Tag: USA

US Production Numbers Strong In April

US Industrial production rose 0.7 percent in April for its third consecutive monthly increase according to data from the Federal Reserve.

The rates of change for industrial production for previous months were revised downward, on net; for the first quarter, output is now reported to have advanced 2.3 percent at an annual rate. After being unchanged in March, manufacturing output rose 0.5 percent in April. The indexes for mining and utilities moved up 1.1 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. At 107.3 percent of its 2012 average, total industrial production in April was 3.5 percent higher than it was a year earlier. Capacity utilization for the industrial sector climbed 0.4 percentage point in April to 78.0 percent, a rate that is 1.8 percentage points below its long-run (1972–2017) average.

Market Groups

The rise in industrial production in April was supported by increases for every major market group. Consumer goods, business equipment, and defense and space equipment posted gains of nearly 1 percent or more, while construction supplies, business supplies, and materials recorded smaller increases.

Within consumer goods, the output of nondurables rose nearly 1 1/2 percent in April, as both consumer energy products and non-energy nondurable consumer goods posted increases. The output of durable consumer goods declined about 1/2 percent, mostly because of a sizable drop in automotive products. The advance in business equipment resulted from gains for information processing equipment and for industrial and other equipment, while the rise in materials was led by an increase for energy materials.

Industry Groups

Manufacturing output moved up 0.5 percent in April; for the first quarter, the index registered a downwardly revised increase of 1.4 percent at an annual rate. In April, the indexes for durables and nondurables each gained about 1/2 percent, while the production of other manufacturing industries (publishing and logging) rose nearly 1 percent. Among durables, advances of more than 1 percent were posted by machinery; computer and electronic products; electrical equipment, appliances, and components; and aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment. The largest losses, slightly more than 1 percent, were recorded by motor vehicles and parts and by wood products. The increase in nondurables reflected widespread gains among its industries.

The output of mining rose 1.1 percent in April and was 10.6 percent above its year-earlier level. The increase in the mining index for April reflected further gains in the oil and gas sector but was tempered by a drop in coal mining.

In April, the index for utilities advanced 1.9 percent. The output of electric utilities was little changed, but the output of gas utilities jumped more than 10 percent as a result of strong demand for heating due to below-normal temperatures.

Capacity utilization for manufacturing rose to 75.8 percent in April, a rate that is 2.5 percentage points below its long-run average. Increases were observed in all three main categories of manufacturing. The operating rates for durables and nondurables each moved up about 1/4 percentage point, and the rate for other manufacturing rose about 3/4 percentage point. Utilization for mining rose about 1/2 percentage point and remained above its long-run average; the rate for utilities jumped more than 1 percentage point.

U.S. 10-Year Treasury Yield Hits Highest Level Since 2011

U.S. government 10-year bond yields rose to their highest level since 2011 on Tuesday and the two-year yield hit its highest since 2008 as traders continued to price in a faster pace of rate hikes by the Federal Reserve this year.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes rose as high as 3.095, the highest level since August 2011. Bond yields move inversely to prices. Two-year Treasury yields rose as high as 2.56%, their highest since 2008. The yield on the 30-year Treasury note was also higher at 3.191%.

Mortgage rates in the US also moved higher.Yields were boosted after a report on U.S. retail sales for April indicated that consumer spending is on track to rebound after a soft patch in the first quarter.

The Commerce Department reported that retail sales rose 0.3% in April, while the prior months figure was revised up to 0.8% from a previously reported 0.6%.

Yields have climbing higher since the Fed said on at its May meeting that inflation is moving closer to its 2% target.

The Fed raised rates in March and projected two more rate hikes this year, although many investors see three hikes as possible.

US Unemployment Down To 3.9%

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 164,000 in April, and the unemployment rate edged down to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. This is the lowest number since 2000! Job gains occurred in professional and business services, manufacturing, health care, and mining.

The market reacted positively, with the lower number sitting in the “Goldilocks” zone meaning the FED’s programme of rate rises can continue as planned.  Wages growth remains constrained, so inflation is controlled.

