Housing is the Business Cycle

Connor Dougherty, a New York Times economics journalist, does a good job analyzing the role housing has played in past recessions and why it may not be so crucial in the next.  He writes that housing declines presaged all but two of the last eleven recessions.  

Housing starts are one of our best leading indicators.  Even in one of his two exceptions (the recessions of 1953-54 and 2001), housing starts did a credible job of predicting one, 1953-54, leaving only only 2001 as a real anomaly.  Starts led the 1953-54 recession by nine months and fell 11.3% peak to trough.  In 2001 housing starts peaked a month after the economy and led by a month at the trough.  Peak to trough they fell a mere 6.6%.

The "Greenspan put" did not save Dot.Com investors or IT workers, but did provide a soft landing for housing in 2001.   An Austrian might argue that simply made the ultimate housing bust worse six years later. 

Dougherty bases his anlysis on contributions to GDP from the the work of Edward Leamer.  The latter's prescient 2007 Jackson Hole address, "Housing is the Business Cycle," which emphasizes the importance of housing in recessions. 

The Jobs Report: Solid Growth, But Does Little to Solve Our Economic Malaise

Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued the March jobs report.  It shows continued solid growth:  An increase of 215,000 new jobs.  The unemployment rate stayed at 5.0% as more people worked and more people reentered the labor force.  The labor force participation rate is now at 63%.  

The graph shows the percent of the adult population with jobs according to the household survey.  It shows the economic malaise the country has suffered these last seven years. Robert Bartlett tittled his history of the Reagan period The Seven Fat Years.  These have been the seven lean years.

The employment ratio plunged during the recession and continued to fall after its official end (June, 2009.) Jobs data, revised after the NBER called the trough, show that jobs continued to fall into the first few months of 2010.  Jobs growth failed to keep pace with population growth on into 2011.  We really did not see job growth fast enough to outpace population until 2013.

Wichita's Chief Industry

On a less cheerful note, aircraft employment fell by 900.

Was 1945 a Recession Year?

On EconTalk, Russ Roberts, debated Noah Smith on whether economics is a science.  It was a fun discussion well worth listening to. 

At one point Russ brought claimed Paul Samuelson predicted a return to the massive employment of the Great Depression when military spending fell after World War II. Noah Smith replied there was a recession.  I wrote a brief comment, although it turns out that Russ already posted Geoffrey Moore's note on business cycle chronology which treated the 1945 downturn as sui generis.

My analysis:

The NBER indicates a cyclical peak on February, 1945 with a trough 8 months later. Germany surrendered May 8th and Japan August 15th.  Japan's formal surrender was on September 2nd aboard the U.S.S. Missouri.  General MacArthur's boss was the former senator form Missouri.  Missouri is also the only state with two Federal Reserve Banks.

The unemployment rate was 1.1% at the NBER cyclical peak. The highest it rose to in 1946 was 4.26%. Apparently someone predicted 8 million unemployed in 1946. Some predictions were even wilder.

Yes there was a downturn as the U.S. economy ramped down from its most fevered war pace.  Looking at key series from their peaks to troughs, industrial production declined 35.5% from August, 1944 through February 1946. Payroll employment dropped by 3.3 million jobs from November, 1943 through September, 1945. Almost two million of that drop was in September, 1945, more or less VJ Day. The cyclical trough (October, 1945) corresponds to the first post war month. The 37 month expansion that followed ended in November, 1948.  

Do you want to call the 1945 cyclical episode a recession, a peacetime adjustment, or a preliminary ramp-down of the state driven economy? Geoffrey Moore wrote, "There remains the brief contraction after World War II, February—October 1945, which marked the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and which is the most difficult of all to characterize because different measures yield such different results. However, in terms of its impact upon the well-being of the population it must surely be classed among the more modest of those in our list." Interestingly, Moore chooses his criterion of severity as welfare not aggregate demand or production, the more Keynesian categories.

i did not get interested in the business cycle until maybe the 1973-75 recession, on which I wrote my dissertation. My first memory of  economics would have been the copy of Samuelson's Economics which I studied to prepare for high school debate. I do not remember a discussions of business cycle history that talked about either the 1945 downturn or the 1945-48 recovery. They would have either ignored it or refereed to it as a wartime transition or demobilization. Indeed, I do not remember the textbooks of my youth (Keynesian all) dwelling on either the 1945 contraction nor the 1945-48 expansion. One excuse for their silence is that quarterly GDP data starts in 1947. Still the widespread prediction of a return to the Great Depression by the secular stagnationists was not mentioned in polite company.

Housing Is Being Held Back By a Shortage of Skilled Labor: the Fruits of Malinvestment

How slack are labor markets? Looking at the overall unemployment rate, 6.1% in august according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,  it would appear there is significant slack still justifying the Fed's draconian  war on interest rates.  Yet evidence indicates that in specific market segments, labor is short.  Here Bloomberg's Mike Mckee reports on home builder's lack of laborers since the recession in this August 19th “Market Makers” video. 



