The Productivity Puzzle (excerpt)

There is widespread concern about the slow growth in nonfarm business productivity. Over the past 20 quarters (five years) since Q1-2010, it is up only 0.5% on average during each of the Q1-to-Q1 periods spanning this period: 0.4% through Q1-2011, 0.9% through Q1-2012, 0.5% through Q1-2013, 0.6% through Q1-2014, and 0.3% through Q1-2015. That’s awfully weak growth.

There are lots of different reasons to be concerned. Fed Chair Janet Yellen is worried that wage gains are being held down by weak productivity. Bond investors are worried that inflation might rebound if tightening labor markets push up labor costs, with wages rising faster than productivity. In this scenario, stock investors would fret that profit margins would be squeezed if labor costs rise faster than prices. Progressives are saying that companies are using their cash and borrowings to buy back their shares rather than invest in productivity-enhancing capital equipment. They claim that’s worsening income inequality.

In other words, everyone wants to see productivity growing at a faster pace. The key reason is that productivity is the key determinant of consumers’ purchasing power (i.e., real income) and the standard of living (i.e., consumption). However, there are measures of these two variables suggesting that the productivity problem may not be as serious as widely believed. Consider the following:

(1) Long term. First, let’s keep in mind that technological innovations--which are the key drivers of productivity--tend to be lumpy. They don’t happen continuously over time, and they take time to be adopted once they are ready for prime time. We can see this by looking at the growth in productivity over 24-quarter periods. Since the early 1950s, productivity grew especially fast during the 1960s and the late 1990s and the first few years of the next decade. Before and after these bursts, the pace of productivity growth was relatively subpar.

(2) Short term. On a shorter-term basis, productivity jumped 5.2% from Q1-2009 through Q1-2010 before the slowdown since then. That boosts the average productivity growth rate a full percentage point to 1.3% per Q1-to-Q1 period over this six-year time span. I constructed a good proxy for productivity by dividing real GDP by the average weekly hours index in the private sector. I did so because there are no official productivity measures for goods and services industries in real GDP.

I constructed proxy measures of productivity in goods and services industries by dividing their contributions to real GDP by their average weekly hours indexes. Both proxies jumped during 2009. Goods productivity has continued to trend higher at a slower pace, but services productivity has dropped 5.7% from Q4-2009 through Q1-2015! That seems very odd and suggests that the government’s bean counters may be having an especially tough time counting the beans in services.

(3) Freebies. “[T]he U.S. doesn’t have a productivity problem, it has a measurement problem.” That’s according to a 7/16 WSJ article titled “Silicon Valley Doesn’t Believe U.S. Productivity Is Down.” It reviews the contrarian views of Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist. The article notes, “[T]he only way goods and services move the official U.S. productivity needle is when consumers and businesses pay for them. Anything free, no matter how much it improves everyday life, isn’t included.” Many of today’s time-saving technologies are free, like some location-based apps, cloud computing, and robust search engines.

On the other hand, the first posted comment about the article observes: “I suspect that all the productivity gains provided by Google and the like are more than offset by the ridiculous amount of time people spend on FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram etc writing about the cute thing their dog did today, or posting a picture of what they had for lunch...”

Today's Morning Briefing: Opie Kicks the Can. (1) The best can kickers on the road. (2) Going fishing on a summer’s day down a country road. (3) Mario and Opie. (4) Between “aw, shucks” and “shock and awe.” (5) Another panic sell-off followed by another relief rally. (6) Marty Zweig’s famous mantra on steroids. (7) Another better-than-expected earnings season, especially ex-Energy. (8) Putting together the pieces of the productivity puzzle. (9) Productivity has a long boom-bust cycle because innovation is lumpy. (10) Our productivity proxies suggest bean counters aren’t counting all the beans in services. (11) The freebie problem. (12) “Mr. Holmes” (+ +). (More for subscribers.)

Yellen Still Sees Slack in Labor Market (excerpt)

Was it a coincidence? The S&P 500 rose 1.2% on Friday to 2076. Fed Chair Janet Yellen spoke about the economy and monetary policy the same day. Previously, I’ve observed that whenever she does so, stock prices tend to be up that day. Of course, investors were also relieved to see that China’s stock market rallied and Greece might still get a bailout. In any event, Yellen will be speaking again on July 15 and July 16 in her semiannual testimony to Congress on monetary policy.

In her speech on Friday, she made headlines saying, “Based on my outlook, I expect that it will be appropriate at some point later this year to take the first step to raise the federal funds rate and thus begin normalizing monetary policy.” So one-and-done is still the most likely scenario for Fed policy this year. If so, then the next hot topic will be when might the second rate hike occur next year and how many more rate hikes might there be. Yellen’s comments suggested that rate hikes are likely to be small, few, and far between in 2016.

