The following is a summary and extension of my post-Employment tweets. You can follow me @inflation_guy (and tell your friends!)
- 175k +25k revisions, nice jobs figure. Oh, but Unemployment up to 6.7%. Love how these seem to always provide opposite surprises.
- One of my favorite labor charts. Want a Job Now, versus the Unemployment Rate:
- 1 way to add more jobs is to have em all work less. Is this an Obamacare effect since part-timers don’t count?
- …regardless, fewer hours worked –>lower output. Expect more downward revisions to Q1 growth ests. Q2 too, if this is ACA.
- If we all end up with jobs, but we’re all working only 30 hours per week, is that better than if only 93% have jobs, working 40?
It will be interesting over the next few months to see if the Hours Worked figures are weather-related (as will be claimed). I suspect that for the most part, they are not. Notice that if there was any weather effect over the last few years, it is not noticeable in the data (nor is it apparent in the unrevised data, incidentally). So, while this year’s weather was colder and snowier than usual, I am skeptical that this can account for more than a small downtick in the hours worked figures.
I rather suspect that the drop is more likely to be attributable to the definition of what constitutes a “full time worker” under the Affordable Care Act. And the question I asked rhetorically above is actually worth thinking about seriously because, looked at one way, the ACA is a jobs program: it will tend to cause businesses to cut back on full-time work and replace those people with more part-time work. The effect should be to cause the Jobless Rate to decline along with Hours Worked. But is that a good thing (because more people have some job) or a bad thing (because people who formerly had a full-time job now only have a part-time job)?
That’s a normative question, not a positive question. But I would think that one effect would be to push more people from what we think of today as “middle class” to lower-middle class, while perhaps raising some who were previously in poverty to be also lower-middle class. I don’t think this was one of the purposes of the law – because frankly, it doesn’t seem that much economic thought went into the design of the ACA – but it is interested to reflect on.
I don’t know what to make of the “Want a Job Now” chart. Let me explain that series, first. “Not in the Labor Force” implies that these people aren’t even looking for jobs, because if they were then they would be counted as unemployed. But, despite the fact that they are not looking, they would like to have a job and would take one if it was offered. While the Unemployment Rate is falling, almost as many people are in the “not in labor force but want a job now” category as were in that category at the beginning of 2011. Why aren’t these people looking?
A fair number of these workers, some 2.3mm of them, are described as “marginally attached” because they’ve looked for work in the last 12 months, and want a job, but haven’t looked in the last 4 weeks so that they aren’t counted as part of the work force. And those are the ones who are holding the category up (see Chart, source Bloomberg).
Some of those workers are not looking because they are “discouraged”, but that only represents about 750k of the 2.3 million or so in this category (and discouraged workers have fallen from about 1 million in 2011, so the decline is consistent with the Unemployment Rate).
So, we are left with a category of people who have looked for work in the past, and would take a job if it was offered, but haven’t looked in the last month. Or the month before. Or the month before. But, at some point, they had at least done a cursory search of the wanted ads.
I think the story of these “marginally attached” workers is worth studying. Are these structurally-unemployed people, who should be counted as such? Are they incentivized to remain out of the work force due to governmental benefits they receive? Or are they, and the decline in the labor force participation rate generally, telling us that the jobs aren’t coming back (or that the newly-created jobs are of lower quality than the old jobs)? I don’t know, but none of the answers is good. We want to see this number decline.
The story of the declining hours worked is potentially much more serious, though – partly because it is a new effect. The nation’s total output is number of employees, times average hours worked, times output per hour. If the number of employees is rising, but they’re working less, then unless productivity rises the total output (that is, GDP) won’t grow very quickly. This could be an early recession sign, or it could be a consequence of the ACA…or it could be a sign that the ACA is pushing a fairly non-robust economy towards the recessionary tipping point. Again, none of these things are good.
So, while the stock market roars its approval about this Employment number, I growl my displeasure. But this is normal.
