Welcome, Guest | Register or Login
Jim on Facebook Jim on Twitter Jim's YouTube Channel Jim on Google+

Important Stuff

Archives

Stuff Jim Reads

First quarter GDP weak for third consecutive year

posted on April 28, 2016 at 7:36 pm
retail_shopping_cart

U.S. financial markets have apparently decided that the disappointing first quarter GDP data released this morning are just another example of first quarter weakness. It’s the third straight first quarter GDP read that has shown a U.S. economy headed toward stagnation–and in each case the economy recovered to show better growth in the rest of the year. In 2015, for example, first quarter GDP grew at a 0.6% rate in the first quarter before recovering to post a 3.9% annualized rate of growth in the second quarter. In 2014 the first quarter saw a 0.9% drop in GDP ahead of a 4.6% gain in the second quarter.

With that as backdrop, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off just 0.11% as of noon New York time; the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index and the Nasdaq Composite index both picked up a bit of ground, climbing 0.16% and 0.50%, respectively.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected growth of 0.1% to 1.5% with a median forecast of 0.7%. In the fourth quarter of 2015 the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.4%.

The weakness came across the board. Consumer spending, 70% of the U.S. economy, climbed by just 1.9%, down from 2.4% growth in the fourth quarter. That was the slowest growth in consumer spending since early 2015. Driven by a continued collapse in energy industry capital spending and weak demand from overseas, business investment showed the largest slump in almost seven years, dropping at a 5.9% annualized rate.

One reason that economists–and the markets–are willing to overlook this quarter is that conditions remain favorable for growth in the remainder of 2016. Gasoline prices remain low, new claims for unemployment dropped last week to near a four-decade low, disposable income adjusted for inflation rose 2.9% in the first quarter, up from 2.3% in the fourth quarter of 2015. Consumers put a big chunk of that gain in income into savings with the saving rate moving up to 5.2% from 5% in the fourth quarter.

Stripping out the effect of shifts in inventory and trade, a measure called final sales to domestic purchasers, climbed by a 1.2% rate. That was better than the GDP growth rate (because companies continue to cut inventories) but still below the growth in final sales last year. In fact this was the weakest final sales number since the third quarter of 2012.

Did January’s tax increase finally take a bite out of retail sales in March?

posted on April 12, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Retail_shopping

Does it make the disappointing retail sales number this morning any better because we can explain why retail sales fell by 0.4% in March?

I don’t think so. And, in fact, the specific explanation is worrying—if only slightly at this point–for growth in the U.S. economy in the coming months.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected that March retail sales would be flat so the 0.4% decline is a surprise. Especially, coming as it does, after 1% growth in February.

The likely explanation, and it’s convincing to me, is that what we’re seeing in the March numbers is a delayed reaction to the tax increases included in January’s deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. It’s taken a while for consumers to adjust their spending downward to account for the 2-percentage point increase in the Social Security withholding tax that was part of that package. The Tax Policy Center, estimates that 77% of U.S. households are paying higher taxes in 2013 because the fiscal cliff deal let cuts to the Social Security tax rate expire. In 2012 that reduction in Social Security withholding was worth about $1,000 to a family at the $50,000 income level.

If the lower retail sales numbers are a delayed result of that tax increase, instead of a reaction to a temporary news event or sentiment shift, then we could be looking at a drag on U.S. growth that could persist for much of 2013. Read more

Today’s bad news for consumer spending in the inflation numbers

posted on March 15, 2013 at 3:55 pm
retail_shopping_cart

This morning’s U.S. inflation numbers are good news if you live in the alternative reality called the financial markets. However, if you live in the real world—you know the one where you buy things and have to make income and outgo match each month—the inflation news was remarkably bad.

The headline consumer price index climbed 0.7% in February. That’s the biggest jump in almost four years. It’s also a significant increase from January and December when headline inflation was flat. Economists had expected an increase of 0.5% for the month.

Core inflation, the number the Federal Reserve and financial markets watch, presented a much better picture. The core inflation rate, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose just 0.2% in February. That was actually a drop from the 0.3% increase in core inflation in January. The February core inflation number exactly matched expectations among economists surveyed by Briefing.com.