Yellen is a labor economist by background, and it shows. She just isn’t convinced that the labor market has improved as much as suggested by numerous upbeat indicators, including the official unemployment rate, payroll employment, and job openings. She said: “But it is my judgment that the lower level of the unemployment rate today probably does not fully capture the extent of slack remaining in the labor market--in other words, how far away we are from a full-employment economy.”

Today's Morning Briefing: Bull in a China Shop. (1) Best-laid plans of mice and men, and central planners. (2) Central bankers are central planners too. (3) Pain in China’s master plans. (4) Government cheerleaders held pep rallies to rally stocks. (5) The biggest winner and loser in China. (6) “Silk Road” has a slippery slope. (7) Falling PPI and auto sales. (8) Command economies don’t do markets very well. (9) Xi’s dream turning into a nightmare. (10) Obamacare is a nightmare. (11) Yellen does it again and says it again. (12) Record job openings. (13) Taylor Swift gets + + + for best capitalist of the year. (More for subscribers.)

US Economy Is Still the Promised Land (excerpt)

June’s employment report was released on Thursday rather than Friday, when US markets and government offices were closed for the long Fourth of July weekend. Overall, there weren’t any fireworks in the report. Our Earned Income Proxy rose to a new record high in June, edging up only 0.2% m/m. Last month’s 223,000 payroll gain was fine, but the previous two months were revised downwards by 60,000. The labor force fell 432,000, while the household measure of employment declined 56,000.

Wages rose, but by only 2.0% y/y, which remains remarkably low given that the JOLTS measure of the jobs openings rate rose during April to the highest since January 2001. The unemployment rate is down to 5.3%, the lowest since April 2008. It is just 4.8% for adults, a new cyclical low. Yet despite the tightness in the labor markets, wage inflation remains remarkably subdued. On the other hand, Q1’s Employment Cost Index for private industry rose to 2.8% y/y, the highest since Q3-2008.

Like Moses, Fed Chair Janet Yellen has pledged to bring us to the Promised Land of milk and honey, i.e., good jobs and good wages. Are we there yet? There certainly are plenty of job openings that can’t easily be filled by the available supply of labor. Apparently, employers aren’t convinced that raising wages will attract the workers they need. Workers who have the right skills to match the available jobs are in the Promised Land. The ones who don’t qualify are still wandering around in the desert, or they’ve dropped out of the labor force and stopped searching for the Promised Land.

There are plenty of other economic indicators suggesting that the US is still the Promised Land for most Americans. Here’s a brief review of the latest:

(1) Construction spending, especially on factory capacity. Construction spending rose to a cyclical high of $1.04 trillion (saar) during May. Leading the way was a 1.5% m/m jump in nonresidential private construction, with manufacturing soaring 6.2% during the month. The latter has been climbing almost vertically this year, posting a 70% y/y gain. This is certainly consistent with the view that despite the strong dollar, the US may be enjoying an industrial renaissance based on cheap energy and technological innovation.

(2) Business equipment spending, especially on heavy trucks. Another category of capital spending that’s showing strength is sales of medium and heavy trucks. It rose to 450,000 units (saar) during June, a new cyclical high and the best pace since February 2007. That’s impressive given that the oil patch has been hard hit by the plunge in oil prices since last summer.

(3) Consumer spending, especially on autos. Retail auto sales averaged 17.1 million units (saar) during Q2, the best such pace since Q3-2005. Overall retail sales have rebounded smartly this spring following the winter’s ice patch. There seemed to be a spring soft patch in retail sales, but it was revised away. While June’s employment report had some soft spots, there was enough strength to provide consumers with more purchasing power.

(4) Purchasing managers, especially the ISM survey. There was also a soft patch in the M-PMI earlier this year. The index fell from 55.1 last December to a recent low of 51.5 during March and April. But it rose during the past two months to 53.5 in June.

Today's Morning Briefing: Ye Shall Merge & Acquire. (1) Greece: This too shall pass? (2) Greeks invented mythology and mathematics. (3) Be fruitful and multiply. (4) M&A and buybacks are shrinking supply of stocks. (5) The Wilshire 3,666. (6) Jump-starting growth with M&A. (7) America is still the Promised Land for most Americans. (8) Janet and Moses. (9) Wages: Are we there yet? (10) More evidence of US industrial renaissance. (11) Pedal to the metal. (12) “Terminator Genisys” (+). (More for subscribers.)

Abrupt Normalization in Bond Market (excerpt)

One simple model of the 10-year bond yield compares it to the growth rate of US nominal GDP on a y/y basis. While real GDP fell 0.7% (saar) during Q1 on a q/q basis, it was up 2.7% y/y, confirming that the quarterly result might have been distorted by faulty seasonal adjustments. Recent economic indicators confirm that the US economy continues to grow at a moderate pace. In any event, nominal GDP rose 3.6% y/y during Q1. That’s well above even the latest yield. In the Eurozone, real GDP rose 1.5% (saar) q/q during Q1. It was up 1.0% y/y, with nominal GDP rising 2.0%.

