Of Markets & the Economy

The US market has roared mightily since the dip in mid-summer last year but the GDP growth profile has only become less optimistic during the same period (see chart). This divergence is very puzzling. Is the market move driven by fundamental factors (i.e. expecting growth to rebound in H2 07) or is it more a technical phenomenon - AMZN jumped 25% yesterday because of short covering post good earnings numbers (15% of the stock outstanding has short position)? It is hard to know for sure but Wall Street Journal tries to address the debate over the fundamental underpinning of the stock movements.

The stock market has been a lousy barometer of the economy.

From the beginning of 2004 through the first quarter of 2006, economic growth averaged an impressive 3.4%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose just 6%. Since then, economic growth has slowed to a little more than 2%, yet the blue-chip index has leapt 18%, ending yesterday's session at a record 13089.89, the first time it has closed above 13000.

So, is the stock market providing reassurance? Or is it out of touch? (more >>>)

Bernanke Music Video - "Every Breath You Take" -

Every Breath You Take
Columbia Business School Follies
Spring 2006

Lyrics

[George W. Bush:] "Ben Bernanke is the right man to build on the record that Alan Greenspan has established. I will urge the Senate the act promptly to confirm Ben Bernanke as the fourteenth Chairman of the Federal Reserve."

Every breath you take
Every change of rate
Jobs you don't create
While we still stagflate
I'll be watching you

Every single day
Bernanke takes my pay
When growth goes away
Inflation will stay
I'll be watching you

Oh can't you see?
The Fed's where I should be
How my poor heart aches
With each of your mistakes

First you move your lips
Hike a few more BPS
When demand then dips
And the yield curve flips
I'll be watching you
Since you came supply's lost without a trace
I dream at night that I punch you in the face
Your interest policies I cannot embrace
I feel so wronged and I long for Greenspan's place
I keep cryin': Benny! Benny! Please...

Oh can't you see?
The Fed Chair should be me
How my poor heart aches
When prices escalate

Every move you make
Every oath you take
Hope your models break
Bet that beard is fake
I'll be watching you

CBS is great
Wouldn't change my fate
But we'll be watching you
We'll be watching you

Daily Musing: Sino-Phobia

One of today's business headlines was a surprisingly strong Chinese GDP growth for Q1 2007 (11.1% vs 10.4% expected). The Bloomberg story, Asian Stocks Post Biggest Drop in a Month on China Rate Concern promptly declared that unexpectedly strong growth will prompt Chinese authorities to hike rates - which will slow Chinese growth and also weaken the US$. That could impact the rest of Asia, thus the fallout on Asia equities today.

Let's analyze the facts. Chinese interest rates matter to the world only to the extent that they impact Chinese growth. Chinese growth is very important for global growth and inflation. But a worry about China's growth at this time is unwarranted. China needs to grow, and grow at a high single-digit rate to absorb the vast number of rural migrants pouring into the cities everyday. It is the key to the legitimacy of the Communist Party. Other issues like huge foreign reserve, current account surplus, pollution, human rights et. al. are secondary. So I won't lose my sleep over the China's economy.

Interest rates in China are very low. The benchmark rate, the so-called 12-month lending rate is at only 6.39% compared to 10%+ growth in real GDP (see Figure). A rule of thumb says that equilibrium real rate should be equal to real GDP growth. So if anything, China's rate should be higher (in fact at least double the current rate if we take into account 3.3% CPI) notwithstanding today's strong GDP number. Btw, the Economist magazine argued for higher rate in its Mar 22 issue. The article also discussed why Chinese monetary policymarkers have penchant to change rates in 27bp increments versus 25bp increments by their western counterparts (read the article).

