would make my life immeasurably simpler.

Over the last couple of weeks, the rally in oil has gotten the financial media and analysts all stirred up with predictions the “bottom in oil is in” and “$70/bbl oil is on its way by summer.” These views are based on the assumption that the decline in oil prices today is much like what we saw during the “dot.com bust” and during the “financial crisis.”

It’s not.

This morning Liz Ann Sonders from Schwab sent out the following tweet:

This misses the main problem with oil which is not going to be resolved anytime soon. The chart below shows the current supply of oil versus demand. Given that prices over the long-term are a reflection of the supply/demand dynamic, the current problem is quite apparent.

OIl-Supply-Demand-030916

This supply/demand imbalance is not going to be resolved my a mild stabilization in supply but rather a rapid decline in production. However, such a swift decline can not feasibly occur due to the need by oil companies to generate income to continue operations, make debt payments, and generate a profit, albeit at much lower levels, for shareholders. As shown in the chart above, the oversupply of oil was eventually reversed but over a very long period of time.

When the supply/demand imbalance became inverted it paved the way for massive oil price rallies in 2005 and 2009 (highlighted circles in the chart below) as “peak oil” became the prevailing fear.

Oil-Price-1980-Present-030916

With oil supplies once again exceeding demand, particularly in a weak global economy, oil companies will once again have to balance reducing supply against maintaining operations and profitability. Therefore, we are once again in position for a long, slow, decline in supply which will lead to sustained lower trading ranges for oil prices. Consequently, this will lead to lower reported profit margins for energy companies for the foreseeable future.

The point here is simple: “This ain’t 2009.”  

Yes, there will terrific trading opportunities for energy-related companies in the future. But first we need to work through the shake out of marginal companies that will file for bankruptcy, consolidation of weaker but stable players and reversions of pipelines back into parent companies. These actions will likely keep action volatile in the sector for a while and there will be significant money lost on speculative bets that go bust.

None of this is a bad thing, it is just the consequence of excess being reverted to a healthier and strong state.

If only Central Bankers understood the same.

The NFIB’s Un-optimistic View

While the media continues to jump on every government skewed statistic to spin into a positive headline, a recent survey of “boots on the ground” companies suggest something else is going on in the economy.

The National Federation of Independent Business recently released their latest survey of small businesses for February. The results were less than optimistic as shown by the sharp decline in their overall outlook over the last couple of months.

NFIB-Optimism-Index-030916

As Bill Dunkleberg, Chief Economist for the NFIB, stated:

“Monthly management of monetary policy using data subject to substantial revision is inconsistent with the acknowledged lags in policy and not supportive of real growth which requires more policy consistency. Financial markets, of course, thrive on the variability such policies produce and support a zero-interest-rate policy (ZIRP).

Meanwhile, compared to 2009, consumer interest income is down cumulatively over $3 trillion dollars, an unhappy side effect of Fed policies. Low interest rates are great if they occur in an economy that presents investment opportunities. This happens when the economy is exhibiting solid growth which it has not done in this expansion. The 1983 expansion averaged 650,000 new jobs each quarter compared to 450,000 in this expansion with a labor force 30 percent larger.

NFIB data indicate slow growth in the first quarter following the 1 percent growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2015. The GDPNow forecast from the Atlanta Fed is about 2 percent and the NFIB data basically agree. Owners are very pessimistic about business conditions in the coming months and spending and hiring plans have softened.”

Despite the always optimistic view of the media and Wall Street, businesses that ACTUALLY OPERATE in the economy have a much different view. Not surprisingly, the correlation between NFIB expectations and economic growth are fairly correlated which suggest that the economy is likely weaker than headlines suggest. 

NFIB-Expections-GDP-030916

As shown above, the decline in actual and planned sales would also suggest weaker hiring. Not surprisingly, the number of firms increasing employment last quarter also declined which again brings into question the accuracy of recent employment reports. 

NFIB-Expectations-Employment-030916

Of course, if things were as good economically as we are told by Wall Street and the mainstream media, would the ECB really be needing to drop further into negative interest rate territory and boost QE? 

Just some things to think about.