This suggests that the rebound in yields is an abrupt normalization relative to nominal economic activity. This happened in reaction to the ebbing of deflationary fears. Expected inflation in US 10-year TIPS is up from this year’s low of 1.54% on January 13 to 1.86% on Tuesday. In addition, growth prospects seem to be improving in the US and Eurozone. While the ECB is committed to its QE program through most of next year, the Fed is likely to respond by raising the federal funds rate later this year. Expectations that the Fed will soon start normalizing monetary policy is another explanation for the abrupt normalization of bond yields.

Today's Morning Briefing: Bond Bath. (1) Blondes vs. bonds. (2) Bonds vs. bunds. (3) Where do we go from here? (4) From abnormal to less abnormal. (5) Deflation fears ebbing. (6) A simple bond model. (7) Draghi deserves credit and blame. (8) Dudley says Fed policy is market dependent. (9) Tranquility in the commodity pits. (10) Riding the Age Wave. (More for subscribers.)

No Soft Patch for Small Business (excerpt)

The NFIB survey of small firms reports a series reflecting the net percentage of business owners saying that their earnings were higher over the past three months versus lower. It has been negative since the start of the data in January 1986. It jumped last month to -7%, the highest reading since October 2005. It’s up from the series’ record low of -47% during January 2009.

Not surprisingly, the 12-month average of the earnings series is highly correlated with the NFIB small business optimism index. When small business owners are optimistic because their earnings are improving, they tend to hire workers. Sure enough, the percentage of small companies expecting to increase employment is up to 11.6%, the highest since February 2008. The percentage of small firms with job openings is up to 25.4%, the highest since December 2001.

The latest NFIB survey noted: “Owners report that the labor market is, from an historical perspective, getting very tight. Owner complaints about ‘finding qualified workers’ are rising, job openings are near 42 year record high levels, and job creation plans remain solid. Over 80 percent of those hiring or trying to hire in May reported few nor no qualified applicants.” In an obvious dig, the report added that there’s not much the Fed can do to increase the supply of qualified workers.

Today's Morning Briefing: Small Business Is Big. (1) Jury is out on soft-patch verdict. (2) No soft patch for small business owners. (3) Businesses create jobs, not governments. (4) Small businesses lead the way. (5) Corporate profits lead employment and capital spending. (6) Hard to find qualified workers. (7) Capital spending improving, but lagging. (8) A real jolt in JOLTS. (9) SMidCaps vs. LargeCaps. (10) Falling oil prices have had bigger impact on earnings than rising dollar. (11) Margins getting squeezed among SMidCaps as they ramp up hirng. (More for subscribers.)

Central Banks Restore Wealth, Working on Growth (excerpt)

The major central banks of the world have been easing their monetary policies significantly since the financial crisis of 2008. They’ve succeeded in averting another financial crisis so far. They’ve also succeeded in recovering most of the fortunes that were lost during the crisis. For example, the total market value of all stocks traded in the US rose $22.7 trillion since Q1-2009 through the end of last year to $36.5 trillion. The S&P 500’s capitalization has increased $12.9 trillion during the bull market so far through last week. Both are at record highs, with the S&P 500 exceeding its 2007 peak by $5.0 trillion. All equity investors have benefited from the stock market rally.

Bond investors also enjoyed big gains as yields fell and prices rose. For example, US bond mutual funds had capital gains totaling $522 billion since the start of 2009. As we noted yesterday, the 12-month average of the median existing home price is up 29% since February 2012, while real estate held by households has increased by $4.2 trillion since then through the end of last year. Gold has also been golden, with a 118% rise in the price since the start of 2009 to its record high on September 6, 2011. It’s down 36% since then, but that’s hardly a sunken treasure for anyone who bought gold a few years ago.

Nevertheless, the central banks have been frustrated by the slow pace of the recoveries in their economies since the crisis of 2008. Reviving self-sustaining economic growth hasn’t been as easy as easing has been. Previously, I’ve argued that the ultra-easy monetary policies of the central banks might perversely have contributed to the slow pace of economic growth.

Today's Morning Briefing: Easy Come, Easy Go. (1) Elvis Presley and Janet Yellen. (2) Sunken treasures recovered. (3) Why easing hasn’t worked as expected. (4) Stock gains aren’t trickling down. (5) Savers earning less so saving more. (6) Fed has enabled fiscal excesses at cut-rate rates. (7) Near-zero interest rates contributing to income inequality. (8) Fed policies causing capital misallocation. (9) Enabling financial engineering. (10) The blame game. (11) Demography is also a downer. (12) Focus on market-weight-rated S&P 500 Industrials. (More for subscribers.)