How are we to interpret this?   The huge overhang of housing stock and the mismatch of units built and units demanded depressed housing starts.  The housing bubble had drawn in workers who invested in skills that became redundant when the housing stock was overbuilt.  Their newly acquired human capital became stranded and these skills atrophied during the long resulting recession when the unsustainable levels prior to 2007 could not be maintained. Those workers have retired, gone on to other fields, or joined the ranks of the disabled.

The Balance-Sheet Recession

The CFA Institute is holding it conference in Boston. The Wall Street Journal reporter, Donna Kardos Yesalavich, speaks with Nomura Research Institute's chief economist, Richard C. Koo, who describes the current recession as a "Balance-Sheet Recession." 6/4/2010 2:39:28 PM

The Economy Hit Bottom, But It Is Still Not Official

June, 2009?

Here at Mammon Among Friends, you have been reading for some time that the recession of 2007-2009 ended last June (i.e., June, 2009.)  The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (the NBER) ducked the issue, although it looks like a consensus agrees with me.  Their caution flows from a fear that we might have a repeat of 1980 and 1982 when we had either back to back recessions or one double dip recession.   The committee's decision was for the former.


I have no doubt we are well into a recovery and that the trough was June 2009.

Robert Gordon agrees: "It is obvious that the recession is over. Real GDP has recovered strongly from a trough in 2009:Q2 and by 2010:Q2 (the current quarter) will have reached (or be very close to) its value reached in the peak NBER quarter of 2007:Q4...The traditional measure of production used by the committee is the Federal Reserve Board Index of Industrial Production (IIP), which reached a well-defined trough in June 2009. For those who object that the IIP refers only to about 15 percent of the economy, the broader monthly measure real manufacturing and trade sales also reached its trough in June 2009. The private firm Macro Advisers has constructed a measure of monthly GDP that is available back to 1992, and this also indicates a cyclical trough in June 2009. While real GDI is flat across 2009:Q2 and 2009:Q3, quarterly real GDP reaches its trough in 2009:Q2, as does the average of quarterly real GDP and real GDI. Thus we have three monthly measures that reach a trough in June, the average of two measures of aggregate economic activity which reach their trough in 2009:Q2, and no clearly defined troughs occurring later than that in any series other than the traditional lagging data on aggregate hours of work and total employment."


Gordon is the senior guy on the committee now that Victor Zarnowitz is dead.   I'm in good company!

Jeffrey Frankel seems to be in the same camp. On April 5th, he blogged, "The recession is over."

What is a Recession?

A recession is a broad, sustained decline in a wide range of economic indicators. The committee has put increasing stress on GDP over the years , although not as much as they did in 1966. Still the monthly indicators are decisive and most of the coincident indicators are measures of private activity: e.g., real retail sales, industrial production, personal income minus transfer payments.


The committee's actual statement was:

"The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met at the organization’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 8, 2010. The committee reviewed the most recent data for all indicators relevant to the determination of a possible date of the trough in economic activity marking the end of the recession that began in December 2007. The trough date would identify the end of contraction and the beginning of expansion. Although most indicators have turned up, the committee decided that the determination of the trough date on the basis of current data would be premature. Many indicators are quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months. The committee acts only on the basis of actual indicators and does not rely on forecasts in making its determination of the dates of peaks and troughs in economic activity. The committee did review data relating to the date of the peak, previously determined to have occurred in December 2007, marking the onset of the recent recession. The committee reaffirmed that peak date."

Where Are We At?  Where Are We Going?

We certainly should have a strong recovery given how far the economy fell. The first part of a recovery is when things are at their worst. Places where the housing bubble was the worst will recover more slowly.

My greater concern is that the administration's health care payment "reform" and taxing will create a second recession much like the very severe Roosevelt recession of 1937-8.  That would not be pretty.

Three Imbalances Threaten Long-Term Economic Stability

 You can may have read the following commentary in the Wichita Eagle(3/25/2010):

The Economic Recovery

We are emerging from a financial and economic crisis of historic dimensions. Unemployment reached levels not seen since 1982. America suffered the largest falls in industrial output and housing starts since the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38


However deep the recession, the recovery is well under way. A long list of indicators hit bottom last year and are rising: auto sales (February), durable goods orders (March), real retail sales (April), housing starts (April), and industrial production (June). The fall in global industrial production ended in March as did world trade's in May.

Most economists are sanguine about the long term but judge the current recovery to be fragile and weak. The consensus is wrong. This recovery is solid and broad-based.

Emerging economies (particularly Brazil, China and India) are leading a worldwide expansion. America's longer-term prospects are the real worry.

The Reckoning

Three major imbalances threaten the country's long-run economic stability and prosperity. We went into this crisis with a trade deficit equal to 5 percent of GDP and savings rates near zero. Government deficits equaled 1.2 percent of GDP when unemployment was still only at 4.6 percent. We could finance these imbalances only because the rest of the world was willing to lend us trillions of dollars. That dependence is neither in our long-term economic nor geopolitical interests.


This overdependence on foreign credit led to massive misallocations of America's resources. The housing bubble grew from 2003 and peaked in August 2006. Over that time period, home-building sucked an extra $900 billion in real resources away from the rest of the economy.


Finance and real estate grew to over 20 percent of the economy. Our brightest young graduates found it more attractive to become financial engineers rather than build planes and invent new products. We will be paying for this deadweight loss in higher unemployment and lower economic growth for many years.