Household Survey Data

In April, the unemployment rate edged down to 3.9 percent, following 6 months at 4.1 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 6.3 million, also edged down over the month.  Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women decreased to 3.5 percent in April. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), teenagers (12.9 percent), Whites (3.6 percent), Blacks (6.6 percent), Asians (2.8 percent), and Hispanics (4.8 percent) showed little or no change over the month.

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 188,000 in April to 3.0 million.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 1.3 million in April and accounted for 20.0 percent of the unemployed. Over the year, the number of long-term unemployed was down by 340,000.

Both the labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 60.3 percent, changed little in April.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 5.0 million in April. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or because they were unable
to find full-time jobs.

In April, 1.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 172,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 408,000 discouraged workers in April, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.0 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in April had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 164,000 in April, compared with an average monthly gain of 191,000 over the prior 12 months. In April, job gains occurred in professional and business services, manufacturing, health care, and mining.

In April, employment in professional and business services increased by 54,000. Over the past 12 months, the industry has added 518,000 jobs.

Employment in manufacturing increased by 24,000 in April. Most of the gain was in the durable goods component, with machinery adding 8,000 jobs and employment in fabricated metal products continuing to trend up (+4,000). Manufacturing employment has risen by 245,000 over the year, with about three-fourths of the growth in durable goods industries.

Health care added 24,000 jobs in April and 305,000 jobs over the year. In April, employment rose in ambulatory health care services (+17,000) and hospitals (+8,000).

In April, employment in mining increased by 8,000, with most of the gain occurring in support activities for mining (+7,000). Since a recent low in October 2016, employment in mining has risen by 86,000.

Employment changed little over the month in other major industries, including construction, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality, and government.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.5 hours in April. In manufacturing, the workweek increased by 0.2 hour to 41.1 hours, while overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.7 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.8 hours.

In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $26.84. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 67 cents, or 2.6 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $22.51 in April.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised down from +326,000 to +324,000, and the change for March was revised up from +103,000 to +135,000. With these revisions, employment gains in February and March combined were 30,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 208,000 over the last 3 months.

FED Held US Cash Rate This Month

The Fed held this month, but is still talking about more adjustments later in the year.

The Dow closed lower as the market digested the inflation commentary.

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in March indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate. Job gains have been strong, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate has stayed low. Recent data suggest that growth of household spending moderated from its strong fourth-quarter pace, while business fixed investment continued to grow strongly. On a 12-month basis, both overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy have moved close to 2 percent. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that, with further gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace in the medium term and labor market conditions will remain strong. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to run near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term. Risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced.

In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 percent. The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting strong labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.

In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant further gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.

US Mortgage Rates Higher Again

The latest US data shows mortgage rates in the US continue higher.  And more to come.

Here is the latest commentary from the Mortgage Rates Newsletter.

Let’s clear one thing up before we begin.  Freddie Mac, MBA, and Ellie Mae all noted new 4-year highs in mortgage rates this week.  They are all technically wrong.  This has to do with the way their data is collected and/or averaged.  And while I have no doubt that they are accurately conveying the results of their data collection efforts according to their methodology, there is a more accurate way to do things.  Specifically, we can track actual lenders’ rate sheets every day.

Even if we take an average of that daily data, we still find that rates aren’t quite back to 4-year highs just yet.  Depending on the lender, these occurred on one of the days near the end of February.  In fact, some lenders’ rates from March 21st are still higher than today’s.  Are we talking about very big differences between now and then?  Not at all!  But if we’re going to talk about rates hitting 4-year highs, we might as well be precise about it.

One thing everyone can agree on is that today’s rates are higher than yesterday’s, which in turn, were higher than Wednesday’s.  The lion’s share of that move higher happened yesterday, but today’s underlying bond market movement suggests there’s a bit more pain yet to be priced-in to the average lender’s mortgage rate sheets.

Lower Capital Hurdles Favor U.S. Trust, Custody Banks

The Federal Reserve’s and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s proposed changes to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR) and total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) ratio, would provide the most capital relief to trust and custodial banks relative to other U.S. global systemically important banks (GSIBs), Fitch Ratings says.