How the Fed Depressed the Recovery (excerpt)

In my opinion, the Fed has significantly contributed to the weakness of the current economic expansion as follows:

(1) By keeping interest rates near zero for so long, risk-averse savers have had to accept bupkis for returns on their liquid assets, which rose to a record $10.7 trillion during the week of May 11. Many of them have been saving more, thus spending less. The 12-month sum of personal saving has been running around $700 billion since the end of the financial crisis in 2008, double the pace during the 1990s and the first half of the previous decade.

(2) Ultra-easy money attracted investors rather than nesters into the housing market following the 2008 crisis. They bought up all the cheap homes and drove home prices back up to levels that may be unaffordable for many first-time homebuyers.

(3) As I’ve discussed many times over the past year, thanks to the Fed, corporate bond yields have been trading below the S&P 500’s forward earnings yield since 2004, providing companies with an incentive to buy back their shares and engage in M&A rather than invest in plant and equipment.

Cheap money did stimulate some business investment, but the increased capacity wasn’t matched by more demand, resulting in some deflationary pressures. Stock prices have soared, but this has exacerbated the perception of widespread income and wealth inequality.

Today's Morning Briefing: Tiptoe Through the Soft Patch. (1) Tiny Tim and Janet Yellen. (2) Is the Great Recession over yet? (3) ECI wages get a footnote. (4) Yellen still worrying about underwater homes. (5) Three abating headwinds. (6) Fed sees 2.5% real GDP growth ahead. (7) Yellen is in one-and-done camp. (8) What’s the matter with Kansas? (9) Are the headwinds abating? (10) Here is how the Fed’s policies have depressed consumer and business spending, and housing activity. (11) What’s the matter with the dollar, bonds, and stocks? (More for subscribers.)

Valuation & the Fed Model (excerpt)

Valuation like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With bond yields at historical lows, why shouldn’t valuation multiples be at historical highs? At 2%, the 10-year Treasury bond yield has an effective forward P/E of 50, implying that stocks trading at a forward earnings yield of 5.9% and a multiple of 17 are grossly undervalued by as much as 62%. Of course, this “Fed Model,” as I first named it back in July 1997, has been showing that stocks are undervalued since the Tech bubble burst. Furthermore, historically low interest rates may be a sign of secular stagnation, which isn’t particularly bullish.

Previously I’ve argued that valuations are being driven by equity purchasers who don’t pay much attention to valuations. They are corporate managers buying back their shares because the forward earnings yields on their shares exceed their borrowing cost of capital in the bond market. As far as they are concerned, beauty is measured by the appreciation of their stock price as they buy back their shares. In this scenario, the source of irrational exuberance is the ultra-cheap money available in the bond market for share buy backs and M&A thanks to the ultra-easy monetary policies of the Fed.

Today's Morning Briefing: Beauty Contest. (1) Episode 42 in The Twilight Zone. (2) Different strokes: Dear Leader vs. King Kong. (3) Some pushback on valuation. (4) Irrational Exuberance Zone. (5) The 3 scenarios again. (6) Channeling the Tech bubble. (7) Record PEG for S&P 500. (8) Smithers & Co. on Tobin’s Q. (9) Does valuation matter? (10) Do interest rates matter? (11) Draghi renews his vows. (12) Front-end loaded QE. (13) Lackluster recovery in Eurozone. (More for subscribers.)

Bond Market: Sprechen Sie Deutsch? (excerpt)

Yesterday’s much weaker than expected US retail sales report initially caused the 10-year US Treasury bond yield to fall in the morning. Then it spent the rest of the day moving higher. The comparable pesky German bond yield continued to move higher to 0.73% from its record low of 0.03% on April 17. The US bond yield has been joined at the hip with the German one all year.

While April’s payroll employment report put a Fed rate hike back on the table yet again for June, the retail sales report arguably took it off the table--yet again. That should have been bullish for bonds. Instead, the dollar took a dive on the soft-patch sales report. The weaker dollar lifted the prices of precious metals and oil (before crude oil inventory data depressed them), which also unnerved bonds.

A 2% bond yield looks attractive for the US 10-year Treasury given the subdued outlook for the Fed’s rate hiking. The problem is that if the German yield gets there, the US yield will be closer to 3%. That would make it even more attractive as long as you didn’t buy the bond at 2%.

Today's Morning Briefing: Consumers Not Registering. (1) Less “ka-ching” around the world. (2) A demographic theory of secular stagnation. (3) Older workers can’t depend on broke social welfare states. (4) May you live a long life and have lots of savings. (5) How governments depressed fertility. (6) US retail sales join the soft-patch batch. (7) China’s senior moment? (8) Japan, Italy, and Germany are at the top of median-age ranking. (9) Spotting some shoppers in Europe. (10) Bonds learning to speak Deutsche. (11) Focus on market-weight-rated S&P 500 Retail industry. (More for subscribers.)

