Consumer Confidence Still Worse Than Last 4 Recessions

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said yesterday that he expected a recovery in consuming spending. Media headlines blared the good news and stocks rallied. The details of 'sometime in the next several quarters' got lost in the shuffle however. Nor did the media report that Bernanke has rarely made a prediction that has turned out to be correct.

An examination of where consumers are now compared to previous recessions can help shed some light on any impending consumer recovery. The Conference Board's consumer confidence number was 50.4 in July. The highest number in the 'recovery' so far was 63.30 this May. The number 90 is used as the dividing line between a lackluster and healthy economy. U.S. consumers haven't registered confidence levels anywhere near that level since December 2007 when the recession began. Confidence was 90.6 that month and then fell and has remained below 90 since that time.

Consumer confidence behaved differently before the 1990/91 recession than afterwards as is the case for a host of economic data. It was after 1990/91 recession when the first 'jobless recovery' took place. Prior to that time, unemployment bottomed during the same quarter that GDP bottomed. Only after U.S. government statisticians started making 'adjustments' to how the economic numbers were calculated in the 1980s, did such impossibilities as 'jobless recoveries' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) start to occur. Consumer confidence is affected by unemployment, so the confidence numbers would reasonably be expected to begin to lag the official recession dates as well.

The two recessions before the 1990/91 recession took place between January 1980 and July 1980 and July 1981 and November 1982. Consumer confidence bottomed in May 1980 at 50.10 (almost the same as the current value) right in the middle of the 1980 recession. The low number for the 1981/82 recession was 54.30 in October 1982, just before the recession's end. The worse point for consumer confidence in the 1982 recession was better than the July 2010 reading. The recovery we are supposed to be in now wouldn't have been recognized in the 1980s.

The 1990/91 recession took place from July 1990 to March 1991. During that period, the low point in consumer confidence was 55.10 in January 1991. That wasn't the ultimate low however. That was 47.30 in February 2002 - eleven months after the recession officially ended. A slow to improve employment picture kept consumers in a subdued state.

The 2001 recession was unique in that it was the only recession in history where consumer spending didn't decline. Since consumer spending accounts for around 70% of U.S. GDP, it is very difficult for a recession to take place at all is there isn't a drop in consumer spending. During the official dates of the recession, March 2001 to November 2001, the low point in consumer confidence was an amazingly high 84.90 in November. The ultimate low was 64.30 in March 2003 -relatively good for a recession bottom. The low point for the 2001 recession is almost the high point that we have experienced in the current recovery.

Recently, the low point in consumer confidence was 25.30 in February 2009. That is not just the bottom for the current recession, but the all-time low (the all-time high was 144.70 in 2000). After committing trillions of dollars for bailouts, $3 trillion in federal deficit spending in the last two years, and zero interest rates since December 2008, we have now managed to achieve a consumer confidence number that is worse than or around the low point for the last four recessions. From the consumer's perspective, government efforts to handle the current downturn look like the most expensive failure in history.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Past Recessions Provide Insight Into When the Fed Will Raise Rates

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The Federal Reserve left the fed funds rate in the zero to 0.25% range at its March meeting. This is the 15th month that the Fed has maintained rates at an all-time low. At the conclusion of the meeting the Fed stated that it will keep rates near zero "for an extended period of time", so no rate increase should be expected for at least several more months. Examining how the Fed reacted to past recessions can provide investors with some insight into when the Fed will actually change to a more restrictive interest rate policy this time around.

According to the official record, the previous U.S. recession took place between March 2001 and November 2001. This recession was unique in that it is the only one in U.S. history where consumer spending didn't drop and it was also one of the mildest recessions on record. Fed funds bottomed at 1.00% in June 2003 - 19 months after the recession was supposedly over. The backdrop was very low inflation. New reports of a jobless recovery were common even in the fall of 2003 and there was great concern at the time because the unemployment rate was at the 6% level (as opposed to 10% today). Fed funds remained at a low point for 11 months. So the Fed started raising its funds rate 30 months after the recession officially ended. If we optimistically assume that the current recession ended in July 2009 because GDP turned positive in the third quarter of the year, this would imply Fed funds would start rising around January 2012.

