Thursday, April 17, 2014 - The Growth Industry for the Next 20 Years

The Growth Industry for the Next 20 Years

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 16 = 16,408
SPX + 2 = 1864
NAS + 9 = 4095
10 YR YLD + .08 = 2.72%
OIL + .83 = 104.59
GOLD – 7.60 = 1295.60
SILV + .02 = 19.75

Stocks ended a holiday-shortened week with mixed results. Stock markets will be closed tomorrow in observance of Good Friday. The S&P 500 had its best week since last July. For the week, the Dow rose 2.4%, the S&P 500 added 2.7% and the Nasdaq advanced 2.4%.

With less than one-fifth of S&P 500 companies having reported results so far, about 63% have topped earnings expectations and 52% have topped revenue expectations. Of course that’s part of the dance between corporations and analysts, but it does move stock prices. For example, Goldman Sachs reported an 11% drop in quarterly profit and revenue fell 8%, but the results were better than estimates and share price was higher on the day.  Among the other earnings related movers today, Google, IBM, Mattel, and United Health were down on poor earnings news, while Morgan Stanley, GE and Pepsi moved higher.

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose less than expected in the latest week and came near pre-recession levels. The Labor Department also reports weekly earnings of the typical full-time worker rose 3% in the first quarter compared to a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2008. Median earnings came in at $796, that’s the point where half of all workers made more and half made less. This means that earnings growth is now outpacing inflation in consumer prices, which increased at 1.4%. Earnings that rise faster than costs mean workers will have more money to spend on discretionary purchases, or maybe to shore up their personal finances.

This might indicate that the labor market is getting tighter, or at least working through some of the slack, as companies have to pay a bit more to retain or attract workers. Consumers that spend more, boost business profits, which means companies respond by producing more, which means more hiring and an even tighter labor market, which leads to higher worker earnings. Of course, this is just one report, and one report does not make a trend.

One of the reasons it might not be a trend is that the income is not evenly distributed. Recent Labor Department research shows that the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 80% of the rise in household income from 2008-2012. Income fell for the bottom 20%. That had a direct impact on spending. The top households increased spending by about $2,300 from 2008-2012, notably on health care, transportation and education. The 20% of households with the lowest incomes cut spending by about $150.

Top diplomats from Ukraine, Russia, the European Union and the United States have agreed on a set of measures to ease mounting tensions in eastern Ukraine. In Geneva today, Secretary of State John Kerry said the measures include disarming pro-Russian militants occupying buildings in eastern Ukraine and the return of the buildings to their legitimate owners. A joint statement from the four powers says amnesty will be granted to protesters who surrender weapons and leave the buildings, except for those found guilty of capital crimes.

Speaking at the White House, President Obama said he hopes Russia will honor the agreement but he also said that given past practices, there are no assurances of cooperation from Moscow. He said the administration is holding talks with European allies about possible new sanctions if Russia reneges on the deal.  The agreement does not specifically require Moscow to withdraw 40,000 troops massed on its border with Ukraine, and does not reference Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula last month. It also does not obligate Moscow to hold direct talks with the interim government in Kiev. Peace monitors will be put in place and dialogue will continue, but this is a very real diplomatic move toward de-escalation. That’s good.

This has been a most unusual geopolitical act of aggression in Ukraine; it has revealed the use of sanctions as an economic weapon going up against the threat of cutting off natural gas supplies as an energy weapon.

In Russia, the economic costs have been masked by recent patriotic fervor but could soon haunt the Kremlin, as prices rise, wages stall and consumer confidence erodes; the major Russian stock market index dropped 10% in March; by some accounts, more than $70 billion in capital has fled the country so far this year; key interest rates jumped to 7% from 5.5% to combat inflation and support the ruble, a step that could slow growth; and unemployment has spiked. Beyond the whipped up patriotic fervor there isn’t much reason for Russians to feel good about their situation. The only thing positive for the Russian economy is its energy supplies.

And when Russia intervened in Crimea, they threatened to turn off the energy supply to Ukraine and Europe. The clock is ticking. Europe has about 6 months before the cold weather returns, to wean themselves from dependence on Russian nat gas.

One way to replace Russian gas is through home-grown renewable energy production. Today, the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC hosted officials from the renewable energy industry to try and lure investment in green energy such as solar, wind, and biofuels. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

The oil industry would like to take the crisis in Ukraine and use it as an opportunity to flood the European market with fracked-in-the-USA natural gas. For this ploy to work, it's important not to look too closely at details. Like the fact that much of the gas probably won't make it to Europe because any gas fracked in the US would actually be sold on the world market to any country belonging to the World Trade Organization.