Yellen on the Wage Question (excerpt)

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has stressed the importance of wage inflation in influencing the FOMC’s decision to start raising interest rates. April’s average hourly earnings (AHE) for all workers rose just 0.1% m/m and 2.2% y/y. She has said that she would like to see 3%-4% wage gains, or be reasonably confident that they are heading in that direction. The three-month change in this measure of wages settled down to 1.8% (saar) during April from 3.6% during March. Nothing to get Yellen too excited, which seemed to get the stock market very excited on Friday.

However, Q1’s Employment Cost Index (ECI) for wages and salaries in the private sector--a more comprehensive measure of wages than the AHE rose 2.7% y/y, the highest since Q3-2008. The Phillips Curve, which posits an inverse relationship between wage inflation and the unemployment rate, is actually working much better with the ECI than the AHE measure of wages, especially compared to the short-term unemployment rate. (See Phillips Curve.)

Yellen is a big believer in the Phillips Curve. She said so in an important 3/27 speech: “A substantial body of theory, informed by considerable historical evidence, suggests that inflation will eventually begin to rise as resource utilization continues to tighten. It is largely for this reason that a significant pickup in incoming readings on core inflation will not [her emphasis] be a precondition for me to judge that an initial increase in the federal funds rate would be warranted. With respect to wages, I anticipate that real wage gains for American workers are likely to pick up to a rate more in line with trend labor productivity growth as employment settles in at its maximum sustainable level. We could see nominal wage growth eventually running notably higher than the current roughly 2 percent pace.” In a footnote, she cited four studies for “recent evidence on the relationship between labor market slack and wages.”

Today's Morning Briefing: Goldilocks' Godmother. (1) Janet & Hamlet: To lift or not to lift? That is the question. (2) Janet & Christine: High and mighty say stocks are mighty high. (3) Yellen’s dashboard shows labor market is cruising. (4) Phillips Curve may be starting to work, pointing to bigger wage gains. (5) April retail sales may settle soft-patch question. (6) Yellen’s latest assessment of stock valuation: It’s high. (7) Addictive fairy dust. (8) Another relief rally after latest feared outcomes turn out to be nonevents. (9) On the verge of a melt-up? (10) Energy, Materials, and Financials join the rally parade. (11) ECI vs. AHE. (More for subscribers.)

Why Are Bonds Taking a Dive? (excerpt)

US bond yields have jumped recently. The 10-year Treasury is up from a recent low of 1.87% on April 17 to 2.26% yesterday. Everyone is blaming that development on the spike in Eurozone bond yields, particularly the surge in the 10-year German government yield from its all-time low of 0.033% on April 17 to 0.58% yesterday. That’s despite the implementation of QE by the ECB starting on March 9.

With the benefit of hindsight, the backup in yields isn’t a surprise. Yields simply fell too low at the start of the year on fears that plunging oil prices might trigger widespread deflation, especially in the Eurozone, and maybe cause another financial crisis if oil companies started to default on their debts. Now that oil prices have rebounded, those concerns are evaporating and yields are normalizing. I think it’s that simple.

In any event, the backup in bond yields is doing the same to mortgage rates in the US. That could stall the already lackluster recovery in the housing industry, which might explain why lumber prices are falling. So maybe the Fed should postpone its lift-off given the lift-off in bond yields?

Today's Morning Briefing: Bonds Away? (1) Confused Fed heads. (2) More on the dark side than the light side. (3) Our collective conundrum. (4) A simple explanation why bond yields have surged. (5) Are bond traders expecting Fed lift-off, while forex players aren’t? (6) Wages might finally be rising faster, but gasoline prices are rising rapidly too. (7) Stocks, bonds, and currencies could be choppy through the summer. (8) FOMC members expecting much better growth may be disappointed. (9) ADP payrolls especially weak for large goods-producing companies. (10) Oil and dollar hitting capital spending on construction and industrial machinery. (11) Focus on overweight-rated S&P 500 Financials. (More for subscribers.)

Churning (excerpt)

So far so good. In the 2/2 Morning Briefing, I wrote: “[T]he stock market may continue to trade in a volatile range during the first half of this year. The main negative for stocks is that valuation multiples are historically high, while earnings growth estimates are declining in the face of a strong dollar, weakening commodity prices, a flattening yield curve, and slowing global economic growth. The big positives are that bond yields are at historical lows and the plunge in oil prices is boosting consumer confidence and spending. Joe and I are still targeting 2150 for the S&P 500 by the end of this year and 2300 by the middle of next year.”