It might seem crazy what I’m ’bout to say
Sunshine she’s here, you can take a break
I’m a hot air balloon that could go to space
With the air, like I don’t care baby by the way
- From “Happy” by Pharrell Williams
Cliff Asness and John Liew have an article that is in the latest issue of Institutional Investor, discussing the development, strengths, and shortfalls of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which underlies the Nobel award for both Fama (as a proponent) and Shiller (as a skeptic) this year.One of the interesting points that Asness and Liew make is that examinations of market efficiency depend on the “joint hypothesis” that (a) prices move efficiently to represent correct values, and (b) the model of values that they move to is correct. They point out that if prices seem to deviate from fair value (as expressed by a model), that could mean that either markets are inefficient/irrational, or that the model is wrong (or both). And they suggest strengthening the EMH to include a limitation on such models that they make some kind of sense – since a model that incorporates irrational behavior might well-describe all sorts of crazy market action but not be “efficient” in any sense that makes sense to us.
This may not be an irrelevant reflection, given the price events of today. Stocks more than rebounded from yesterday’s Ukraine-induced selloff, implying that not only are stocks just as valuable today as they were yesterday, but that they are even more valuable than they were before we found out about escalating tensions in the Crimean. This seems to border on the “unusual model” side of things – especially since nothing particularly soothing happened today.
Earlier today, Reuters reported that one of the Russian threats made in response to the vague declarations of the U.S. that “all options are on the table, from diplomatic to economic” (pointedly leaving out “military,” as Obama did yesterday, because gosh knows we don’t want the Russians to think that’s even a possibility) was that Russians might not repay loans due to U.S. banks (or, presumably, European banks if they joined any sanctions). This is a clever threat, in the old vein of “if you owe $100, it’s your problem; if you owe $1 billion, it’s the bank’s problem.” Everyone who thinks that economic sanctions are a no-brainer are correct, in the sense that it would imply no brain.
Russia also tested an intercontinental ballistic missile. This was “viewed as non-threatening and is not connected to what is going on in Crimea,” which is of course absurd: regardless of how long the test has been scheduled, someone who was trying to “de-escalate” tensions would surely defer the test for a week. The fact that the test happened is one of many signs today that Putin’s soothing words were hollow. All of the actions today, from additional warships steaming towards the Crimean peninsula to ICBM launches and confrontations between Ukrainian and Russian troops, were consistent with an escalating crisis even as Putin said there was no “immediate” need to invade eastern Ukraine.
Stocks loved the idea that the conflict may be over, with the west simply conceding the Crimea and Russia deciding that she is sated for the time being, as ridiculously unlikely as that outcome actually is. And, as I fully expected, we heard over and over today the Rothschildian admonition to “buy on the sound of cannons.” And indeed, they bought. Oh, how they bought. The S&P rose 1.53% and most European bourses were up 2%-3%. The expected comparisons were made, to the performance of equities during and following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the first Gulf War, and the invasion of the Sudetenland.
These comparisons are all nonsense. Here’s why.
|Event||Date||CAPE prior to|
This is what happens when people learn the “whats” of history, but don’t learn the “whys.” The Rothschildian point isn’t simply to buy on the sound of cannons. It’s to buy when markets are cheap because of the sound of cannons. And that is most assuredly not the case presently. If stocks had dropped 50% because of the Russian invasion, I would have been at the front of the line telling people to buy. It is reckless and feckless to buy when the market is expensive, and there are cannons that suggest a higher risk premium is warranted at least for a time.
Really, what is the risk here, today? Is the risk really that an investor might miss the next 25%, because the world becomes not only safe, but safer than it was a week ago, and a super-cheap market simply takes off? Or is there some risk that an investor might participate in the next -25%? Good heavens, surely the latter is a far greater risk right now. And, after all, Rothschild also said “sell on the sound of trumpets” (it’s always interesting how the bearish parts get forgotten), so that if the crisis is over and the west is victorious then you’re supposed to be selling! Here I guess is my point: this is not Rothschild’s market.
And, as Asness and Liew might put it, the model that implies stocks are more valuable after such an episode…might not be a rational model. But today, Pharrell wins: clap along if you feel like that’s what you want to do!
