Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - If I Had a Hammer

If I Had a Hammer

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 90 = 15,928
SPX + 10 = 1792
NAS + 14 = 4097
10 YR YLD - .02 = 2.75%
OIL + 1.50 = 97.22
GOLD - .80 = 1256.70
SILV - .13 = 19.66

The State of the Union is… tonight.

President Obama will describe how he will use his pen and phone to overcome the Do-Nothing Congress, and the Republicans have ironically lined up not one, but three responses to refute the idea they are nothing more than obstreperous obstructionists.

Everybody from the Pope to the big wigs in Davos have been talking about inequality and it will likely be a major theme in tonight’s speech. Job and wage growth has been broken since the 1990s. Median family incomes grew very slowly from 1979 to 1999, peaked that year, and have fallen 13% since. The economy has recovered since the near financial meltdown of 2008, but it has been the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, and one of the reasons it has been such a slow recovery is that the spoils of recovery have been unevenly distributed.

Even though we have seen job growth in the past 54 months, 6 of the 10 fastest growing job categories are in low paying service sector positions, such as retail clerk and home health care aids. Middle class income is sinking; the ranks of the poor are rising; and the economic gains only go to the top, or 95% of all economic gains in the “recovery” have gone to the top 1%. For the fourth year in a row, the real median weekly earnings for full-time workers fell slightly. Profits, on the other hand, have been putting on a show. As a share of national income, corporate profits were 14.6% in the third quarter of 2013, the most recent quarter for which we have data. In the history of these data going back to 1947, there was only one quarter higher than that, the last quarter of 2011.

These trends are moving in opposite directions but they are related. Profit is simply revenue minus expenses, and so there are two ways to grow profits: increase revenue or cuts expenses. Profits have been propelled by squeezing costs rather than growing demand. The strength of profits is directly related to the weakness in hourly wages. In a normal business cycle, you would expect profits to increase before wages. During the good times, we tend to get fat and lazy. During a downturn, businesses get lean and mean and they start running at high productivity again. But that hasn’t happened. Real compensation has grown more slowly than productivity.

One way to look at this is to compare labor costs against the unit profit costs, and even after accounting for increases in productivity, profits have outpaced workers earnings. Compensation net productivity growth is up about 10% since 2000, while profits net productivity growth has doubled in the same time.

In the US, there is no job security. The share of working age Americans holding jobs is now lower than at any time in the last 30 years, and three-quarters of those working people are living hand to mouth. Advances in technology are just going to make job prospects even more challenging. A recent McKinsey Global Institute survey found that 230 million service jobs representing some $9 trillion in salary globally could be transformed by computers by 2025. Forget about outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas, the robots are coming.

So, there is really nothing to drive wages higher because demand for jobs outweighs supply of jobs. It is hard to demand higher wages when your replacement is filling out an application in the lobby, or when your replacement is a robot.

So, in addition to a pen and a phone, the President has a bully pulpit, and he will use it tonight. It remains to be seen if he will use it to put important ideas in people’s minds by shaping public discourse. We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years.

One of the ideas we will hear tonight is the President will to use an executive order to raise the minimum wage in new federal contracts.  The order about the minimum wage and federal contracts will raise the pay from the national minimum of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. The change applies only to new federal contracts, and not to renewals of existing agreements. So, he’s using a pen and a phone to raise the minimum wage, but nobody will see an increase in their next paycheck.

And for college age students, who you might expect would raise a ruckus about all the inequality, well they don’t have jobs; they do have mountains of student debt and so they don’t dare take to the streets. Besides, nobody really thinks you can change government anymore. Pete Seeger is dead and nobody can find a hammer, much less figure out how to use a hammer. Cynicism is stifling, not motivating. It’s hard to get people worked up to change something that seems irreparably dysfunctional. Maybe we’ll just have to wait until the whole mess to topple under its own weight. And things right now are pretty lopsided. Even the high rollers at Davos acknowledged that just 85 people now hold as much wealth as 3.5 billion people.

Whatever the economic costs of inequality, the social costs are even greater. Research shows that unequal economies are more fragile and prone to financial crisis and that they have higher levels of social unrest, poor health, anxiety and a host of other problems. Inequality also reduces social mobility—the very foundations of the American Dream—and it’s a voting issue. A new Gallup Poll shows that two-thirds of adults are dissatisfied with wealth distribution in the US. It’s also a global problem and it is certainly at the core of the volatility we’ve seen in emerging market economies in the past couple of weeks.

The problems in emerging markets are not just related to the monetary policy of central bankers, although that is a big part of the equation; the problems are related to economic inequality and subsequent political problems which tend to crop up when there is economic inequality. After 5 down days on Wall Street, you might think the markets were waking up to the problems; then we have a modest gain and we are lulled into a sense of complacency. The financial markets in 2012 and a much of 2013 were moving in lockstep, in a “risk on-risk off” pattern, with high yielding emerging markets as the preferred “risk on” trade. Investors were chasing yield and finding it in emerging markets, where the yield was much higher than here, where the Fed has engineered negative real yields.