Plus, it would require massive infrastructure bailout in Ukraine and Europe; a single LNG terminal can cost $7 billion and it still requires massive infrastructure beyond the terminal. There could be a couple of very cold winters in Europe before those massive industrial projects are up and running.

Plus, there is the environmental problem of even more fracking in the US; Americans might put up with fracking in their own back yard if it results in energy independence and more jobs, but when you switch the argument to energy security for Ukraine and Europe, it becomes a tougher sell.

Plus, there is the concern about expanding fracking in light of the recent studies coming out in very plain and blunt language stating the climate is changing and fracking and burning carbon based fuels is a huge culprit. The gas industry itself, in 1981, came up with the clever pitch that natural gas was a "bridge" to a clean energy future. That was 33 years ago. That’s a long bridge.., to nowhere.

The answer is in renewable energy sources. If Russia wasn’t threatening to take away the nat gas, nobody would pay any attention to Putin. Real energy independence is also energy security, and it will be impossible to achieve as long as we rely on the oil and gas industry. So, how long would it take to become energy independent? Less than you might imagine.

It would take a big change in thinking and in political will, but we’ve done it before. During World War II, the US retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 485,000 more. In 1956 the US began building the Interstate Highway System which eventually extended more than 47,000 miles and changed commerce and society. Clean technology is the answer, and not just because fossil fuels are cooking the planet but because the clean tech is more efficient.

Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will need almost 17 trillion watts of power as the global population and living standards rise, with almost 3 trillion watts being consumed by the US. That forecast is based on the idea that we continue with the current mix of energy sources we use today, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

If, however, the planet were powered by clean technology, with no fossil fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would only be about 11.5 trillion watts and the US demand would drop to only about 1.8 trillion watts. That means that in 2030, we would need less wattage than we need today; and that decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient use of energy. For example, less than 20% of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle and the rest is wasted as heat, whereas 85% of electricity delivered to an electric vehicle is used to provide motion.

Of course clean technology would require massive infrastructure investment as well. The good news is that it is not money handed out by government or consumers but rather an investment that is paid back through the sale of electricity and energy, and because of the efficiencies and the advances in the technologies, it is cheaper than fossil fuel based energy. Energy will be the growth industry of the next 20 years; it is essential for a growing population and a standard of living; and as Putin’s intervention in Crimea has reminded us, it is essential for geopolitical stability.

Thursday, January 23, 2014 - They Must Think We’re All Morons

They Must Think We’re All Morons

by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 175 = 16,197
SPX – 16 = 1828
NAS – 24 = 4218
10 YR YLD - .09 = 2.77%
OIL + .47 = 97.20
GOLD + 26.30 = 1264.10
SILV + .22 = 20.11

We have economic reports to cover, some interesting news out of China; lots to talk about today. But what is the top story on most major news outlets? Justin Beiber was arrested in Miami for DUI and drag racing his Lamborghini from strip club to strip club. Seriously. We could spend the whole hour talking about it…, if we were brain dead. That is the biggest story in the country, because they must think we’re all morons.

This has been a very quiet week for economic data but today we got a few economic reports.

Initial jobless claims held steady last week at a nearly 2-month low as 326,000 people filed for first time unemployment benefits.

The Markit Flash US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell to 53.7 for January, its slowest growth in three months. A reading of 53.7 still indicates growth in manufacturing, and the researchers say we shouldn’t read too much into the report because cold weather has to play into the results. According to the economist from Markit: "After allowing for companies that saw production and sales disrupted by the cold weather, the rate of growth of output and orders remained as strong, if not stronger, than seen late last year.”

In another consequence of the weather, natural gas prices jumped more than 5% during yesterday's session, pushing prices to levels not seen since late 2011. This morning, it's close to cracking $5. The government cut its gas inventory forecasts. Also, gas delivery to consumers in New York and Boston set records yesterday as the most recent snowstorm buried the Northeast. Nat gas is a common way to heat homes, especially in the Northeast, and we’ve had some serious storms this winter.

If you’re looking for ways to trade the move, there are funds and ETFs; among the best known is UNG, which is not to be confused with a trade on the oil sector in general. There is a tendency to chase anything that moves fast. I don’t know where the price of nat gas will go from here; I do know the storms will pass.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency reported home prices ticked up 0.1% in November, and were up 7.6% from the year-earlier period. The National Association of Realtors reports sales of previously owned homes rose in December for the first time in 5 months, and capping the best year since 2006. A total of 5.09 million U.S. previously owned houses were sold in 2013 compared with 4.66 million the prior year.