The Future

Correcting the imbalances means we must save more and use less of what we produce for ourselves. In other words, Americans face lower living standards


Lower standards of living and a falling dollar will translate into higher domestic prices. If policymakers misinterpret those rising prices and continue to fight structural change with the wrong tools, they will start a vicious policy cycle culminating in the loss of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and unpredictable turmoil.

Where are our policies now? This recession was global and induced a global response. Many nations including America have disinterred the theories of John Maynard Keynes to justify massive government spending programs ("fiscal stimulus") to fight the recent economic recession. Central banks have used the ideas of Keynes' nemesis, Milton Friedman, to justify vanishingly low interest rates ("monetary stimulus") and unprecedented financial market interventions ("quantitative easing") toward the same end. This focus on the short term is crowding out the need for correcting the economy's imbalances. I doubt either Keynes or Friedman would wholly approve of the sins being committed in their names.

And in the Long Run...

What makes a great statesman? Historian J. Rufus Fears found three essential elements. A great statesman clearheadedly identifies and analyzes a major problem. Then he implements a solution that works both in the short run and in the long run. Focusing on the immediate problems of the 1930s, Keynes dismissed "the long run, (when) we are all dead."

Yet in the 1940s, Keynes turned around and engineered a remarkably resilient postwar monetary system. That act of statesmanship produced peace and prosperity for generations. Contrast that with current economic policy, where "in the long run, we are all in the soup."

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/25/1240330/three-imbalances-threaten-long.html#ixzz0k344RWCK

Do You Care a Rap About the Business Cycle?

John Maynard Keynes was perhaps the most imposing economist of the Twentieth Century.  He is the father of macroeconomics (John Hicks might be called the midwife: indeed Hicks is probably the most influential, although his influence across the board in modern economic theory is so pervasive he is seldom cited.)

Friedrich von Hayek developed the ideas of Wicksell and the Austrian School theory of capital based on Boehm-Bawerk and von Mises into a coherent theory of the business cycle which does much to explain the mess we are in.

Keynesian economics justifies the use of stimulus programs such as are being used around the world to revive the world economy.  Nations around the world are following President Richard Nixon when he said, "We are all Keynesians now."

One should not assume Keynes would approve of current economic policy.  At a meeting of American economists shortly before he died, Keynes remarked "Perhaps I am the only non-Keynesian in the room." (as quoted in Bran Domitrovic's Econonoclasts: the History of the Supply-Side Revolution.)





Many thanks to both Ryan Pendleton and the Kansas Policy Institute who alerted me to this.

The Recovery: Write Less Off, Mail More Offers

Good News For Banks; Good News For the Postal Service

Credit card losses are down for major issuers. This bodes well for postal volumes and, as a lagging indicator, it is further confirmation that the economic recovery is well under way.  The U.S. Postal Service could use some good news with postal volumes and revenues falling at terrifying rates.

December Was Six Months Past the Bottom

My estimate is that the business cycle trough was last June.

Credit card solicitations have been a significant use of the mail over the years.  Losses reduce the ability and willingness of credit card issuers to solicit the more profitable lower credit customers , although it increases their need for higher quality customers: a plus for First-Class mail and thus USPS itself.  Higher losses mean greater capital is needed: a scarce and expensive requirement for the nations' banks. While they can borrow at virtually no cost, equity capital costs are punitive.  Think of Citi's recent dilutive offering.

Aparajita Saha-Bubna (with a little help from Joe Bel Bruno and Tess Stynes),  reported in Saturday's Wall Street Journal that delinquency rates fell off "for most credit-card issuers in December, but losses stemming from souring credit-card loans remain elevated."

Capital One:  delinquencies  5.78% down from 5.87% in November

                      write-offs       10.1% up from 9.6% in November

Discover:      delinquencies  5.49% down from 5.65% in November

                      write-offs        8.68% down from 8.98% in November (securitized assets)

American Express:  delinquencies  3.7% down from 4.1% in November

                                write-offs         7.1% down from 7.6% in November

For the quarter:       delinquencies  3.7% down from 3.9% in the third quarter

                                write-offs        7.5% down from 8.9% in the third quarter

Bank of America:  charge-offs       13.5% up from 13% in November

Chase:                write-offs  7.1% down from 8.8% in November

For the quarter:  write-offs  9.3% down from10.3% in the third quarter

Chase is a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase Co

According to the same article, JPMorgan's "Chief Financial Officer Mike Cavanagh said the recent improvement in credit-card losses mightn't continue as the U.S. economy continues to claw its way out of the financial crisis.

"Mr. Cavanagh, speaking to the media after the bank reported fourth-quarter earnings, expects a $1 billion loss for credit cards in the first and second quarters."

The State of General Aviation and the Consequences for Wichita

The National Business Aviation Association conference is opening in Orlando, Florida next week.  It and surrounding events will provide focus the business world's attention on general aviation and the economic hammering it has taken.  The Wichita Eagle's Molly Mullins in a big Business Section feature surveys the damage, "The state of Kansas' business aviation industry."