I was convinced last week that the stock markets, as well as the inflation markets, were underestimating the importance of the Ukrainian conflict. I thought that I had a little more time to write about that before the crisis came to a head, which turned out not to be true. However, it seems that markets are still underestimating the importance of the Ukrainian conflict.
About the best possible outcome at this point is that Putin stops with an annexation of the Russian equivalent of the Sudetenland, with the episode merely pointing out (again) the impotence of Western leaders to respond to Russian aggression but not actually damaging much besides our pride. Even in that case, to me this signals a dangerous new evolution in the development of Russia’s relationship with the West. But the worse cases are far worse.
The angry fist-shaking of the old democracies is moderately amusing; less amusing are the stupid threats being made about economic sanctions. Let us stop for a minute and review what the West imports from Russia.
According to this article from Miyanville (from early 2013), Russia is the world’s largest producer of chromium (30% of the world market), nickel (19%), and palladium (43%), and is the second-largest producer of aluminum (10%), platinum (12%), and zirconium (19%). It has the largest supply of natural gas (although we are gaining rapidly), the second largest supply of coal, and the 8th-largest endowment of crude oil. The Ukraine itself is the third largest exporter of corn and the sixth-largest exporter of wheat. Meanwhile, the top 10 exports to Russia include engines, aircraft, vehicles, meat, electronic equipment, plastics, live animals, and pharmaceuticals.
So, we are fundamentally exporting “nice to haves” while importing “must haves.” Who needs trade more?
Let me make a further, suggestive observation. I maintain that the tremendous, positive trade-off of growth and inflation (high growth, low inflation) that the U.S. has experienced since the 1990s is at least partly a story of globalization following the end of the Cold War. Over the last couple of years, I have grown fond of showing the graph of apparel prices, which shows a steady rise until the early 1990s, a decline until 2012 or so, and then what appears to be a resumption of the rise. The story with apparel is very clear – as we moved from primarily domestically-sourced apparel to almost completely overseas-sourced apparel, high-cost production was replaced by low-cost production, which dampened the price increases for American consumers. It is a very clear illustration of the “globalization dividend.”
Of course, mainstream economic theory holds that the inflation/growth tradeoff suddenly became attractive for the U.S. in 1991 or so because inflation expectations abruptly became “anchored.” Why look for a good reason, when you can simply add a dummy variable to an econometric model??
But suppose that I am right, and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 played a role in the terrific growth/inflation tradeoff we have experienced since then. Incidentally, here are some data:
- Cold War (1963, immediately following the Cuban missile crisis, until the fall of the USSR): U.S. annual growth averaged 3.4% (not compounded); inflation averaged 5.4%. The DJIA rose at a compounded nominal rate of 5.6%.
- Post-Cold-War (1991-2013, including three recessions): U.S. annual average growth 2.6%; annual average inflation 2.4%. The DJIA rose at a compounded nominal rate of 7.5%.
This is not to say that globalization is about to end, or go into reverse, necessarily. It is to illustrate why we really ought to be very concerned if it appears that the Bear appears to be back in expansion mode – whether it is something we can prevent or not. And it is also to illustrate why putting a firm end to that expansion mode, rather than sacrificing global trade and cheap energy to a resurrection of the Cold War, is probably worth considering.
I still don’t think that equity investors understand the significance of what is going on in the Ukraine.
Today new Fed Chairman Janet Yellen jumped on the bandwagon in blaming the recent growth slowdown on the weather.
Here’s what I have to say about the news and the weather.
First, although it’s becoming quite passé to point this out, the weather should account for a slowdown in economic activity – but, since economists were aware of the weather (presumably), it is less clear that it should account for a surprise in the amount of slowdown we are seeing. The chart below (source: Bloomberg) shows the Citibank economic surprise index, which measures how much recent data have exceeded (positive) or fallen short (negative) of expectations. It is not a measure of growth, per se, but merely of the direction in which economists are missing. I have plotted both the US index and the Eurozone index.