Yesterday, Kristen Scholer posted a story on the WSJ website titled “Why Record Highs May be Harder to Come By This Year.” She observed: “The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 set 188 fresh all-time highs, or the equivalent of roughly one every five trading sessions, during 2013 and 2014. This year, though, the major indexes have booked only nine historic highs as stocks have moved sideways for much of 2015. … It has been 34 sessions since the S&P 500 last finished at a historic high. That’s the index’s longest streak without an all-time high since the first record of the current bull market in 2013, according to Bespoke Investment Group.”

Why has this been happening? According to the article: “Corporate buybacks, deals and low interest rates have kept equities afloat, while stalled earnings growth, high valuations and slowing economic activity have put a lid on gains.” If that sounds like the same story I’ve been telling, then I should disclose that I was interviewed for the WSJ story and mentioned as follows: “He thinks the tug of war between the bulls and the bears will continue through the summer and into the fall. ‘While some institutional investors might be inclined to sell due to overvaluation, the most significant buyers continue to be corporate managers buying back their shares, and they aren’t nearly as sensitive to valuations,’ he said.”

At the beginning of 2013, in the 1/29 Morning Briefing, which was titled “Nothing to Fear but Nothing to Fear.” I noted: “In recent discussions, some of my professional friends told me they are now worrying that there is nothing to worry about. They note that there may be too many bulls for the good of the bull market.” I also noticed that many of them had “anxiety fatigue.” After the widely feared Fiscal Cliff was averted, investors seemed to be less prone to anxiety attacks. In other words, they were less prone to sell on bearish news, and more likely to hold their stocks and add to their positions on any weakness.

Now they seem to have “bull market fatigue” because valuations are stretched. Nevertheless, they are mostly staying fully invested. Consider the following:

(1) Anxiety fatigue. Since the start of the year, the S&P 500 has been trading between a record high of 2117 on March 2 and a low of 1992 on January 15. There have been lots of panic attacks since 2013, but none that turned into significant corrections. Recent worries that the plunge in the oil price might trigger a rout in the junk bond market haven’t panned out. China’s latest batch of weak economic indicators has been mitigated by the PBOC’s easier monetary policy. The winter/spring economic slowdown in the US increases the odds of a “one-and-done” or “none-and-done” rate hike by the Fed this year.

(2) Moving averages. The S&P 500 has remained above its still-rising 200-day moving average after briefly retesting it in early October last year. The S&P 500 Transportation index is currently back to its 200-dma. That’s a bit of a concern from a Dow Theory perspective, especially since the index’s 50-day moving average has turned down since it peaked on January 22.

(3) Melt-up worries. Interestingly, in recent conversations with our accounts, I am finding that more of them are worrying about missing a melt-up in stock prices than about dodging a correction or a meltdown. What might trigger a melt-up? The obvious answer is a significant postponement of monetary normalization by the Fed. A more likely scenario is that the initial lift-off in interest rates might cause corporations to stampede into the bond market to raise funds for more buy backs and M&A.

Today's Morning Briefing: Paths of Least Resistance. (1) Going nowhere fast. (2) Tug of war. (3) From “anxiety fatigue” to “bull market fatigue.” (4) Still too many bulls. (5) Home on the range. (6) Sector-neutral strategy beating many active managers. (7) Melt-up anxiety. (8) Hard to find anything bullish in crude oil’s demand/supply balance. (9) Maybe it’s geopolitical. (10) Saudis playing for keeps. (11) Focus on market-weight-rated S&P 500 Energy. (More for subscribers.)

Dollar's Turn? (excerpt)

On balance, there still looks to be more stagnation around the world than either a boom or a bust. So how can we explain the remarkable rebound in oil prices in recent weeks? The nearby futures price of a barrel of Brent crude has risen from its recent low of $45.59 on January 13 to $63.45 on Friday.

That’s despite record production by Saudi Arabia, all-time highs in crude oil inventories, gushing US oil production, and the possible end of sanctions against Iran. Could it be that the global economy is improving more than widely recognized? I doubt it. There’s certainly no confirmation of this possibility in the CRB raw industrials spot price index, which continued to edge lower last week, and now is the lowest since February 2010. This index does not include any petroleum or lumber commodities.

The apparent bottoming of oil prices is coinciding with the apparent peaking in the trade-weighted dollar. Previously, I’ve often observed that the two are highly inversely correlated. The dollar may be peaking on expectations that the Fed’s policy stance over the rest of the year is more likely to be “one-and-done” or even “none-and-done” than normalization, notwithstanding the recent upbeat views of two Fed officials (Stanley Fischer and Bill Dudley) about the US economic outlook. I am in the one-and-done camp for now.

The strong correlation may occur because rising (falling) oil prices increase (decrease) the dollar revenues of oil exporting countries. Many of them prefer to diversify their currency holdings so when they get lots of dollars, they tend to convert them to other currencies, which weakens the dollar. The reverse happens when they earn fewer dollars on their oil exports.