She writes:


"Nobody saw this coming.


"Thousands of jobs lost. Production cuts. Furloughs. The cancellation of a major new aircraft program.


"The global financial crisis hit the business jet market hard and fast and put Wichita's lifeblood industry in an agonizing free fall.


"A year later, there is evidence that the global economy is in the early stages of recovery. But for business aviation and Wichita planemakers, the climb back will be long and slow."

Back in March, 2008, I argued that the national economy had been in a recession for six months or more ("What is Good for Wichita Is Hemlock for Wall Street.") The National Bureau of Economic Research eventually dated the recession to have started in December, 2007.  Few fully appreciated the extent of the general aviation bubble ("2007 Increasingly Looks like It was a Bubble Year for the Aircraft Industry.")  The bursting, when it came in the fourth quarter of 2008 was dramatic. 


Peter Sanders at the Wall Street Journal reports on the effect of the aviation downturn on Wichita's economy noting that "more than a quarter of the area's aviation work force has been let go, not including thousands more layoffs among parts suppliers and support businesses."

Cessna's New Orders "Nosedived" In the Fourth Quarter of 2008

To amplify Sanders' report, Cessna's new orders, net of cancellations, averaged about $2.4 billion a quarter in the first three quarters of 2008.  They fell over 80 percent to $400 million in the last quarter.  (These are my estimates based on Textron financial reports.)

Outsourcing

Sanders also reports on a "recent push to manufacture offshore that many Wichita aerospace companies have embarked on. Some companies have opened operations in Mexico. During the boom times in late 2007, Cessna announced it would build a new, small propeller plane in China. That plane would be shipped to Wichita for reassembly and delivery to U.S. customers.


"While the companies are guarded about their plans in light of the downturn, officials concede that it is unlikely that they would expand their Wichita operations beyond today's level. Any future growth would probably happen abroad."

Commentary

A few points:

1) 2007 was a bubble year for general aviation.  Look at the new orders data. 

2) The bubble was fueled by the same over expansion of credit that fueled the housing bubble. 

3) The negative short term interest rates of 2002-2004 enabled (should I say caused?) the credit over expansion.

4) The general aviation industry over expanded in 2008. 

Fun Question: Would Cessna have expanded production as much in 2008 had it been independent rather than owned by Textron?


5) On the commercial front, Boeing expanded much more cautiously.  Compare Boeing's production in the run-up to this recession with its production in the run-up to the 2001 recession.   This has allowed Spirit to hang tight and manage for the longer run.

Fun Question: Do you attribute that to good management, conservatism, or technical delays?

6) Hypocrisy in Washington about corporate jets is business as usual.  Congress votes to appropriate for themselves a more elaborate fleet of planes than the Air Force requested.  Simultaneously, it pillories corporate executives.  (For the Journal, Brody Mullins and August Cole reported in August, "the House more than doubled the [Air Force's] request to $550 million for a total of eight new passenger planes for use by government VIPs.")

7) Outsourcing has its drawbacks as the yo yo economy of 2008 demonstrates.  

8) Outsourcing means having less control.  Boeing has had to buy back three of its suppliers to get the Dreamliner back on path.


9) The administration's fiscal policy and the Fed's monetary policy represent more than the benign neglect of the 1980s.  This may be Washington's real industrial policy.  Let the dollar get so worthless that manufacturing will find it cheaper to come home.  We can debate whether that is a plan.

In the long view of things, Wichita's current 8.9% unemployment rate (10% in July) is collateral damage from Alan Greenspan's and Ben Bernanke's misjudgment that preventing bubbles was not their job.  As in the refrain from the old Pete Seeger song goes, "When will they ever learn?"

Good News (Or Less Bad Bad News) From Labor Markets

The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its employment report this morning. The unemployment rate fell from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent. While the fall is not significant–month the month sampling variation can move it that much–it is a far cry from the large increases we have grown accustomed.

Jobs fell by 237,000 according to the payroll survey. This was less than half the monthly decline earlier this year and over 200,000 less than the average monthly job loss over the last twelve months.

A seeming bright note for Wichita: a first look at the payroll data indicates that jobs in the aerospace industry stopped their declines and may actually have risen. But I do not trust it. To get a rough estimate of what happened in the aerospace industry, you have to back into a number by subtracting out motor vehicles employment from transportation equipment employment. The bulk, but not all, of the rest is our own dear industry. For July when you make that estimate it shows a small increase in jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis. However, when I cross checked it against the unadjusted data, there was a 12,000+ decline. Unfortunately for us, the "good news" is simply an artifact of the seasonal adjustment process. Expect Wichita's unemployment rate in July to rise, not fall.

Second Quarter U.S. GDP Down I

How much America produces as measured by its Gross Domestic Product fell again in the second quarter which ended June 30th, 2009. The decline of about one percent was in line with consensus estimates. No surprise to the stock market which rallied yesterday in anticipation. You could say the increase in pain is slowing down or as economists would put it the economic decline is decelerating.

Analysis

How did we get to a -1 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate of decline in total spending from a 6.4 percent decline in the first quarter? The huge declines in investment spending turned into more modest declines in the second quarter. This improvement would have gotten us back to zero but the rest of the accounts deteriorated by about one percent.