Obviously, economists were far too pessimistic about the numbers in December and January (reflecting data from October to December, and data kept exceeding their estimates. But now they are over-exuberant. So it isn’t that the numbers are falling short; it’s that they’re falling short of where economists (who can presumably recognize snow) thought they would be incorporating the known weather drags. That could simply mean the weather had a worse impact on real people than the bow-tied set thought it would. Or it could mean data is weaker than it ought to be.
Second point: just because the weather was bad should not be taken as carte blanche for the economy to collapse. If the economy was really as strong as equity investors seem to think, should weather be able to derail it so easily? Yes, weather makes it harder to detect the natural rhythm of what is going on, but it wasn’t as if that was easy to begin with. The danger is, as I suggested a week and a half ago, when all news can only be neutral or good. That’s a bad sign for once the weather normalizes again and it gets impossible to shrug off bad news as easily.
Third point: was the weather as bad in Europe? Because, as you can see from the chart above, economists have also been missing on the optimistic side for European figures. To be sure, they’ve been missing by less, and the numbers surprised less on the positive side over the last couple of months, but I don’t know that the Polar Vortex ought to be affecting Italy as seriously as it is affecting Chicago.
All of which is simply to say that the weather isn’t going to be bad forever, so … make hay while the sun doesn’t shine, I guess. Stocks are flat on the year, the hard way (but commodities are +6.5%, measured by the DJ-UBS index; according to our valuation estimates, that should be the normal case over the next few years rather than the rarity it has been over the last few).
It is interesting, too, that as bad as the weather effect has been on the construction industry and sales it hasn’t really impacted the price dynamics at all. The chart below (source: Bloomberg) shows Existing Home Sales in white, and the year/year change in median sales prices of existing single-family homes. Sales are 14% off their highs (seasonally-adjusted, which you should take with a grain of salt due to the unseasonal weather, but notice that the decline started in August when the snow was appreciably lighter), yet prices are still rising at nearly 11% year/year.
Now, a housing bull will say that these are the opposite faces of the same coin. They would say, “because there is so little inventory available – according to the NAR, only 1.9mm homes are for sale, which is higher than last winter but otherwise the lowest since 2002 – prices are rising and fewer are being sold because of the shortage of supply.” This is certainly possible, although I wonder at where all of the ‘shadow supply’ and bank REO property got off to so quickly, especially since the pace of existing home sales (and new home sales) remain at such low fractions of the pace prior to 2007 (existing home sales is currently 64% of the peak rate in 2005; new home sales are at 34% of the 2005 peak). How do you get rid of inventory without selling it?
The housing market continues to be a conundrum, but without a doubt prices are rising. And, also without a doubt, rising home prices are beginning to push rents higher. More economists are raising their forecasts for core inflation looking forward over the next year. Of course, readers of this column know that this is old news here. Speaking of which, Enduring Investments’ Quarterly Inflation Outlook for Q1 has been published. Institutional investors and others interested in our services can register for this private report on our website by filling out the contact form and requesting access to the blog.
Finally, I want to make one observation about the complete impotence of the Republicans to respond to the Democrats’ push for a higher minimum wage. It is terribly distressing to see such bad economics from one party (in this case, the Democrats) and such utter lack of common sense responses to bad economics from the other party (in this case, the Republicans). Here is the only question that needs to be answered: if raising the minimum wage has only salutatory effects on the economy and on the working class, then why not raise it to $1000/hour? Why not $10,000 per hour? Surely, if raising the minimum wage is good, then raising it more can’t be bad. Republicans should be amending the bill to make the minimum wage $10,000/hour.
The obvious answer is that if the minimum wage was $10,000/hour, no one would hire anybody – and we all know that, and even Democrats know that, and we all know why: because there is almost no one in the country who can produce enough goods or services to be worth $10,000/hour. If you are hiring people, you have to decide whether you will get enough out of them to afford their labor and still stay in business. The answer is obvious at $10,000. But it’s the same question at $10: can this group of workers produce enough so that I can afford to pay them all $10? If not, they will not be earning $10/hour but $0/hour (or at least some of them will be). We know exactly what would happen with a $10,000/hour minimum wage, and it’s easy to demonstrate it. But the Republicans are absolutely inarticulate on this point, and on most points, and that is why they keep losing arguments where they have the stronger position.