The currency markets are turning bullish not only for oil but also for other commodities, suggesting that there may be mounting expectations of better global economic activity. A few of the commodity currencies--i.e., the Canadian dollar, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble (thanks to the oil price rebound)--have been rallying in recent days. However, that’s after significant selloffs over the past year or so. On the other hand, the Australian dollar and the South African rand have simply stopped falling in recent days.

Today's Morning Briefing: Uneven Growth.(1) Ups and downs in IMFs latest forecast. (2) Redistributing the same growth. (3) Draghi’s push. (4) Rising in the EZ: production, exports, and car sales. (5) Fischer and Dudley expect more. (6) Weakening in the US: production, orders, and starts. (7) Stepping on the gas and the brakes in China. (8) Data suggest massive capital outflows from China. (9) India is looking up, while Brazil is looking down. (10) Industrial commodities yet to confirm oil’s rebound. (11) Has the dollar peaked because oil has bottomed, or vice versa? (More for subscribers.)

Inflation Warning (excerpt)

Last week, the 4/16 WSJ reported: “U.S. wages may be starting to pick up, a development that could help policy makers at the Federal Reserve feel more confident that sluggish U.S. inflation also will gain traction, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said Thursday.” He said so on a panel discussion in Washington. That same morning, in a CNBC interview, he said the Fed knows the markets “look ahead somewhat, so I think--I hope--that they are taking into account that the Fed, at some point, is likely to raise the interest rate.” On timing, he said markets “can’t depend on the current situation continuing forever--or even probably--beyond the end of this year.”

He reiterated that “there are more signs every day” of mild wage increases. What is he looking at? Let’s have a look:

(1) Minimum wage. Anecdotally, the minimum wage was raised in 21 states at the start of the year. However, during March, average hourly earnings rose only 2.1% and 1.8% for all workers and for production and nonsupervisory workers.

(2) McDonald’s. On 4/15, fast-food cooks and cashiers demanding a $15 minimum wage walked off the job in 236 cities in what organizers called the largest mobilization of low-wage workers ever. On April 1, McDonald’s announced plans to give employees a 10% pay bump and some extra benefits. The raise will affect about 90,000 workers at a small fraction of McDonald’s stores. Employees at franchises, which make up the majority of the burger chain's locations, won't be affected.

(3) Walmart. At the start of April, Walmart raised its minimum starting wage to $9 an hour, 24% higher than the federal minimum. A 4/10 story on PBS NewsHour noted, “The company says that its wage increases will impact 500,000 workers, but the number who will see their wages rise from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $9 is much smaller. Only 5,000 of its 1.4 million workers actually make the minimum wage. And the minimum in most of the country, 29 states, is already considerably higher than the federal minimum. Seven states and the District of Columbia have minimums of $9 or higher. So the average pay raise for the affected Walmart workers will be far less than the 24% raise for the very small number currently earning the federal minimum.”

(4) Quit rate. The quit rate in retailing tends to be relatively high, especially among low-paid workers. Retailers are raising their wages to reduce their labor turnover costs.

(5) Q1 wages and prices. Average hourly earnings for all workers rose 3.9% (saar) during the first three months of the year, the highest since December 2008. That’s the kind of y/y increase that Fed officials have said would allow them to normalize monetary policy sooner and at a faster clip.

In addition, the core CPI inflation rate edged back up to 1.8% during March, closer to the Fed’s 2% target--which is really for the core PCED, which was 1.4% during February. The three-month annualized change in the core CPI through March was 2.3%, suggesting that the core PCED, which was 0.9% through February, might show a higher increase when March data are released on Thursday, April 30.

Today's Morning Briefing: The Twilight Zone. (1) Valuations on the border of the Irrational Zone. (2) Three fears hit market: Greek exit, China bubble, and inflation uptick. (3) Recapping stretched valuations. (4) Institutional investors remain skeptical. (5) Outperforming SMidCaps less exposed to dollar. (6) Shortage of bargains. (7) Buybacks = Corporate QE. (8) Corporate execs comparing earnings yield to borrowing rate when buying back shares. (9) Warning: Inflation may be warming. (More for subscribers.)

April Employment Report Will Be Key to Fed (excerpt)

Until the March report, the past few monthly employment reports indicated that the economy was performing better than suggested by other economic indicators. Turns out that not only was March weak with a nonfarm payroll gain of only 126,000 but January’s advance was revised down by 38,000 to 201,000 and February’s was lowered by 31,000 to 264,000.

Those are the first back-to-back downward revisions since February/March 2011 (based on first-reported data). Downward revisions tend to occur when the economy is contracting. They are rare during expansions. Since 2011, there have been only 9 downward revisions but 41 upwards revisions. If the weather is to blame for the latest reductions, that’s not a problem.