Government spending went from a net drag on the economy to a net addition to aggregate demand. Consumption spending fell however. While bad for contributing to domestic demand, it is a step toward correcting the fundamental imbalances that enabled the Great Financial Bust.

Exports contributed less and imports contributed more the growth in spending than in the previous quarter. For four straight quarters, import reductions have offset export losses to make a net positive contribution to the demand for American products and services. You could say we have helped ourselves by exporting part of the recession.

Has the Recovery Begun?

While my initial call that the U.S. economy toughed in March looks a tad optimistic, it now seems most likely that the turning point was in second quarter.

Revisions

The scorekeepers in the Commerce department's Bureau of Economic Analysis revised the history, so do not be surprised to find out that what you thought you knew about past cycles has been thrown down the memory tube (if you do not catch the allusion to 1984, add Orwell's book to your "Must Read List.") I do see that the BEA now shows one negative growth for 2008 quarter.

If You Think Wichita's Unemployment Is Bad, Look At Detroit's!

The Bureau of Labor Statistics summarized the employment situation for the country's states and metropolitan areas. As announced earlier by the Kansas Department of Labor, Wichita's unemployment rate is 8.5 percent. That is up from 8.3 percent in May and is a lot worse than a year ago when 4.2 percent of Wichita's workforce was out of work.

While the number of unemployed has more than doubled in a year, the actual number of people saying they have jobs is down less than a half percent. Some of this discrepancy may reflect the inevitable variation arising from any statistical sampling of households. It could also mean more people are looking or saying they are looking for work as secondary wage earners seek to help out when the primary bread winner is laid off. The increased labor force participation may also come from an increase in the federal minimum wage. Firms may also be reacting to the new minimum wage by hiring more experienced, more productive, higher paid workers to replace less experienced workers.

Wichita looks good in comparison to the rest of America. Fifteen states have double digit unemployment rates. The Detroit-Livonia MSA has the dubious distinction of "achieving" more than double our our unemployment rate at 17.1 percent.

Yes, Virginia, the Fed Does Have An Exit Strategy

It seems literally Providential that Dr. Ben Bernanke was chairing the Board of Governors when the financial crisis hit. He, as a young researcher at Princeton, demonstrated how the financial crises in the 1930s were the missing link that converted the mild cyclical downturn of 1929 into the Great Depression.

In today's Wall Street Journal (see also below), he explains the Fed's exit policy. I have a very big worry about what he says. He argues the Fed has plenty of tools to fight inflation. He never mentions asset price bubbles.

The Wall Street Journal accuses him, in a former stint as a Governor, of being at the housing bubble's birthing. He helped support the intellectual case for not fighting the emerging bubble. At the December 9th, 2003 Board meeting he argued that the Fed could continue its negative real interest rate policy. His focus was on consumer price inflation and the output gap.

There are two problems with the Chairman's perspective: If a bubble allocates resources in the real economy, there will be cyclical unemployment that reflects these structural distortions. This unemployment will require a longer period of adjustment than ordinary cyclical unemployment. Thus the output gap will underestimate the economy's inflationary potential. Secondly preventing a bubble is just as important as preventing consumer price inflation.

Some of the comments share my concern. I particularly appreciated Avery Goodman's comment (reproduced below.)


The Fed’s Exit Strategy by Ben Bernanke (WSJ: July 20, 2009)

The depth and breadth of the global recession has required a highly accommodative monetary policy. Since the onset of the financial crisis nearly two years ago, the Federal Reserve has reduced the interest-rate target for overnight lending between banks (the federal-funds rate) nearly to zero. We have also greatly expanded the size of the Fed’s balance sheet through purchases of longer-term securities and through targeted lending programs aimed at restarting the flow of credit.

These actions have softened the economic impact of the financial crisis. They have also improved the functioning of key credit markets, including the markets for interbank lending, commercial paper, consumer and small-business credit, and residential mortgages.

My colleagues and I believe that accommodative policies will likely be warranted for an extended period. At some point, however, as economic recovery takes hold, we will need to tighten monetary policy to prevent the emergence of an inflation problem down the road. The Federal Open Market Committee, which is responsible for setting U.S. monetary policy, has devoted considerable time to issues relating to an exit strategy. We are confident we have the necessary tools to withdraw policy accommodation, when that becomes appropriate, in a smooth and timely manner.
The exit strategy is closely tied to the management of the Federal Reserve balance sheet. When the Fed makes loans or acquires securities, the funds enter the banking system and ultimately appear in the reserve accounts held at the Fed by banks and other depository institutions. These reserve balances now total about $800 billion, much more than normal. And given the current economic conditions, banks have generally held their reserves as balances at the Fed.

But as the economy recovers, banks should find more opportunities to lend out their reserves. That would produce faster growth in broad money (for example, M1 or M2) and easier credit conditions, which could ultimately result in inflationary pressures—unless we adopt countervailing policy measures. When the time comes to tighten monetary policy, we must either eliminate these large reserve balances or, if they remain, neutralize any potential undesired effects on the economy.