 

These changes are unlikely to result in near-term rating implications, though this proposal and the impact of other recently proposed rules that reduce capital requirements are credit negative for the sector. The ultimate ratings impact will depend on how individual US GSIBs respond to potentially looser regulatory standards and lower capital requirements.

The proposal would change how the US GSIBs’ eSLR and TLAC ratios are calculated to include half of their respective GSIB capital surcharge as a percentage of risk-based capital, providing the most relief to firms with the lowest relative capital risk. The Fed estimates the proposed changes would reduce the required amount of Tier 1 capital of the US GSIBs by four basis points, or approximately $400 million, and would reduce the amount of Tier 1 capital required across the lead IDI subsidiaries of the GSIBs by approximately $121 billion.

Currently, GSIBs must meet an eSLR of at least 5% at the holding company level, comprised of a minimum 3% base requirement plus a 2% standard buffer, while GSIB insured depository institution (IDI) subsidiaries need a minimum of a 6% SLR to be deemed “well capitalized.” Under the new proposals, eSLR ratios would be adjusted lower to the sum of the 3% required minimum plus 50% of the respective banks’ GSIB surcharge, instead of the prior standard. The same application of the proposed rule would apply for IDIs, replacing the 6% required minimum to be deemed well capitalized.

Amendments to the eSLR calculation, which apply to U.S. GSIBs and their IDIs, would benefit custody and trust banks the most. State Street and Bank of New York Mellon have the lowest GSIB risk-based capital surcharge of 1.5%, which could potentially result in lowering their eSLR by 1.25% at the holding company and up to 2.25% at the IDI level. The proposed amendments don’t incorporate the changes presented in the Senate bill to ease Dodd-Frank Act requirements, which would allow the trust and custody banks to remove certain safe assets such as Fed deposits from their leverage ratios if the bank was predominantly engaged in custodial banking.

Under the proposed legislation, the amount of required eligible debt required for total loss absorbing capital (TLAC) would also fall. The bank holding company TLAC leverage buffer, like the SLR calculation, would be also modified to 50% of the GSIB risk-based capital surcharge buffer, instead of a fixed 2% leverage buffer. The leverage component of the long-term minimum debt requirement would be cut to 2.5% from 4.5% previously.

Who to Blame for the Flattening Yield Curve

From Moody’s

The U.S. economy is humming along, but we believe that the economy will weaken and likely fall into recession sometime in 2020 as the boost from the fiscal stimulus fades. There is considerable uncertainty in the timing of the next recession, but the U.S. bond market increases our concerns about the economy in the next couple of years.

Since the mid-1960s, the yield curve, or the difference between the 10-year Treasury yield and three month yield, has been nearly perfect in predicting recessions. On average a recession occurs 15 months after the yield curve inverts. The shortest time between an inversion and a recession was eight months in the early 1970s. The longest was 20 months in the late 1960s. It has given only one false signal, in 1966, when a slowdown—but not an official recession—followed an inversion.

Assuming our forecast for the next downturn is correct, the yield curve should invert late this year or early next. Further flattening in the yield curve doesn’t alter our forecast for GDP growth this year, but it does pose some downside risk. As the yield curve flattens, it could weigh on the collective psyche, particularly among investors. Investors are a fickle bunch, and the further flattening in the yield curve could increase the odds of a sudden decline in stock prices, which if significant and persistent could have noticeable economic costs.

Knowing why the yield curve is flattening is important in assessing whether there should be concern about growth this year and early next. If it is because the lower long-term rates are fueled by concerns about U.S. growth, that would raise a red flag. This doesn’t appear to be the case now, because the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has been hovering generally between 2.8% and 2.9% since the beginning of February and is up 40 basis points since the end of 2017. Therefore, the flattening in the yield curve is coming from the short end, which has put the focus on the Fed. But the central bank is only part of the story.

The flattening in the yield curve is less troubling for the economy in the very short run if it’s occurring because the economy is doing well and the Fed is raising short-term rates while the long-term rate continues to be depressed by the size of the Fed’s and other global central banks’ balance sheets.