Lance Roberts

lance_sig

Lance Roberts is a Chief Portfolio Strategist/Economist for Clarity Financial. He is also the host of “The Lance Roberts Show” and Chief Editor of the “Real Investment Advice” website and author of “Real Investment Daily” blog and “Real Investment Report“. Follow Lance on Facebook, Twitter, and Linked-In

3 Things: “R” Probabilities, Middle-Class, Bear Market Over

“3 Things” is a weekly post of thoughts I am pondering, usually contrarian, with respect to the markets, economy or portfolio management. Comments and thoughts are always welcome via email,  Twitter, and/or Facebook.


Recession Probabilities Rise

As I penned earlier this week:

“Speaking of weather, last year, the BEA adjusted the ‘seasonal adjustment’ factors to compensate for the cold winter weather over the last couple of years that suppressed first quarter economic growth rates. (The irony here is that they adjusted adjustments for cold weather that generally occurs during winter.) 

However, the problem with ‘tinkering’ with the numbers comes when you have an exceptionally warm winter. The new adjustment factors, which boosted Q1 economic growth during the last two years will now create a large over-estimation of activity for the first quarter of this year. This anomaly will boost the ‘bullish hope’ as  the onset of a recession is delayed until those over-estimations are revised away over the course of the next year. ” 

The reason I reiterate this point is due to a recent research note from Wells Fargo discussing the increased risk of a domestic recession. To wit:

“One possible way to summarize the results from all these models is to calculate the average of these probabilities and then examine historical performance of the average probability. The current average probability is 37.3 percent and this method predicted all recessions successfully since 1980 without producing any false positives (Figure 11). Different models utilize different predictors to capture the state of different sectors of the economy and therefore an average probability may reflect the average risk posed by these sectors.

At present, we are not calling for a recession within the next six months. However, given that the recession probabilities based on our official model and average of all models are somewhat elevated, it is not wise to dismiss recession risk.”

Recession-Probit-WellsFargo-030316-2

The combined Probit Model based on the entire series of indicators utilized by Wells Fargo, (which includes LEI, VIX, Yield Spread, Stock Prices, Commodities and more) also confirms the same recessionary stresses shown in the Economic Output Composite Index (EOCI).

EOCI-Index-LEI-030216
(The EOCI Index is a composite of the Chicago Fed National Activity Index, ISM Composite, Several Fed Regional Surveys, Chicago PMI, LEI, and the NFIB Small Business Survey.)

As shown, the economy is currently operating at levels that have normally been associated with recessionary environments. The only thing that has kept the economy from registering a recession in the past has been the interventions by the Fed that have led to a “forward-pull” of future economic activity. (Beginnings and endings of QE programs noted by gold squares)

While there are many mainstream economists insisting that the U.S. economy is nowhere near recession, considering much of the current data will be negatively revised in the quarters ahead will likely prove those views wrong.

With economic data having remained extremely weak in recent months, it will NOT be surprising to see a short-term pickup in economic activity as a restocking cycle once again leads to temporary bounce. However, as we have repeatedly seen since 2009, those bounces in activity have been transient at best. Without monetary support from the Federal Reserve to once again “drag forward future consumption,” the risk of sliding into recession becomes a very real possibility. 

The Decline Of The Middle Class

I have often written about the broad decline in the financial conditions of the middle class.

There is a financial crisis on the horizon. It is a crisis that all the Central Bank interventions in the world cannot cure.

No, I am not talking about the next Lehman event or the next financial market meltdown. Although something akin to both will happen in the not-so-distant future. It is the lack of financial stability of the current, and next, generation that will shape the American landscape in the future.

The nonprofit National Institute on Retirement Security released a study in March stating that nearly 40 million working-age households (about 45 percent of the U.S. total) have no retirement savings at all. And those that do have retirement savings don’t have enough. As I discussed recently, the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of consumer finances found that the mean holdings for families with retirement accounts was only $201,000.”

Fed-Survey-2013-NetWorthbyAge-091014

Such levels of financial “savings” are hardly sufficient to support individuals through retirement. This is particularly the case as life expectancy has grown, and healthcare costs skyrocket in the latter stages of life due historically high levels of obesity and poor physical health. The lack of financial stability will ultimately shift almost entirely onto the already grossly underfunded welfare system.”