The index of US leading indicators rose in December. The Conference Board’s gauge of the outlook for the next three to six months climbed 0.1 percent after a revised 1 percent gain the prior month that was larger than previously estimated. The report noted progress in the labor market, rising equity prices, rising home values, continued strength in consumer spending, and rising orders to manufacturers. Five of the 10 indicators in the leading index contributed to the increase.

The biggest economic report today came from China. Activity in China's factory sector contracted in January for the first time in six months. Weighed down by weaker domestic and export demand, the flash Markit/HSBC Purchasing Managers' Index (PM) fell to 49.6 in January from December's final reading of 50.5, dropping below the 50 line which separates expansion of activity from contraction. The reading points to a further slowdown in manufacturing and the entire Chinese economy, which then has implications for the US economy. Chinese leaders have pledged to push reforms to unleash new growth drivers as the world's second-largest economy loses steam, burdened by industrial overcapacity, piles of debt and soaring house prices.

And this has been another area of concern about China. China’s growth model appears to be built on a mix of investments and exports and debt; the dependence on debt has been producing diminishing returns. Lending has in recent years been the driver of growth, but each yuan of new borrowing now produces 1/4 the amount of GDP increase that it did five years ago, and now there are concerns about an imminent default in its shadow banking system, or investments made off balance sheet.

The Chinese cabinet is seeking to increase government oversight of lending by companies that currently face little or no supervision. The shadow system has grown in recent years because the Chinese government has too tightly controlled traditional banking. It keeps the interest rates that conventional banks pay to depositors extremely low and gives out cheap loans to state-owned enterprises and favored companies that might not be able to repay the money.

And now it looks like one of those companies might not be able to repay. The China Credit Trust Company has told investors that it may not make a January 31 repayment on what would amount to the equivalent of about $500 million; that’s a big chunk of money but not a scary number, in itself. The problem is that nay significant defaults could shatter the widespread assumption that off-balance-sheet investments carry an implicit guarantee from state banks and their partner institutions. Regulators have warned that investors must assume the risks from high-yielding investments and not expect protection from losses unless such guarantees are explicit. Local governments have largely ignored these injunctions and have stepped in repeatedly in recent years with bailouts for local firms facing default on corporate bonds and trust loans.

The low rates, of course, have led savers to invest money in speculative real estate projects or dubious investments known as wealth management products offered by banks and finance companies that promise higher rates of return. Much of that money is then lent to private businesses and local governments, which cannot get conventional bank loans because regulated banks are required to give preferences to state-owned companies.

If there is a credit crunch, it would be very different from the Lehman contagion we experienced 5 years ago, and so we probably won’t see any Western style back crashes because the financial system is still an arm of the Chinese government. So, it will likely end in an entirely different way, and we’re not sure what that is.

Next week, the Federal Reserve FOMC meeting will take center stage. It will be Ben Bernanke’s final FOMC meeting. And although we see signs of an improving economy, (or as the Fed said: “cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions.")  We have also seen a wobbly start to the trading year on Wall Street; and this came on the heels of the December FOMC meeting in which the Fed announced the first stage of tapering, curtailing asset purchases by $10 billion per month to just $75 billion per month. There is consensus that the Fed will take the next step in tapering next week; announcing an additional $10 billion a month in asset purchases.

The thinking has been that if things get bad, the Fed will simply ride to the rescue by postponing the taper and resuming or increasing asset purchases. We have to start by looking at what it means by “bad”. Economically speaking, it would be bad if unemployment were to spike; another credit collapse such as we saw in 2008 would be  bad; an economic  meltdown of any sort, domestic or international (think China, at least for today) – that would be bad. How about a 10% correction on Wall Street?

Stock market corrections are common, and we are overdue for some sort of correction, just based on past performance. The Fed’s taper announcement may very well serve as a catalyst or just an excuse for a correction. So, will the Fed jump in to clean up?

Not likely. The Fed has set a new course, and they will most likely have to stay the course, at least for the foreseeable future. There has been a concerted effort to emphasize forward guidance as the primary policy tool. Backtracking now would undermine the Fed's credibility. The Fed might like to talk about the importance of its independence and any reversal of taper would be seen as political. And any backtracking would be a serious blow to the Fed’s economic forecasting abilities and the Fed’s credibility.