It’s hard to find much positive news in the March report. The household employment survey found that full-time jobs rose 190,000 to a new cyclical high, while part-time positions fell 170,000. That’s good, but total household employment rose just 34,000 during March. The labor force fell 96,000.

Bad weather seems to have had some impact on depressing employment during the first three months of the year. But so did the strong dollar, weak oil prices, and slow economic activity abroad. The dollar may be starting to stabilize, and the price of oil may be bottoming. Economic activity seems to be improving in the Eurozone.

In any event, I expect that April’s employment report should show a spring rebound. If so, then the Fed would remain on course for one-and-done for this year, if not in June then in September.

Today's Morning Briefing: Forecasting Jobs & the Weather. (1) March employment changes outlook for Fed’s liftoff again. (2) Both “one-and-done” and “none-and-done” more likely again. (3) Earned Income Proxy froze in March. (4) Was it a worse winter than normal? (5) Green shoots. (6) Unusual downward revisions in payrolls. (7) Globalization reduces reliability of Phillips Curve. (8) Not much wage inflation in US or Japan. (9) Deal or no deal with Iran? (10) English vs. Farsi. (11) Saudis raising their price. (12) Oil still gushing in US. (13) “Effie Gray” (+). (More for subscribers.)

Inflation Remains Below Target (excerpt)

So what is inflation doing? February’s inflation data released in yesterday’s personal income report show that the core PCED remains stuck about half a point below the Fed’s 2% target for this variable. It was up 1.4% y/y during February, and has been hovering around 1.5% for the past 10 months. However, over the past three months through February, the core PCED increased 0.9% (saar), the third consecutive reading below 1.0%. It may be hard for Fed officials to be reasonably confident that inflation is heading higher given the trend of the recent three-month inflation rates.

The persistence of the core inflation rate below 2% despite ultra-easy monetary policy in the US and elsewhere over the past six years is certainly puzzling Fed officials. Nevertheless, rather than reassessing their models of inflation, they continue to expect that a tightening labor market will boost wage inflation soon, which then will boost price inflation. In other words, they continue to bet on the Phillips Curve model.

I have argued on many occasions over the past couple of years that there may be structural forces at work (such as globalization, competition, and innovation) keeping a lid on inflation. If so, then maintaining ultra-easy monetary policy to boost wage and price inflation may instead boost asset inflation. Indeed, easy money actually may be deflationary by boosting supplies of goods and services more than the demand for them, as I’ve discussed before. Let’s have a closer look at the latest price inflation data:

(1) Inflating, disinflation, & deflating. The PCED is based on prices in the CPI, but with different weights that are more reflective of actual consumer spending. The core CPI inflation rate tends to exceed the core PCED inflation rate. The former was 1.7% y/y during February, while the latter was 1.4%.

The services components of the CPI and PCED rose 2.4% and 2.1% during February. Both have disinflated by about 50bps since early 2014. Nondurable goods prices including energy are deflating--down by about 4% y/y. Durable goods prices are also deflating--down 1.6% in the CPI and down 2.6% in the PCED.

(2) Devil in the details. One of the main reasons why services inflation is lower in the PCED than in the CPI is because medical care services inflation is lower in the former (currently 0.8%) than in the latter (currently 1.8%). Both have been disinflating in recent years. It’s not obvious to us why the Fed would want to see this component of inflation rise to achieve its 2% target.

On the other hand, rents have been rapidly inflating in recent years based on the CPI (3.5%) and PCED (3.4%), with both at the highest readings since November 2008. Again, would Fed officials cheer if they achieved their 2% inflation target by driving rent inflation still higher?

It’s not obvious how ultra-easy monetary policy is supposed to stop consumer durables prices from deflating. They’ve been doing so mostly as a result of globalization, which has lowered labor costs in manufacturing. Now automation and robotics is increasingly replacing labor in durable goods manufacturing. If the Fed’s policies succeed in boosting wage costs, manufacturers may simply replace labor with technology. This all begs the question: Why are higher durable goods prices a good thing anyway?

Today's Morning Briefing: Days of Wine & Rosés. (1) Les Misérables. (2) Rosé a day. (3) Setback for Socialists in France. (4) Six cylinders firing in Eurozone. (5) Slicing and dicing Yellen’s latest speech. (6) FOMC lowers new normal unemployment rate. (7) Waiting for Godot and Phillips? (8) From ZIRP to LIRP. (9) Liftoff coming, though it might be postponed, but will be gradual until further notice. (10) Fed puzzled by persistence of low inflation. (11) Slicing and dicing the inflation data. (12) Three-month annualized core PCED inflation rate falling below 1.0% rather than rising to 2.0%! (More for subscribers.)