Just recently the Pew Research Center confirmed the same:

After more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it. In early 2015, 120.8 million adults were in middle-income households, compared with 121.3 million in lower- and upper-income households combined, a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

In at least one sense, the shift represents economic progress: While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more.”

Pew-MiddleClass-Chart-030216

“Over the same period, however, the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households, driven by the growing size of the upper-income tier and more rapid gains in income at the top.Fully 49% of U.S. aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29% in 1970. The share accruing to middle-income households was 43% in 2014, down substantially from 62% in 1970.

And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.”

Importantly, this is why economic growth remains weak. While the Federal Reserve was focused on boosting asset prices for the wealthy, they forgot to create an economic environment that was conducive to increasing the consumptive power of the middle-class and their near 70% participation in economic growth.

Oops.

The True Definition Of A Bear Market

The sharp rally over the last couple weeks, which has been primarily driven by massive short-covering, has brought the “bulls” out once again declaring the recent “bearish decline” over. However, is such really the case, or is this yet another of the many rallies we have seen as of late that ultimately fail?

In order to answer that question, we must first define what a bear market really is. The currently accepted definition of a “correction” is a 10% decline and an official “bear market” begins with a 20% fall in the market. However, both of these definitions are not accurate we have seen both such events occur during longer-term market trends.

For investors, the difference between a “bull” and a “bear” market, regardless of the short-term fluctuation in prices, is whether the overall “trend” in prices is rising or falling. When the “trend” is positive, speculating in the financial markets is advantageous as the “rising tide” increases the value of portfolios. Conversely, when the overall trend is “negative,” speculating in the financial markets has a generally negative result.

(We are not investors, we are speculators. Warren Buffett is an investor. When he invests in a company he can control its destiny by appointing operating managers, defining directives, etc. YOU are a speculator placing bets with your “savings” on ethereal pieces of paper that you “hope” will rise in price over time. Understanding this point is important.)

The utilization of a simple moving average is one way the overall trend of the market can be determined. A moving average is an “average” of prices over a given period of time. In order for there to be an average price, prices must have traded at two points of extreme over the sample period. If prices are generally “trending” higher, the average will be positively sloped as each new low and high point is greater than the last. The opposite is true when prices are generally “trending” lower.

Overall bullish and bearish trends are revealed when looking at longer-term price trends of the market. The chart below is an example.

SP500-MarketUpdate-030316

(Note: This is a WEEKLY price chart to smooth out short-term price volatility. We are using an 80-week moving average and a 52-week RSI for this example.)

During “Bull Markets” – prices tend to remain above an “upward” or “positively” sloping moving average. Also, the relative strength index (RSI) stays above 50 during that period.

During “Bear Markets” – prices tend to remain below a “downward” or “negatively” sloping moving average. RSI also remains below 50 during this period confirming a more “risk adverse” environment.

Currently, all indications currently suggest the markets are in the early stages of entering into a confirmed “bear market” as the longer term moving average is turning from a positive to a negative slope and RSI has fallen below 50.

Yes, things could change very quickly with the intervention of Central Bank action. The same was seen during the summer and fall of 2011 as then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke quickly acted to stave off a more serious market decline. However, with the Fed more focused on “tightening” monetary policy currently, such a salvation seems to be a low probability event.

The value in changing your definition of a “bear market” is by waiting to lose 20% of your portfolio before acting, it takes a 25% subsequent rise in the market to get back to even. That is “time” lost that you can never regain.

As stated earlier this week, the rules for managing your portfolio are relatively simple:

  1. In rising market trends – buy dips.
  2. In declining market trends – sell rallies.

Despite the ongoing “hopes” of the always bullish media, the recent rally has not changed the slope, or scope, of current market dynamics. The current “bear market” is not over just yet.

Just some things to think about.

Lance Roberts

lance_sig

Lance Roberts is a Chief Portfolio Strategist/Economist for Clarity Financial. He is also the host of “The Lance Roberts Show” and Chief Editor of the “Real Investment Advice” website and author of “Real Investment Daily” blog and “Real Investment Report“. Follow Lance on Facebook, Twitter, and Linked-In

3 Things: Earnings Lies, Profits Slide, EBITDA Is BullS***

“3 Things” is a weekly post of thoughts I am pondering, usually contrarian, with respect to the markets, economy or portfolio management. Comments and thoughts are always welcome via email,  Twitter, and/or Facebook.