The recession before the one in the early 2000s took place between July 1990 and March 1991. Fed funds bottomed at 3.00% in September 1992 - 18 months after the recession officially ended. Jobless recovery was also a big news item in 1993. Commentators noted that payroll employment in the 7 previous U.S. recessions had increased on average around seven percent in the two-years following the business trough, but had barely budged in that time period after the 1990-1991 recession. The unemployment rate was around the 7% level. The backdrop was declining inflation. The fed started raising rates in February 1994, so the low rate was maintained for 16 months and this was 35 months after the recession was declared to be over. This would imply that the Fed will start raising rates around June 2012.

The prior recessionary period was the double dip recession that took place between January 1980 to July 1980 and July 1981 to November 1982. This recession was actually created by Federal Reserve policy and sent the U.S. industrial base into a decline from which it never recovered. Inflation was high and at its peak, so interest rates were at the start of a long-term decline. Fed chair Volcker kept raising Fed funds rates until they reached 20%. They last time that they were that high was October 1981. They were then lowered until they had fallen to 8.5% in December 1982. The funds rate was then raised until a new lowering cycle began in September 1984. The funds rate bottomed at 5.875% in August 1986. High fed funds rates did not cause our current recession, so this period of economic history is not necessarily relevant to today's situation. The recession did take place at the beginning of a multi-decade shift in interest rates and this is also occurring now, although we are at the bottom of the cycle and not at the top like we were in the early 1980s. Japan's experience since 1990 indicates that rates can remain at or near their low point for well over a decade.

Before our current recession, the worst post World War II recession occurred between November 1973 and March 1975. Inflation was high and rising during this time period, so interest rates were generally trending upward. Unemployment peaked at 9.0% in May 1975. The concept of jobless recovery was an unknown phenomenon. The fed funds rate reached a low of 4.75% in January and November 1976. The Fed started a consistently more restrictive interest rate policy 21 months after the recession ended. That would imply that April 2011 could be the first Fed funds rate increase this time around.

Historical examination indicates that when the Fed starts raising rates depends on when a recession occurs in the context of a longer-term inflationary/deflationary cycle. When the inflation rate has already been falling for a decade or more or is around its low point, it takes longer for a rate rise than it does in a rising inflationary environment. Two to three years after a U.S. recession has been declared officially ended seems to be the norm before a tighter interest rate environment begins regardless of the inflationary backdrop. If the Fed raises rates on the short side of this number, this will indicate we are heading into rapidly increasing inflation. If it takes more than three years, it will indicate the possibility of grinding deflation as has occurred in Japan since the 1990s. The first alternative is the proverbial devil and the second is the deep blue sea.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: The Dollar, Euro, Gold, Oil and Treasuries

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Landslide Elections and the U.S. Stock Market

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

There seem to be only two things that Americans voters will not forgive their politicians for. In the case of the President it is a failed economy, which led to a Democratic landslide in 1932 and a Republican landslide in 1980. While congressional voting is strongly affected by the economy as well, there is an additional factor of failing to deliver on a political party's core promises. When the Democrats couldn't pass a health care bill (something they had campaigned on for almost 50 years) in 1993, the voters turned on them en mass. This year, there is not only economic turmoil going into the election, but many Republicans in congress abandoned one of their party's most fundamental principals, fiscal conservatism, by supporting the Wall Street bailout bill. Conditions are ripe for a major political shift.

Presidential landslides are usually preceded by shifts in Congress two years earlier. In 1930, the Republicans, who had totally controlled Washington for the proceeding 10 years, lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats as the economy started to fall headlong into the Depression. Even with these losses, Republicans still had slight control of the U.S. senate and only lost their majority in the House after further defeats in special elections. While the U.S. economy was allegedly in good shape in 2006 (at least according to the official highly manipulated government figures), Republicans lost 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the election that year. This gave Democrats solid control of the House and a bare majority in the senate.