NY Fed Conference on, "The euro and The dollar: Pillars in Global Finance"

"The euro and The dollar: Pillars in Global Finance"

Participants

H.E. Ambassador John Bruton, Delegation of the European Commission to the United States
Timothy F. Geithner, President and Chief Executive officer, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Joaquín Almunia, Commissioner for Economic and monetary Affairs, European Commission
Richard Clarida, Professor of Economics and International Affairs, Columbia University
Mickey Levy, Chief Economist, Bank of America
Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business, New York University
Charles Wyplosz, Professor of Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Andrew Crockett, President, JPmorgan Chase International
William Dudley, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Alberto Giovannini, Chief Executive Officer, Unifortune Asset management SGR
Jacques de Larosière, BNP Paribas
Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, International Accounting Standards Committee
Pervenche Berès, Chair, Committee on Economic and monetary Affairs, European parliament
Kathleen l. Casey, Commissioner, US Securities and Exchange Commission
William Rutledge, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
David Wright, Director, DG Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Jan Hatzius, Chief US Economist, Goldman Sachs
Caio Koch-Weser, Vice Chairman, Deutsche Bank Group
Edwin M. Truman, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute
Sir Nigel Wicks, Chairman, Euroclear
Jean-claude Trichet, President, European Central Bank

What Spending Slowdown?

The BusinessWeek article adds to the current debate on capex. The debate centers around government data (non-defense capital goods ex-air in M3 release) showing slowdown in corporate capex and the impact it could have on future economic growth and productivity trends. Basically the article argues that one can't take the government's data on face value because the issue has become complex owing to globalization. There is a huge discrepancy between what the government is saying about capex and what the businesses are saying and that ought to give pause to anyone who is worried about the state of capex.

When is a slowdown not a slowdown? On the face of it, the government's statistics tell a very convincing story about cautious companies and weak business investment. For example, so far in 2007 new orders for nondefense capital goods, such as computers, trucks, and machinery, are barely higher than they were a year ago, an omen, perhaps, of tough times ahead for corporate profits.

There's only one problem. Corporate America is still spending big time, just increasingly outside the U.S. A BusinessWeek analysis of financial reports from more than 1,000 large and midsize U.S.-based companies shows that global capital expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2006 were actually up 18.1% over the previous year, a number that includes nonresidential construction as well as info-tech equipment and machinery. The comparable growth for domestic business investment, which is all the government reports each quarter: only 8.9%, without adjusting for inflation. (more >>>)

Debunking Messrs Roubini & Hatzius

Read a blog, "Explaining the Mystery of Why Housing Jobs Have Not Fallen Much...and the Worsening Housing Recession... " by Prof Roubini where he discusses the apparent discrepancy between "dismal" housing sector and "apparently" strong construction employment numbers. He cites two possible reasons (1) according to Goldman Sach economist, Jan Hatzius, homebuilders have not started laying off workers (2) undocumented workers hide the actual job losses in the construction industry. May be I am not looking at the same (correct?) data as Mr. Hatzius and Prof Roubini but I come with different conclusions.

Data I look at do not support Mr. Hatzius' argument. Homebuilders have been laying off workers. If you look at employment in S&1500 Homebuilders (BZH, CHB, CTX, DHI, HOV, KBH, LEN, MDCj, MHO, MTH, NVR, PHM, RYL, SKY, SPF, TOL), they have declined in 2006, to 78,000 from 104,000, a whopping 25% decline (first chart). If you look at the data for the broad construction industry, all the available sources - BLS (second chart), Manpower Survey (third chart), Challenger Survey (fourth chart) - show dismal trends in construction employment. What is interesting however is that the woes in construction sector have not permeated into the broader economy. Private payroll growth in the non-construction sector is ok; hiring is fine; and layoffs are actually trending lower.

Prof Roubini's argument about undocumented workers can cut both ways, so net-net it should have no impact. If undocumented workers were not recorded in the current construction employment slowdown, I bet they were not recorded during the boom time either. The anecdotes from the New York Times article are just anecdotes.

So what's my point? My point is that unlike Messrs Roubini & Hatzius, I believe that the problems in the residential housing sector are well-established by the data. That should not be the debate. The debate should be whether that problem is going to spread to the rest of the economy and when. Of course there are people on both sides of the fence. Homebuilders' stock prices seem to suggest that the worst is over for housing but there are others who think that "we ain't seen nothing yet" by pointing out to the housing inventory data. My gut feeling based on variety of housing data is that housing has bottomed and will start to become less of an issue past the summer. Of course, I could be dead wrong. The current slump could persist for another 6-9 months prompting consumers to curtail their holiday spending, and that’ll be the end of the current cycle.