And then there is the idea that the Fed’s balance sheet has grown too large, too fast. Increasing asset purchases would be seen as increasing the risks of future imbalances given the surge in stock prices that coincided with prior QE programs. In other words, there is the concern that QE could lead to bubbles, especially QE without an exit date would surely end badly. And a final reason, backtracking on taper and jumping back into the markets might not work this time. Each round of QE has resulted in slightly diminished returns. What if the Fed announced new stimulus and it failed to stimulate?

If the Fed is compelled to go back to the QE well, though, the cyclical sectors would be at heightened risk of underperforming as optimistic expectations get wrung out of stock prices. But this would only happen if things get bad (a subjective term) and we would likely see that coming.

The economic data have remained supportive of the Fed's tapering announcement in December. The December jobs report was weak, but it will be revised. Investor expectations are that the economy is stronger; not really strong but certainly not as weak as it was. So the Fed will likely continue with the taper, slowly and surely. And if the economy falters or something melts down, well they still have some other tools in the tool belt.

  

It’s still earnings reporting season and the big report today came after the close of trade as Microsoft posted net income of $6.5 billion, or 78 cents a share, compared with $6.3 billion, or 76 cents a share, in the year-ago quarter.  Revenue rose 14% to $24.5 billion, partly reflecting the release in November of a new Xbox videogame console and a fresh version of Microsoft’s Surface tablet computer ahead of the holidays. The results topped analysts’ guesses. No word on a replacement for CEO Steve Ballmer, who has announced his retirement.

Treasury prices rallied today. In part it was a safe haven move, with the weak data out of China; maybe some rebalancing or even an old fashioned short squeeze. Mortgage rates fell, decreasing borrowing costs for homebuyers. The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage was 4.39 percent this week, down from 4.41 percent and the lowest since November. The average 15-year rate slipped to 3.44 percent from 3.45 percent.

I mentioned earlier that we had a couple of reports on housing today. The Federal Housing Finance Agency reported home prices ticked up 0.1% in November, and were up 7.6% from the year-earlier period. The National Association of Realtors reports sales of previously owned homes rose in December for the first time in 5 months, and capping the best year since 2006.

Another report shows that the housing recovery has reached a level where it is increasingly unaffordable. You guessed it, California topped the list. The salary you have to earn to  be able to buy the median home in San Francisco is just over $125,000 as of November, and the median cost of a home in San Francisco is somewhere between $705,000 and $813,000, depending on what data source you look at; best guess is that home prices in San Francisco are up 24% over the past year. San Francisco tops the list of the most unaffordable cities. Next are San Diego and Los Angeles – the California trifecta – then New York City, where a mere $71,245 in income suffices to buy the median home. Households earning the median income of $51,000, well, forget it.

The reason San Francisco tops  the list is fairly simple, the tech bubble has attracted billions in fresh money, and one reason it has gravitated to San Francisco is past history and also tax incentives handed out to tech companies.

San Francisco may be extreme, but housing bubbles are now re-cropping up across the nation – and so are the very factors that helped inflate the prior housing bubble and then magnified the ferociousness of its implosion.

Helocs, or home equity loans, were up 30.8% in the first nine months of 2013 from prior year and are expected to reach $60 billion for the year, the highest level since 2009 when the market was in collapse mode. But it’s still a far cry from 2006, when such loans hit an all-time crazy record of $430 billion. Using the home as an ATM cranks up consumer spending. If the money is plowed back into the house, such as remodeling a bathroom, it adds some value to the house and lowers the risk of the loan. If it is used to buy gadgets, cars, or vacations, it still cranks up the economy in the US and other countries. But when home prices decline, homeowners and banks get slaughtered.

Also, the housing boom has seen the return of creative financing. Interest only home loans are back and they’re especially popular for jumbo loans. In a number of high-cost counties, including San Francisco, these are loans over $625,500 that banks can’t sell to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but have to keep on their balance sheets. Bank of America said that 36% of its fourth-quarter mortgages were jumbo loans, up from 23% in the first quarter. And adjustable rate mortgages, or ARMs made up 22% of all purchase loans in December, up from 11% in December 2012, the highest ratio since July 2008.

The result of higher prices has been slowing sales. In December sales volume was down 17.7% in San Francisco and 12.7% in the Bay Area from a year earlier. In California, volume dropped 12.1% to 34,949 sales, the worst December since 2007 – and 19.7% below the average for all Decembers since 1988.

In Palo Alto, at the center of the techie induced price hikes, home prices are now 40% above the prior bubble peak. But don’t call it a bubble, it’s a housing recovery, at least until it pops.