And in our complacency, we might have overlooked the similarity in emerging markets today with the similarities of 1997.  In the 1990s Asian crisis, the rapid withdrawal of hot money triggered combined liquidity and exchange rate-regime crises. Then and now, capital flight merely served to exacerbate homegrown problems. The initial flight of capital needn’t be prompted by a crisis anywhere at all. It might simply be a ‘rotation’ of short-term capital from one set of opportunities to others elsewhere: game over, move on. That means that as emerging countries tried to enter into the global economy, they set up to allow capital to flow in with ease, which also meant capital could flow out with ease. Emerging market economies that had nurtured reasonably liquid domestic capital markets were among the worst hit.

Even though the Fed’s taper talk sent a shudder through emerging markets last year, at least as big a culprit has been slowing growth in China, since lower demand for commodities hits many smaller economies hard. China is trying to engineer a transition from an export/investment driven economy to a consumer oriented one, and no country has managed that transition smoothly. Even worse, China’s consumption share of GDP has generally been declining in recent years.

Remember that Lehman, which had a large emerging markets desk, nearly went bust in the 1997 Asian markets crisis. Our big banks now look better diversified, but if a large bank bet wrong on enough trades, it could take a meaningful hit to its balance sheet. And more weakly capitalized Eurobanks are less able to sustain this sort of blow well. So while the emerging markets wobbles may not evolve into a full-blown crisis, it’s likely we’ll have a sustained period of roller coaster volatility before conditions stabilize.

There have been 14 Federal Reserve Chairmen; Janet Yellen is about to become the fifteenth. The transition of the Chair is cause for some trepidation. Market makers rightly wonder about the direction of monetary policy and the markets may act in a skittish manner. The first year of a new Fed Chair is not necessarily bad for the markets. By a 9 to 4 ratio, the first year of a new Fed chair leads to positive gains in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The most recent and notable exception being the first year under Alan Greenspan (1987), where the Dow tanked more than 30% and finished the year down about 20%. Under Paul Volker, the Dow was volatile, with significant moves from negative to positive territory, but after one year of trading under the guidance of Volker saw the Dow in positive territory. Bernanke took the reins in 2006, which you may recall was a very good year for the Dow. Yellen? Well, time will tell.  Tune in tomorrow. 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - The Showdown

The Showdown

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 25 = 15,542
SPX – 6 = 1685
NAS + 0.33 = 3579

10 YR YLD + .07 = 2.58%
OIL + .09 = 107.00
GOLD – 26.10 = 1322.60
SILV - .34 = 20.25

No new records today. No milk and cookies, just the crumbs.

 A federal bankruptcy judge has cleared the way for Detroit’s bankruptcy case to go forward without legal challenges. The decision by Judge Steven Rhodes of United States Bankruptcy Court freezes all litigation against the city during the bankruptcy process and consolidates state-level legal challenges to Detroit’s Chapter 9 filing into the federal bankruptcy case.

The federal bankruptcy court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the case, he said, adding, “There is no case law that holds otherwise.”

The judge was attempting to put to rest a legal spat that began almost immediately after Detroit filed for BK last week. On Friday a state judge ruled that the filing violated the state Constitution, which protects the pensions of retired public employees. The city has been expected to seek reductions in pensions in bankruptcy court as part of its broader efforts to reduce Detroit’s estimated $18 billion in debts and other obligations.

Today, Judge Rhodes approved a motion by the city’s emergency financial manager, Kevyn Orr, to freeze all litigation against the city during the bankruptcy process. The move effectively gives Judge Rhodes the authority to rule on the issues raised by retired public employees regarding their pensions.

Remember Meredith Whitney? She's the financial analyst who correctly predicted that Citigroup was in trouble, right before the financial crisis. In an op-ed in the Financial Times she says, "The aftershocks of the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history will be staggering, and Detroit will set important precedents."

Whitney thinks this is the first in that many many municipal defaults she's been predicting for the past 3 years. She went on 60 Minutes in 2010 and said the muni market was going to hell in a handbasket, and she caused a minor freakout, which never came to pass. She is right when she points out that many municipalities are struggling to balance their obligations to current and former employees, bondholders and public services and that something will have to give. And if Detroit can wipe out underfunded pensions, there will be other cities that will consider similar action, but it's not so easy.

Many states prohibit municipalities from going the BK route; they must be truly insolvent; they need to exhaust other ways to pay off debt. And then there is the simple idea that the economy is getting better. It's not getting great, but it hasn't fallen into the abyss, and that means state and local revenues are getting better.

And besides, Detroit could solve this whole problem in a heartbeat, if they could just get the profits from Goldman Sachs' aluminum warehousing operations. Hmmm. Detroit's problems surely run deep. But beneath its fiscal problems, and all the hemming and hawing about them, lie the seeds of rebirth for the city and the broader metro region. Since the economic crisis, and perhaps somewhat before it, the first signs of recovery and revitalization, modest as they may be, are finally starting to surface. And housing is so cheap, we could all just go up there and buy a former auto plant and convert it into a summer cottage; snowbirds in reverse.