It doesn’t appear that the dynamics for long-term rates will change significantly soon, so the next rate hike by the Fed, likely in June, will flatten the yield curve further. Therefore, the Fed will feel the heat for flattening the yield curve, potentially fanning concerns that it is headed for a policy mistake that will end this expansion.

However, the Fed isn’t the only reason that the yield curve is flattening. The Treasury Department has ramped up its issuance in anticipation of a higher deficit from last year’s tax overhaul and a two-year budget deal that will increase federal spending over the next two years. Over the past few months, Treasury net issuance of bills has spiked. Net issuance of bills in March was $211 billion following a net $111 billion in February. The increase in supply has driven short-term interest rates higher. In fact, prior to the Fed rate hike in March, the spread between the three-month Treasury bill and the fed funds rate was the widest over the past 15 years.

We see the odds rising that the yield curve inverts by the end of this year. This would increase the odds of a recession in the subsequent 12 months.

A Global Perspective On Home Ownership

From The St. Louis Fed On The Economy Blog

An excellent FED post which discusses the decoupling of home ownership from home price rises. We think the answer is simple: the financialisation of property and the availability of credit at low rates explains the phenomenon.

In the aftermath of WWII, several developed economies (such as the U.K. and the U.S.) had large housing booms fueled by significant increases in the homeownership rate. The length and the magnitude of the ownership boom varied by country, but many of these countries went from a nation of renters to a nation of owners by around the late 1970s to mid-1980s.

Historically, the cost of buying a house, relative to renting, has been positively correlated with the percent of households that own their home. From 1996 to 2006, both the price of houses and the homeownership rate increased in the U.S. This increasing trend ended abruptly with the global financial crisis that drove house prices and homeownership rates to historically low levels.

It is reasonable to expect prices and homeownership to move in the same direction. A decrease in the number of people who want to buy homes to live in could lead to a decrease in both prices and homeownership. Similarly, an increase in the number of people buying homes to live in could lead to an increase in both prices and homeownership.

However, recent evidence indicates that the cost of buying a home has increased relative to renting in several of the world’s largest economies, but the share of people owning homes has decreased. This pattern is occurring even in countries with diverging interest rate policies. It is important to delve into this fact and try to find potential explanations. (For trends in homeownership rates and price-to-rent ratios for several developed economies, see the figures at the end of this post.)

Increasing Cost of Housing

The price-to-rent ratio measures the cost of buying a home relative to the cost of renting. Factors like credit conditions or demand for homes as an investment asset affect the price of houses but not the price of rentals. These and other factors cause the price-to-rent ratio to move.

Over the period 1996-2006, the cost of buying a home grew more quickly than the cost of renting in many large economies. For example, the price-to-rent ratio in the U.S. increased by more than 30 percent between 2000 and 2006. Even larger increases occurred in the U.K. and France, where the price-to-rent ratio rose by nearly 80 percent over the same period.

The price-to-rent ratio declined in the wake of the housing crisis in the U.S., the eurozone, Spain and the U.K., but in the past few years, it has started to increase again. The price of houses is again increasing more quickly than the price of rentals.

Decreasing Homeownership

However, the homeownership rate has not increased along with the price-to-rent ratio. The homeownership rate (the percent of households that are owner-occupied) has fallen in several large economies:

  • In the U.S., the homeownership rate fell from around 69 percent before the recession to less than 64 percent in 2016.
  • In the U.K., the rate fell from nearly 69 percent to around 63 percent.
  • The homeownership rates in Germany and Italy have also fallen.

Diverging Policies

The pattern of increasing house prices and decreasing homeownership has occurred even in countries with diverging monetary policies:

  • By 2016, the Federal Reserve had ended quantitative easing and had begun raising rates in the U.S.
  • In contrast, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank continued quantitative easing throughout 2016 and reduced rates.

Nonetheless, the homeownership rate continued to fall in the U.S., the U.K. and many parts of Europe, while the price-to-rent ratio continued to increase.