Housekeeping Note: earlier this week I published an article on the Mt. Gox/bitcoin fiasco. If you didn’t see the note (it didn’t get out on all of the syndication channels), you can find it here.
Whether the evaporation of popular Bitcoin marketplace Mt. Gox (which may have nothing to do with the Gox in Dr. Seuss’s beloved One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish) is due to fraud, hacking, incompetence, or some combination of all three – it appears it may have been hacked three years ago, and have been insolvent since then before vanishing from the Internet last night – doesn’t really matter. Either way, investors/speculators with money at Mt. Gox got MFGlobaled. The money wasn’t segregated (if it was money at all, and if it can be segregated at all), there was no audit (if there can be an audit trail for something that doesn’t have a known origin or destination), and the firm was not overseen in any fashion (if it is even possible to oversee something that exists mainly because it is difficult to oversee).
Like Schrödinger’s cat, it was kinda there, until someone actually looked and discovered it was dead.
I have carefully eschewed writing about Bitcoin in the past, though people have asked me to do so. I chose not to write about it because I had no wish to be filleted by one side or the other in the argument. But what I would have said would have been a series of simple observations that have nothing to do with how Bitcoin is mined, managed, or mishandled:
- This is hardly the first currency that has been outside of government control. Currencies existed outside of government control before they existed under government fiat.
- Historically speaking, there is a reason that government-sponsored currencies won, and it wasn’t because they were backed with gold. It was because people trusted the government when it said the currency was backed with gold.
- Trusted banks were issuers of currency for a long time. The coin of the realm has always been trust – and even if a currency is limited, or backed by limited metal, or whatever, you still need trusted institutions through which the coin flows, or it doesn’t work. Where is the trusted institution in Bitcoin’s case?
- So what’s the big deal?
This isn’t schadenfreude. I don’t care if Bitcoin succeeds or not; I don’t think its success or failure has anything to do with whether fiat currencies succeed or blow up. I don’t think Bitcoin is a “safe haven” any more than gold is a safe haven.
But at least I can touch gold. At least I know that gold will have some value in exchange, whereas I don’t know that Bitcoin will, tomorrow. And now, indeed it may not. Surely no institutional investor can now invest in Bitcoin deposits without answering the following question to the satisfaction of its board: “How can we be sure that our money won’t go the way of Mt. Gox?” And institutional acceptance is a huge hurdle for the future success of this substitute currency. Ditto firms using Bitcoin for transactions – a daylight overdraft that can go to zero overnight is a big risk for a bank.
And so, what I think was always the not-so-subtle problem for Bitcoin or any crypto-currency remains: for it to succeed, a trusted institution needs to be involved. Trust can’t be distributed across a network. And if an institution is involved, then the idea of a “people’s currency” loses weight. Bitcoin wasn’t the first of these attempts, and it won’t be the last, but in my mind that is the challenge. You can’t make money that only is used by the credulous and the gullible. It must be used by the incredulous and the suspicious. It is adoption by those people which defines the success or failure of a currency.
(Unfortunately, this puts certain elements at my alma mater in the former category. In our January 2014 alumni magazine was an article on Bitcoin. In the information bar “Bitcoin Dos and Don’ts”, the first point was “Do your research first! More information is available on Bitcoin.it, a wiki maintained by the bitcoin community. For Americans, the most popular and trustworthy place to buy and sell Bitcoins has historically been mtgox.com.” Whoops! Do your research first – popular does not imply trustworthy unless the thing is popular with people whose trust is hard to win!)
 “I like to box. How I like to box! So, every day, I box a Gox. In yellow socks I box my Gox. I box in yellow Gox box socks.”