To some extent, reserves held by banks at the Fed will contract automatically, as improving financial conditions lead to reduced use of our short-term lending facilities, and ultimately to their wind down. Indeed, short-term credit extended by the Fed to financial institutions and other market participants has already fallen to less than $600 billion as of mid-July from about $1.5 trillion at the end of 2008. In addition, reserves could be reduced by about $100 billion to $200 billion each year over the next few years as securities held by the Fed mature or are prepaid. However, reserves likely would remain quite high for several years unless additional policies are undertaken.

Even if our balance sheet stays large for a while, we have two broad means of tightening monetary policy at the appropriate time: paying interest on reserve balances and taking various actions that reduce the stock of reserves. We could use either of these approaches alone; however, to ensure effectiveness, we likely would use both in combination.

Congress granted us authority last fall to pay interest on balances held by banks at the Fed. Currently, we pay banks an interest rate of 0.25%. When the time comes to tighten policy, we can raise the rate paid on reserve balances as we increase our target for the federal funds rate.

Banks generally will not lend funds in the money market at an interest rate lower than the rate they can earn risk-free at the Federal Reserve. Moreover, they should compete to borrow any funds that are offered in private markets at rates below the interest rate on reserve balances because, by so doing, they can earn a spread without risk.

Thus the interest rate that the Fed pays should tend to put a floor under short-term market rates, including our policy target, the federal-funds rate. Raising the rate paid on reserve balances also discourages excessive growth in money or credit, because banks will not want to lend out their reserves at rates below what they can earn at the Fed.

Considerable international experience suggests that paying interest on reserves effectively manages short-term market rates. For example, the European Central Bank allows banks to place excess reserves in an interest-paying deposit facility. Even as that central bank’s liquidity-operations substantially increased its balance sheet, the overnight interbank rate remained at or above its deposit rate. In addition, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of Canada have also used their ability to pay interest on reserves to maintain a floor under short-term market rates.

Despite this logic and experience, the federal-funds rate has dipped somewhat below the rate paid by the Fed, especially in October and November 2008, when the Fed first began to pay interest on reserves. This pattern partly reflected temporary factors, such as banks’ inexperience with the new system.

However, this pattern appears also to have resulted from the fact that some large lenders in the federal-funds market, notably government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are ineligible to receive interest on balances held at the Fed, and thus they have an incentive to lend in that market at rates below what the Fed pays banks.

Under more normal financial conditions, the willingness of banks to engage in the simple arbitrage noted above will tend to limit the gap between the federal-funds rate and the rate the Fed pays on reserves. If that gap persists, the problem can be addressed by supplementing payment of interest on reserves with steps to reduce reserves and drain excess liquidity from markets—the second means of tightening monetary policy. Here are four options for doing this.

First, the Federal Reserve could drain bank reserves and reduce the excess liquidity at other institutions by arranging large-scale reverse repurchase agreements with financial market participants, including banks, government-sponsored enterprises and other institutions. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the sale by the Fed of securities from its portfolio with an agreement to buy the securities back at a slightly higher price at a later date.

Second, the Treasury could sell bills and deposit the proceeds with the Federal Reserve. When purchasers pay for the securities, the Treasury’s account at the Federal Reserve rises and reserve balances decline.

The Treasury has been conducting such operations since last fall under its Supplementary Financing Program. Although the Treasury’s operations are helpful, to protect the independence of monetary policy, we must take care to ensure that we can achieve our policy objectives without reliance on the Treasury.

Third, using the authority Congress gave us to pay interest on banks’ balances at the Fed, we can offer term deposits to banks—analogous to the certificates of deposit that banks offer their customers. Bank funds held in term deposits at the Fed would not be available for the federal funds market.

Fourth, if necessary, the Fed could reduce reserves by selling a portion of its holdings of long-term securities into the open market.

Each of these policies would help to raise short-term interest rates and limit the growth of broad measures of money and credit, thereby tightening monetary policy.

Overall, the Federal Reserve has many effective tools to tighten monetary policy when the economic outlook requires us to do so. As my colleagues and I have stated, however, economic conditions are not likely to warrant tighter monetary policy for an extended period. We will calibrate the timing and pace of any future tightening, together with the mix of tools to best foster our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability.
—Mr. Bernanke is chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Avery Goodman's Comment:

Dear Mr. Bernanke,

There is nothing that I would like better than to see you proved correct. But, all the evidence shows otherwise.

The primary dealers of the Fed have received huge wads of almost-free-cash, in one way or another, as a part of your balance sheet expansion, as well as the fact that you have traded Treasuries for toxic waste held by the banks. So far, the cash you've handed out is not being used to fund productive industry in America. Instead, it is being used to fund speculation.

These primary dealers appear to be making loans mostly to client-speculators including hedge funds, and, also, supplying their own trading divisions. Since speculation thrives in time of volatility, price instability has resulted. The markets, in turn, have become Fed-driven, rather than free and independent,

We have seen an explosion in prices, as well as the overall level of speculation in the stock, oil, gold, silver, and commodities markets. A new bubble in asset prices is now being formed, and it has every prospect of eventually exceeding the previous one. We have seen little actual improvement in the U.S. economy, however.