Why the big difference in the headline and core inflation rates? Two guesses—food or energy—and the first guess doesn’t count.

It sure wasn’t the result of soaring food prices. Food prices rose just 0.1% in February.

So it must have been energy, right? Yep, energy prices climbed 5.4% in February (after falling for three consecutive months) on a huge 9.1% increase in gasoline prices.

In financial world all this is reasonably good news. The core inflation measures the Fed watches showed no signs that core inflation might be on the upswing or that inflation expectations might be rising. Nothing in these numbers to suggest that the Federal Reserve, scheduled to meet next week, should consider ending its monthly $85 billion program of quantitative easing early. That’s especially true because the most likely explanation for the increase in gasoline prices—soaring prices for the credits that U.S. refineries buy so they don’t have to blend quite so much corn-based ethanol into their gasoline—can be passed off as a short-term technical problem.

On the other hand, in the real world, these inflation numbers are bad news. Read more

Spending up, incomes down–how long does that work?

posted on March 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Retail_shopping

This sure isn’t sustainable.

 

In January, according to data the Commerce Department released this morning, personal income fell by 3.6%. That’s worse than the 2.4% drop expected by economists surveyed by Briefing.com, and worse that the 2.6% drop in December. It was the biggest drop since January 1993.

Personal spending, however, rose in January by 0.2%. That was equal to the 0.2% increase in December and matched economists’ expectations.

You don’t have to look far to find a reason for the drop in income: the expiration of the payroll tax cut as a result of the fiscal cliff deal took a bite out of paychecks. (Also in December companies rushed to pay dividends and bonuses before projected changes in tax rates in 2013. Income from these categories dropped in January as a result of the early payouts.)

And you don’t have to scramble to find out where the money for increased spending—even as incomes fell—came from. The savings rate—the percentage of disposable income households don’t spend—fell to 2.4%. That’s the lowest rate since November 2007.

None of this bodes well for February or March when higher tax rates will still be in effect, family savings will be spent down (at least a little), and the effects of government spending cuts from the sequester that started today will have started to spread through the U.S. economy.

Tepid growth (in the U.S.) is still better than no growth (in the EuroZone) in today’s economic reports

posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm
unemployment_white_collar

It was a tale of two economies today.

Data showed the U.S. economy growing tepidly.

Which was still a quite a bit better than data from Europe that showed the EuroZone headed toward recession.

In the United States initial claims for unemployment dropped to 351,000 for the week ended February 25—but the numbers showed a drop only because the prior week’s initial claims figures were revised upward to 353,000 from 351,000. (Economists had projected initial claims of 355,000 for the week.) Personal spending climbed just 0.2% in January, well below the 0.4% forecast by economists surveyed by Briefing.com. Income grew by 0.3%, less than the 0.4% projected by economists. And the Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index dropped to 52.4 in February from 54.1. The index stayed above the 50 level that separates growth from contraction but a move down to 52.4 is a move in the wrong direction.

But the U.S. news was a stroll on the beach compared to the news from the EuroZone. Inflation in the European Union climbed to 2.7% in February from 2.6% in January. Unemployment in the EuroZone hit 10.7% in January, the highest since the start of the euro in 1999. The EuroZone purchasing managers index did edge higher to 49.0 in February from 48.8 in January but a reading below 50 still pointed to a contracting economy. The German purchasing managers index for manufacturing remained above 50 at 50.2 in February but that marked a move lower (from 51.0) for the EuroZone’s strongest economy.  The French purchasing managers index came in at 50, down from 50.2 in January and in Italy it remained below 50 at 47.8.

European stocks rose on the day on news of progress in finalizing the new Greek rescue package and on well-subscribed Spanish bond auctions. But the economies of the EuroZone continue to show signs of slowing. At some point that economic fact becomes a problem for countries relying on austerity to meet their budget deficit targets.

That “problem” has already shown up in the European summit that began today with Spain asking for flexibility on meeting its budget deficit targets for 2011 and 2012.



Jubak in your Inbox

Get Email Alerts

Sign up now and download Jim's latest Special Report

Get the RSS feed

Quick Quote

Quotes provided by Yahoo! Finance and are delayed up to 20 minutes.