Here is a summary of my post-CPI tweets. You can follow me @inflation_guy:
- Well, that was boring. CPI exactly as expected. Although frankly, most big shops expected +0.2% on core (me too).
- Weird month where higher fuel prices seem to have taken edge off Shelter, but lower gasoline prices pushed Transp down!
- Apparel down, and New cars & trucks down despite rising in PPI. So much for new PPI. Medical care commodities up though…
- Medical Care as a whole +0.3%. Only 7.6% of the whole CPI, but reverses a recent trend caused by last year’s sequester.
- Core services remained at 2.3% y/y, core goods declined to -0.3%. My proxy, though, is rising so this latter won’t continue.
- Striking – core less shelter now at +0.933% y/y, the lowest since the real deflation crisis in 2004.
- accelerating CPI categories: Housing, Med Care, Other (52.4%), Decel: Apparel, Educ/Comm (10.5%). Unch: 37.1%
- Primary rents +2.88% y/y, virtually unch from +2.87%. But Owners’ Equiv Rent +2.517% from +2.488%.
- New & Used cars and trucks under tremendous pressure, +0.3% y/y, and that’s 7.5% of core CPI. And Apparel (another 4%) has flatlined.
The reason that most big shops – and me too – expected +0.2% or even +0.3% on core, as opposed to the +0.13% that we got, boils down to three things: second, the housing part of core CPI, which is huge, is clearly accelerating and continues to do so. Second, core goods, which represents most of the rest, has been flat or deflating for a while, and normally that part of inflation is more mean-reverting.
The housing part of that view is working out. The Shelter subcomponent of Housing (which is ¾ of it, after extracting utilities and household furnishings and operations) is now rising at 2.58%, the fastest rate since 2008. Owners’ Equivalent Rent, the largest single component of the CPI, is at 2.52% y/y, and as I’ve illustrated often – here comes that chart again – there is every reason to expect this to continue. OER should be in the 3.3%-3.5% range by year-end.
Core Goods, on the other hand, remains stuck in the mud. There was some reason to expect a rise in that index this month, as the Passenger Cars component of PPI rose +0.5% (but new vehicles in the CPI rose only 0.08% m/m), and the pharmaceuticals part of PPI was +2.7% (but only +0.9% in the CPI). In all likelihood, this suggests that core goods will move higher in the months ahead.
However, the weakness in Apparel and in vehicles has a commonality – those are sectors that are either sourced from non-US manufacturers or (in the case of vehicles) receive heavy competition from non-US manufacturers, and especially Japanese manufacturers in the case of autos. The recent strength of the USD with respect to the Yen and Yuan is not irrelevant here. Although early 2014 has seem some reversal in that trend with respect to the Yen, it’s not likely to have a serious reversal for a while – the Yen is going to keep getting weaker, and that will keep pressure on goods prices in the US.
Indeed, by one measure price dynamics in the US are closer to deflation than they have been since 2004. And it’s not a measure which should be taken lightly: core inflation, ex-shelter, is only 0.9% y/y, as the chart below (source: Enduring Investments) shows.
In the mid-2000s, the Fed flirted much more with deflation than they thought they were, because the housing bubble hid the underlying dynamic. Conversely, in 2010 we weren’t really very close to deflation, but the fact that housing was collapsing made it appear that we were. You can see both of these episodes on the chart. It is possible that the 2004-type stealth deflation could be happening again, but I don’t think so for one big reason: in 2004, money growth was in the 4-5% range as the economy was recovering, which created disinflationary tendencies. But now, we’re coming off a period of 8-10% money growth, and it’s still at 6%. It’s much harder to get deflation in such a circumstance.
And, with rents rising smartly, there is almost no chance that core inflation ends 2014 lower than it currently is. I continued to expect core inflation to move towards 3% over the course of this year (and median CPI to reach that level).
In reflecting, over this weekend, about the markets of the last week, I wonder if we haven’t seen a subtle – and subtly disturbing – shift in the markets’ behavior.