A NBC/Murdoch Street Journal poll released today finds that Americans disapprove of Congress. We really, really don't like Congress; 83% disapprove of the job Congress is doing; that's a record level. Just 12% approve of the job Congress is doing, and 57% say they would replace every member of Congress if they could. The poll also finds that the president's approval rating has dropped to 45 percent, down from 48 percent last month.

I don't get it; I don't understand. Who are these 12% who approve of Congress? Does that 12% represent the “Friends and Family Plan” or is it the lobbyists who have already paid for their Congress person?

What's behind this dissatisfaction? Let's keep it simple; it's the economy. That's not everything but it is the 800 pound gorilla. And so today, President Obama started talking about the economy. You'll hear more in coming days and weeks. There will be a debate to define an economic policy. And the debate started in Galesburg, Illinois at Knox College. Galesburg is a small town with a little over 30,000 residents and a median income of just over $17,000. In 2004, the Maytag plant closed down; the unemployment rate is still a little above 8%.

Obama went on the offensive, well aware that it is just a matter of time before Congress re-emerges from it's summer slowdown and slips into full-fledged dysfunctional overdrive. He took credit for helping strengthen the economy, while acknowledging that “we're not there yet”; and he went on the attack against Republicans in the House of Representatives for engaging in “an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals.” He said, “Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” and it needs to stop.

And then he addressed two issues that will dominate the debate in Washington in coming months – the debt ceiling and funding the government. Obama said: “We’ve seen a sizable group of Republican lawmakers suggest they wouldn’t vote to pay the very bills that Congress rang up — a fiasco that harmed a fragile recovery in 2011, and one we can’t afford to repeat.”

Over in the House, meanwhile, Speaker John Boehner has said that he will not "raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending," a mantra that preceded a similar showdown in 2011. Boehner has alternatively said he would not allow the country to default -- making it hard to gauge how serious a threat this truly is -- but there are loads of lawmakers who are perfectly willing to gamble with default.

Obama clearly learned from earlier missteps, when the administration declared victory on the recovery prematurely. He focused his address not on acknowledging a modest recovery but trying to argue for why his policies on spending, health care, immigration and even raising the minimum wage would help drive a more broadly shared recovery.

He spent a lot of time talking about how wages have grown for top earners but not the middle class, and rising stock prices do not translate to widely shared prosperity. And this is really where the economic debate is headed, an attempt to define the true origins of prosperity. And the debate will be between the trickle down theory and the middle out economics.

Economic policy choices may seem complex but they boil down to a simple question: whether what's best for a capitalist economy is an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the top or a thriving and growing middle class. That's why arguments about the debt, sequestration, trade policy, tax reform, and fiscal stimulus are really distractions – along with a lot of what passes for news on any given day.

A modern understanding of economics leads to the conclusion that prosperity is the result of ongoing interaction between consumers and businesses. The middle-out theory tries to improve the interaction by creating conditions that allow both middle class consumers and the businesses that depend on them to prosper and to provide mutual benefit in a kind of virtuous cycle. This means that a prosperous economy revolves not around a tiny number of the very rich but around a great and growing number of middle-class consumers and small businesspeople.

Middle-out economics has several important advantages over trickle-down. One is reality: This is how complex, adaptive systems like economies in fact thrive. A second is politics: Middle-class voters will naturally prefer a story that puts them in the center, rather than at the margins. And the third is intuition: We know in our gut that we're all better off when we're all better off. We have seen how inequality does not lift all boats. We don't seek equal results, just equality of opportunity.

The implication of trickle down is that prosperity trickles down form the top and so it's only the people at the top who matter; but most people realize that people in the middle and bottom also matter. We are connected on many different levels, indivisible.

And while it is tempting for businesses to only court the top, the reality is that they need the middle and the bottom; they need more customers, not just a couple of wealthy customers. We need more Americans who have purchasing power, education, health security, and access to capital participating in the economy; whether as consumers or as innovators, which is actually just another way of saying small business people. In other words, we need the economy operating at full capacity. If we hope to achieve our full economic potential we need to get everyone involved.

We need more consumers, yes, because that drives demand and when we have demand, business people will respond to demand, and that in turn, will encourage more innovators, more ideas, more competition, and of course, more jobs. Economic growth happens when together we invest in the education and health care and infrastructure and research that provide the foundation for the entrepreneurial energy of the private sector.

Obama plans to expound on his ideas in speeches across the country in the weeks ahead. His address today in Galesburg did not include major new policy proposals, but new ideas are expected to be sprinkled in future remarks. Already, the Republicans are denouncing the speech for a lack of specifics, and today the president denounced them for a lack of specifics, saying: “You can't just be against something. You've got to be for something.”

But the specifics are not the real story; the real story is the showdown between trickle down and middle out.