Earnings Worse Than You Think

Just like the hit series “House Of Cards,” Wall Street earnings season has become rife with manipulation, deceit and obfuscation that could rival the dark corners of Washington, D.C.

What is most fascinating is that so many individuals invest hard earned capital based on these manipulated numbers. The failure to understand the “quality” of earnings, rather than the “quantity,” has always led to disappointing outcomes at some point in the future. 

According to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, the percentage of companies reporting adjusted earnings has increased sharply over the past 18 months or so. Today, almost 90% of companies now report earnings on an adjusted basis.

Adjusted-Earnings-022516

Back in the 80’s and early 90’s companies used to report GAAP earnings in their quarterly releases. If an investor dug through the report they would find “adjusted” and “proforma” earnings buried in the back. Today, it is GAAP earnings which are buried in the back hoping investors will miss the ugly truth.

These “adjusted or Pro-forma earnings” exclude items that a company deems “special, one-time or extraordinary.” The problem is that these “special, one-time” items appear “every” quarter leaving investors with a muddier picture of what companies are really making.

As BofAML states:

“We are increasingly concerned with the number of companies (non-commodity) reporting earnings on an adjusted basis versus those that are stressing GAAP accounting, and find the divergence a consequence of less earnings power. 

Consider that when US GDP growth was averaging 3% (the 5 quarters September 2013 through September 2014) on average 80% of US HY companies reported earnings on an adjusted basis. Since September 2014, however, with US GDP averaging just 1.9%, over 87% of companies have reported on an adjusted basis. Perhaps even more telling, between the end of 2010 and 2013, the percentage of companies reporting adjusted EBITDA was relatively constant and since 2013, the number has been on a steady rise.

We are increasingly concerned with this trend, as on an unadjusted basis non-commodity earnings growth has been negative 2 of the last 4 quarters, representing the worst 4 quarter average earnings growth in a non-recessionary period since late 2000.”

This accounting manipulation to win the “beat the earnings” game each quarter is important to corporate executives whose major source of wealth is stock-based compensation. As confirmed in a WSJ article:

“If you believe a recent academic study, one out of five [20%] U.S. finance chiefs have been scrambling to fiddle with their companies’ earnings. 

Not Enron-style, fraudulent fiddles, mind you. More like clever—and legal—exploitations of accounting standards that ‘manage earnings to misrepresent [the company’s] economic performance,’ according to the study’s authors, Ilia Dichev and Shiva Rajgopal of Emory University and John Graham of Duke University. Lightly searing the books rather than cooking them, if you like.”

This should not come as a major surprise as it is a rather “open secret.” Companies manipulate bottom line earnings by utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments to flatter earnings.

The tricks are well-known: A difficult quarter can be made easier by releasing reserves set aside for a rainy day or recognizing revenues before sales are made, while a good quarter is often the time to hide a big ‘restructuring charge’ that would otherwise stand out like a sore thumb.

What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.

Why is this important? Because, while manipulating earnings may work in the short-term, eventually, cost cutting, wage suppression, earnings manipulations, share-buybacks, etc. reach their effective limit. When that limit is reached, companies can no longer hide the weakness in their actual operating revenues. That point has likely been reached.

From the WSJ:

There’s a big difference between companies’ advertised performance in 2015 and how they actually did.

How big? With most calendar-year results now in, FactSet estimates companies in the S&P 500 earned 0.4% more per share in 2015 than the year before. That marks the weakest growth since 2009. But this is based on so-called pro forma figures, results provided by companies that exclude certain items such as restructuring charges or stock-based compensation.

Look to results reported under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and S&P earnings per share fell by 12.7%, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices. That is the sharpest decline since the financial crisis year of 2008. Plus, the reported earnings were 25% lower than the pro forma figures—the widest difference since 2008 when companies took a record amount of charges.

The implication: Even after a brutal start to 2016, stocks may still be more expensive than they seem. Even worse, investors may be paying for earnings and growth that aren’t anywhere near what they think. The result could be that share prices have even further to fall before they entice true value investors.