Before the Fed began the taper, and even after the Fed began the taper but before we were really sure they intended to maintain it through at least mild economic wiggles, bad news was treated as good news in the markets (both stocks and bonds) because it implied more QE, or a longer QE, or a slower taper. This was lamentable because it suggested that the Fed was more important than global market fundamentals, but understandable at some level. All other forces summed to just about zero, so one big institution with a very big hammer was able to make the market vibrate the way policymakers wanted it to. So, while lamentable, this behavior was at least understandable.
But recently, as the Fed has started ever-so-slowly receding to the back pages, we have started to see behavior that is less unusual, but still not “normal.” Over the last couple of weeks, despite manifestly weak data – from the Employment report to Thursday’s surprisingly weak Retail Sales data and Friday’s weak Industrial Production data (which would have been even weaker if it hadn’t been for the utilities sector humming away) – the stock market has continued a marked rally. However, this is something we’ve seen before: a rally not because weak data would precipitate bullish policy, but because the weak data had a ready excuse in poor winter weather. In this sort of environment, good news is really good news, and bad news can be discounted (even if the cause to do so is sketchy).
There also is some “kitchen sinking” going on even among economists. “Kitchen sinking” refers to when a company takes advantage of a bad quarter to write off all sorts of expenses, all attributed to the “one time event” whether due to it in fact or not. This makes it far easier to score great earnings in the future. It’s understandable (if of questionable legality) in corporate accounting, but when economists do it then we should look askance. Without my naming names: on Friday one well-known macroeconomic advisor told clients that cold weather in November, December, and January will lower Q1 GDP by 0.4%. I am not sure how November’s weather would lower GDP in Q1…in fact, it seems to me that by lowering Q4 GDP, bad weather in December would tend to increase GDP in Q1 because it would be building from a lower base. Whatever the reason for the forecast, though, it certainly lowers the bar for the actual Q1 GDP report and increases the odds of a stock market-bullish surprise (although that’s way out in April).
Much more than the former mode of taking weak data as good because it implied more liquidity from the Fed, this sort of thing – kitchen sinking by economists, and markets taking all news as either neutral or good – is a signature of unhealthy bullishness. The concern is that when the reasons to ignore bad news have passed, the market will not be priced at a level that can sustain actual bad news. And, unlike the QE-baiting, it is something we have seen before. It is a weaker signature, and it’s entirely emotional rather than the twisted but at least debatable reasoning that investors employed when bad news was Fed-good.
It seems almost unfair to continue to list anecdotal signs of frothy behavior, because it’s so easy to do so these days. One that sprang into view last week was the incredibly vitriolic response to the chart that has been making the rounds showing the parallel in equity market action between 1928-29 and 2012-14. For example, here was one objection, which was perhaps a reasonable objection … but note the tone. And this was just one example among many.
Come on, is it really so horrible, such a threat to civilization, to have someone trot out this chart? I will take either side of the argument with no acrimony. Personally, I don’t think it’s almost ever useful to think of the past as an exact roadmap (although if I ignored this chart, and the market did crash, I hate to think of how I would explain that insouciance to my clients after-the-fact), but I also don’t care if someone else does do so. Especially if it leads them to the right conclusion, and I happen to think that if investors start being cautious right now it is the right result, whether it happens because they were scared of a spooky chart or because they understand market valuation metrics.
But again: who cares? This is not a fact which is right or wrong – unlike, say, the claim that the government made a change to the CPI in the early 1980s which subtracts 5% from CPI every year. That is a verifiable statement, and it is demonstrably false. But saying “chart A looks like chart B” can’t possibly be wrong…it’s opinion! My concern isn’t about the chart; it is about the vehemence with which some people are attacking that opinion.
It is like I tell my daughter when someone calls her a dunderhead, or whatever the 7-year-old equivalent is these days. I ask “well, are you a dunderhead?” If the answer is yes, then you have bigger problems than what they’re calling you. If the answer is no, then as Feynman said what do you care what other people think? Similarly, if you’re bullish, what do you care if someone runs that chart? If it’s right, then you have bigger problems than the fact they’re running the chart. And if it’s wrong, then what do you care what they think?