Oil, in particular, has roared back in price, even though it is in serious oversupply. This is because people are buying everything that tends to rise in inflationary times. The wild speculative buying impairs the potential for the economy to recover.

Meanwhile, the dollar is currently in a free-fall, and the Chinese, Russians, Indians and even the Brazilians are threatening to settle trades in other currencies. Gold and silver, in contrast, are soaring into the stratosphere. Foreigners clearly do not have confidence in your policies.

You had better make it very crystal clear, when you testify, that you intend to take very strict and affirmative action to reduce the Fed balance sheet back to $900 billion or less, or this situation will continue to deteriorate.

I would love to be proven wrong. However, the result of your easy money policies has been rampant speculation. This speculative activity is being encouraged by, or directly participated in, by the big banks you have bailed out. We are now seeing a falling dollar, rising stock, gold, silver, and commodity prices, and a continuing hollowing out of the American economy.

It would have been better to allow the insolvent banks to fail, while allowing the FDIC to do its job of replacing whatever deposit money was lost. There would have been no repeat of the Great Depression, because of the existence of the safety net provided by FDIC insurance. The market share lost by the failed banks would have eventually shifted to their competitors, who would become bigger.

Instead, the Federal Reserve has attempted to micro-manage the economy in a manner similar to the Politburo of the old Soviet Union. This has brought us ever higher levels of moral hazard. Such policies are unwise, but since you apparently intend to continue to pursue them, I wish you the best of luck. You, and we, are going to need it.

Making Sense out of the Economic News: Not As Bad As The Dow Took It.

We have just had a great deal of economic news come out.

The Employment Report: The unemployment rate is up slightly to 9.5 percent (compared to 9.4 percent in May.) This was as expected. The payroll survey showed a bigger than expect drop: 467,000 jobs in June. The latter became the headline news. Wall Street opened a hundred and fifty points lower and continued to fall. London and European stock markets accelerated their early morning declines in response to the news. A closer look at the data shows a curious divergence in the trends measured by the household and establishment surveys. Over the last three months, the establishment survey shows employment falling by an average of 436 thousand jobs a month, while the household survey shows a monthly fall in employment almost half that (230 thousand.) This is significant because in the last recession household employment growth turned positive well over a year before payroll jobs turned up. Corrected for base biases, it may be a better cyclical indicator.

Aerospace appears to have lost another five thousand jobs in June for a two month total of 12-13,000. BLS does not break these data out, so I have to estimate them from the published data.

Consumer confidence was down. German and Australian retail sales were up and beat expectations. U.S. durable goods orders were up in May.

Non defense aircraft and parts orders were up as well. Although orders were half May, 2008, they reached the highest level since October. Order backlogs for the industry fell from 39.2 months to 33.4 months.

Car sales are up and appear to have bottomed out in February. They are way from May, 2008.

Unemployment Jumps to 9.4%; Job Losses "Down" to 345,000

My first quick thoughts:

The May establishment survey shows 345,000 fewer jobs than in April. That is bad and makes my assertion that March was the recession trough look a little shakier. Still after the massive losses we saw over the last few months, it looks like an improvement.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also surveys households. This survey shows an even bigger drop in the number of Americans who say they have jobs: 437,000. Remember that the household survey actually showed an employment increase (yes, I said an increase) in April and that this survey is subject to greater month to month sampling variation than the establishment survey. It also does not have the contemporaneous biases caused by the firms births/deaths adjustment process.

The headline news is the jump in the unemployment rate from 8.9 percent (compared to Wichita's 7.1 percent) in April to 9.4 percent in May. This is the worst since the early 1980s. (Unemployment hit a peak of 10.8 percent in November and December, 1982.)

How did the unemployment rate go from 8.5 percent two months ago to 9.4 percent?

The biggest driver is an increase in the work force of over a million in those two months. More people are looking for jobs.

Why? Hard times force more people into the work force. Most of the increase is among men and teenagers. This increase might reflect high school students and graduates looking for jobs sooner than the BLS's statistical adjustment assumes they do. There was a 536,000 increase in the workforce among those with no or only high schooling. The minimum wage increased last July and is slated to do so again next month. As often happens when the minimum wage goes up, the unemployment rate rises among minority teenages. It is now close to 40 percent for Black teenagers.

Wichita

It looks like employment fell another 7,000 jobs in the aircraft industry. Still now there may be more jobs in aerospace than in the automotive manufacturing.

GDP Dropped at a 6.1% Annual Rate; Final Sales Down c.3.3%

The GDP numbers are out for the first quarter. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis announced GDP declined at a 6.1 percent seasonally annual rate. The acceleration of the decline in inventories knocked 2.8 percentage points off of that annualized growth rate. Final Sales declined at a 3.3 percent seasonally annual rate.

Declines in investment spending accounted for more than the total decline in GDP.

Prices, as measured by the GDP price deflator, rose 2.9 percent (2.0 percent without food and energy.) Inflation is not dead.

On the bright side, such a massive inventory fall should be self correcting to some degree. Import declines more than offset the small fall in exports. Net exports on net contributed back almost two percentage points to the negative growth rate in GDP.

The decline in GDP was worse than the 5.0 percent consensus expectation.