The difference shows up starkly when looking at price/earnings ratios. On a pro forma basis, the S&P trades at less than 17 times 2015 earnings. But that shoots up to over 21 times under GAAP.

S&P-500-Earnings-WorseThanRealized-022416

History is pretty clear. As long as earnings are deteriorating, you don’t want to be invested in stocks.

Fantasy Vs. Reality

What is most interesting, is that despite the ongoing earnings recession, Wall Street firms continue to predict an onward and upward push of profitability into the foreseeable future. As shown in the estimates below from Goldman Sachs, there is NO consideration for the impact of economic recession over the next several years.

GS-Profits-SP500-Targets-022316

Of course, this was the same prediction made in 1999 and in 2006 until the eventual and inevitable “reversion to the mean” occurred.

Eric Parnell recently penned an excellent piece in this regard entitled “Fantasy vs. Reality:”

The perpetual optimism of the corporate earnings forecast is remarkable. And while its well understood that things almost never turn out as good as we might anticipate, it is notable how widely divergent these earnings forecasts are from the actual outcomes that ultimately come to pass. Beware the analysis pinning its conclusions on the forward price-to-earnings ratio on the S&P 500 Index or any of its constituents for that matter, for it may lead to conclusions that are ultimately built on sand.

Clearly, relying on corporate earnings forecasts for the basis of investment decision making should be done at an investors own risk. Forecasts start out as wildly optimistic, with greater hopes the longer the time horizon. Which leads to a final point worth mentioning. Standard & Poor’s recently released a first look at the earnings forecasts for 2017. And if past experience is any guide, it may be indicating trouble on the horizon for the coming year. For instead of the robust +20% earnings forecasts throughout 2017, we instead see a notable fade as the year progresses. Perhaps these forecasts will improve with the passage of time.

But if forecasters are this unenthusiastic about a point that is so far away in the future, what will the reality look like once we finally arrive?”

Corporate-Profits-Growth-2017-022416

Unfortunately, considering that historically analysts future forecasts are 33% higher on average than reality turns out to be, the case for a deeper “bear market” is gaining traction.

EBITDA Is BullS***

I have written in the past about the fallacy of using EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) due to the ability to fudge/manipulate the number. To wit:

Cooking-The-Books

“As shown in the table, it is not surprising to see that 93% of the respondents pointed to “influence on stock price” and “outside pressure” as the reason for manipulating earnings figures. For fundamental investors this manipulation of earnings skews valuation analysis particularly with respect to P/E’s, EV/EBITDA, PEG, etc.”

Ramy Elitzur, via The Account Art Of War, recently expounded on the problems of using EBITDA.

“Being a CPA and having an MBA, in my arrogance I thought that I am well beyond such materials. I stood corrected, whatever I thought I knew about accounting was turned on its head. One of the things that I thought that I knew well was the importance of income-based metrics such as EBITDA and that cash flow information is not as important. It turned out that common garden variety metrics, such as EBITDA, could be hazardous to your health.”

The article is worth reading and chocked full of good information, however, here are the four-crucial points:

  1. EBITDA is not a good surrogate for cash flow analysis because it assumes that all revenues are collected immediately and all expenses are paid immediately, leading, as I illustrated above, to a false sense of liquidity.
  2. Superficial common garden-variety accounting ratios will fail to detect signs of liquidity problems.
  3. Direct cash flow statements provide a much deeper insight than the indirect cash flow statements as to what happened in operating cash flows. Note that the vast majority (well over 90%) of public companies use the indirect format.
  4. EBITDA just like net income is very sensitive to accounting manipulations.

The last point is the most critical. As discussed above, the tricks to manipulate earnings are well-known which inflates the results to a significant degree making an investment appear “cheaper” than it actually is.

As Charlie Munger once said:

“I think that every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the word ‘bullshit’ earnings.”

Just some things to think about.

Lance Roberts

lance_sig

Lance Roberts is a Chief Portfolio Strategist/Economist for Clarity Financial. He is also the host of “The Lance Roberts Show” and Chief Editor of the “Real Investment Advice” website and author of “Real Investment Daily” blog and “Real Investment Report“. Follow Lance on Facebook, Twitter, and Linked-In