As bad as 1930 was for the Republicans, it was nothing like the political bloodbath that followed in 1932 when they lost 101 seats in the House and 12 seats in the senate. Best guesstimates as of now is that Democrats will pick up another 30 House seats this November. Interestingly, as many as 12 senate seats could also shift from Republican to Democratic hands this year, although the Democrats would only need 9 seats to have a filibuster proof majority. There is probably a slightly less than 50% chance of this happening, so it isn't a done deal yet. Wall Street would not react positively to this outcome and it has almost certainly not been factored into stock prices as of yet.

As for the Presidential election, Obama is clearly ahead of McCain and some perennial Republican strongholds like Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia may go his way in addition to almost every swing state. Obama has the advantage in ad spending and field operations. Most polls show him way ahead in the race. While there are a few that don't, closer examination of them reveal that they are as statistically suspect as the U.S. governments inflation and GDP figures.

So what has a major political shift said about the prospects for the U.S. stock market in the past? The stock market actually bottomed before the 1932 election and entered a multi-year rally period after FDR's inauguration in March. In 1980, Regan was elected while a recession was already underway (as is the case in 2008) and another recession immediately followed that one.
Two years later though, U.S. stocks started an 18 year secular bull market. Generally, things have to be very bad economically for there to be a large change in the previous U.S. political balance. By the time this happens, the worst is likely to be over soon thereafter.

NEXT: Start Looking for Capitulation

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Inflation Versus Deflation Argument - Part 5

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

If the deflationists aren't really discussing consumer price inflation, what is it that they are really talking about? To figure this out, it is helpful to seperately analyze the two components of the deflationist argument, bank credit and money supply, since they operate in very different ways and combining them obfuscates the picture.

Since people don't take out a bank loan to buy a quart of milk or a tank of gas, but they do borrow to buy a house and financial instruments, there is a direct relationship between bank credit and asset prices. The effects of increases or decreases in bank credit are likely to show up relatively quickly in prices for real estate, bonds, and stocks. Only much lately are they likely to impact consumer prices and even then they will represent only one of many components (currency exchange rates being potentially far more important).

This proposed direct relationships between credit and asset prices and currency and consumer prices seems to be well supported by real world observations. In the late 1920s U.S. there was a massive increase in credit and strong bull markets in housing, stocks, and bonds, yet consumer prices were dropping. Even though the U.S. currency didn't float at the time, capital was flowing into the New York from around the world and if the value of the dollar had been market driven, it's exchange rate would have been rising. A similar picture exists for Japan in the 1980s, although there was an even more massive asset bubble and the Yen was experiencing a far more significant rise that the U.S. dollar would have had in the 1920s.

In contrast, the U.S. in the 2000s was a period of declining currency values, the dollar peaked in 2002 and lost more than a third of its value by 2008. Bank credit expansion during this period led to massive bubbles in real estate and related debt instruments, with the S&P testing its 2000 bubble high in late 2007. When bank credit began its severe retraction, prices for real estate, non-government bonds, and stocks had significant drops. Consumer prices on the other hand accelerated higher. One major reason was the rising price in commodities. Since commodities are priced in dollars, they will go up if the U.S. dollar goes down.

The other component of the deflationist argument, money supply, has an obvious lagged effect on consumer prices. Changes can show up many years later. An examination of a money supply chart from the 1970s illustrates this quite clearly. M3 growth peaked in 1971, yet U.S. consumer price inflation didn't have an intermediate term peak until 1974 and the final high wasn't reached until 1980. The large rise in M3 in 2008 isn't likely to have its full impact on consumer inflation until some time in the 2010s.

Since deflation inevitably follows serious inflation, the deflationists at some point will be correct that there will be deflation in the United States. Worrying about deflation now though is like closing your windows and turning up your heat in May because you are worried about a cold winter coming.

For notes related to this talk, please see, 'Inflation vs Deflation Argument' at:http://investing.meetup.com/21/Files

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

For more about us, please see our web site: http://investing.meetup.com/21