Yes, I am sticking with my prediction thet the U.S. economy hit its trough in March. The magnitude of the inventory correction is in line with my scenario.

PPI and Retail Sales Down

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the Producer Price Index (PPI) for finished goods fell 1.2 percent in March (0.0 excluding energy and food): that is 3.5 percent below a year ago. PPI for intermediate goods fell 1.3 percent and for crude goods .3 percent.

The Commerce Department announced Retail and Food Sales fell 1.1 percent in nominal terms. Autos and auto parts lead the decline with a 2.3 percent decline. Note this is in nominal terms. If consumer prices also fell this would reduce the decline in real terms.

Since the number of cars sold in March rose, there must have been a substantial fall in some combination of the prices or the richness of the mix of cars to produce the decline in dollars spent on cars and parts. Retail Sales of automobiles and light trucks and automotive parts were down 2.3 percent based on an 8.5 percent increase in vehicle sales offset by a 9.7 percent fall in dollars spent per vehicle sold.

This could provide a nice bottom for the recession trough.

The Employment Report: Have We Hit Bottom?

Measured by the survey of U.S. establishments, jobs fell by approximately two thirds of a million in March (661,000) and the unemployment rate rose to 8.5 percent.

The financial services sector has lost a half million jobs since December, 2006.

And for the Wichita economy,what about the aircraft industry?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes data on employment in transportation equipment other than motor vehicles which is predominantly the aircraft industry. In our sector, jobs fell by 8,400 in March with a total decline of over 75,000 since September.

And the future?

Two weeks ago I said my hunch was we were at the bottom. The employment report is grim, nevertheless, I am now convinced that we are at the recession trough. The vast worldwide inventory correction should have run its course. Many of the indicators (housing starts, factory orders, home sales) have hit bottom and have turned up, if only for a month. The stock market, the earliest of leading indicators is rallying. Unfortunately employment will lag well beyond the cyclical bottom.

Economic Policy: Where Do We Stand Now?

The economy won President Barak Obama his job and the economy is the focus of his agenda. Given the speed of events, it is not too early to assess the administration's economic policy and the key issues confronting us.

The administration's economic policy is a three legged stool. The first leg is the new bank rescue package; the second is its trade policy; and the third is the stimulus package. By the end of last week it already seemed a bit wobbly.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the lead on the first two and he had a rough week.


Preventing a banking collapse is crucial. How do we prevent the debacle on Wall Street from destroying the banking system which must fund economic recovery? It was the collapse of the banking system that was the biggest reason an ordinary recession in 1929 turned into the Great Depression.

Geithner introduced the administration’s bank rescue plan on Tuesday and how did security markets react? They dropped like a rock. The stock market fell 4.6% in the first half hour after his speech was released. Bond prices fell. Markets around the world followed suit. Martin Wolf, the associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times (London), asked "Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed?" Geithner’s plan lacked specifics and gave no indication that it would work.

Back to the drawing board.

The second leg is trade policy. Protectionism is a monster that must be caged. Trade is so crucial, but seems to be the most backburner of issues in the news. How do we avoid a return to the trade wars of the 1930s? The collapse of world trade was the second most important reason the 1929 recession turned into the Great Depression. The U.S. passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, Canada promptly retaliated before the law was even enacted. One nation after another tried to steal trade from the others by devaluing its currency and/or raising tariffs. As each tried to pull itself up by pulling down its mates, they all crashed to the floor. The nineteenth century's great age of globalization came to a final end. Will we learn from the past? For as Ben Franklin put it, "We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

America must lead the battle against protectionism. So far the new administration has been more a source of worry than leadership. As candidate Obama, the President advocated protecting American jobs on the campaign trail. That doesn't help. Congress tried loading the stimulus package with "Buy America" provisions. Even before being confirmed as the new Treasury Secretary, Geithner started out bashing China, but then had to backpedal when the finance ministers of the G-7 (i.e., the main economies) met in Rome. Peer pressure? After all, China's $581 billion stimulus package might do more to help slow the global downturn than Congress's many headed monster. Japan's decline at a double digit annual rate (see yesterday's posting) emphasizes how this is a global economic downturn with each country's decline feeding its falling domestic demand back to its trading partners.

And the third leg is the stimulus package: How do we get the economy jump started? Here the administration left the job of putting a stimulus package together to Congress, an institution whose approval ratings rank below those of former President Bush and used car dealers. The result is a package many people doubt will do the job but will blow up the deficit. It managed to unite the Republican opposition, no mean feat.

So even as the President basks in his Congressional victory on the stimulus package, his economic team is licking its wounds after a tough week. Managing economic policy is proving more difficult than campaigning against the status quo.

Monetary Policy: Meanwhile the Federal Reserve faces the daunting task of being ready to turn on a dime once (should I say "if") normality returns to financial markets. The explosion of the Fed's balance sheet poses major threats to its ability to conduct policy. When it turns the corner of the banking crisis and maybe sooner, the Fed faces the Sylla of a run on the dollar and the Charybdis of exploding inflation. That we should have a Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman at this peculiar time and place seems providential. I do not envy him.

I must add Ben Bernanke to my ever lengthening list of causes to pray for.