Housing Supply

Several factors could be driving the decoupling of the price-to-rent ratio and the homeownership rate. From the housing supply side, there is a trend toward decreased construction of starter and midsize housing units.

Developers have increased the construction of large single-family homes at the expense of the other segments in the market. From 2010 to 2016, the fraction of new homes with four or more bedrooms increased from 38 percent to 51 percent.

This limited supply, particularly for starter homes, could result in increased prices for those homes and fewer new homeowners. One possible factor is regulatory change. The National Association of Home Builders claims that, on average, regulations account for 24.3 percent of the final price of a new single-family home. Recent increases in regulatory costs could have encouraged builders to focus on larger homes with higher margins. Supply may be just reacting to developments in demand that we discuss next.

Housing Demand

From the demand side, there are three leading explanations, which are likely complementary and self-reinforcing:

  • Changes in preferences toward homeownership
  • Changes in access to mortgage credit
  • Changes in the investment nature of real estate

Preferences for homeownership may have changed because households who lost their homes in foreclosure post-2006 may be reluctant to buy again. Also, younger generations may be less likely to own cars or houses and prefer to rent them.

Demand for ownership has also decreased because credit conditions are tighter in the post-Dodd Frank period.

Real Estate Investment

The previous demand arguments can explain why the price-to-rent ratio dropped post-2006. As rents grew relative to home prices, together with the low returns of safe assets, rental properties became a more attractive investment. This attracted real estate investors who bid up prices while depressing the homeownership rate.

Moreover, builders increased their supply of apartments and other multifamily developments. From 2006 to 2016, single-family construction projects declined from 81 percent to 67 percent of all housing starts.

There are several types of real estate investors:

  • “Mom and dad” investors looking for investment income
  • Foreign investors who have increased real estate prices in many of the major cities of the world
  • Institutional landlords like Invitation Homes or American Homes 4 Rent

In fact, since 2016 the real estate industry group has been elevated to the sector level, effective in the S&P U.S. Indices.

In addition, the widespread use of internet rental portals such as Airbnb and VRBO has increased the opportunity to offer short-term leases, increasing the revenue stream from rental housing.

There are several potential explanations, but more research is needed to determine the cause of the decoupling of house prices from homeownership rates and what it means for the economy.

Rent vs Owning in U.S.

Rent vs Owning in Eurozone

Rent vs Owning in Canada

Rent vs Owning in Spain

Rent vs Owning in Germany

Rent vs Owning in UK

Authors: Carlos Garriga, Vice President and Economist; Pedro Gete, IE Business School; and Daniel Eubanks, Senior Research Associate

FED To “Tailor” Leverage Ratios

In another sign of weakening banking supervision, the FED proposes new rules to  “tailor leverage ratio requirements“.  Tailoring appears to mean reduce!

The Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on Wednesday proposed a rule that would further tailor leverage ratio requirements to the business activities and risk profiles of the largest domestic firms.

Currently, firms that are required to comply with the “enhanced supplementary leverage ratio” are subject to a fixed leverage standard, regardless of their systemic footprint. The proposal would instead tie the standard to the risk-based capital surcharge of the firm, which is based on the firm’s individual characteristics. The resulting leverage standard would be more closely tailored to each firm.

The proposed changes seek to retain a meaningful calibration of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards while not discouraging firms from participating in low-risk activities. The changes also correspond to recent changes proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Taking into account supervisory stress testing and existing capital requirements, agency staff estimate that the proposed changes would reduce the required amount of tier 1 capital for the holding companies of these firms by approximately $400 million, or approximately 0.04 percent in aggregate tier 1 capital.

Enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards apply to all U.S. holding companies identified as global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs), as well as the insured depository institution subsidiaries of those firms.

Currently, GSIBs must maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of more than 5 percent, which is the sum of the minimum 3 percent requirement plus a buffer of 2 percent, to avoid limitations on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments. The insured depository institution subsidiaries of the GSIBs must maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of 6 percent to be considered “well capitalized” under the agencies’ prompt corrective action framework.

At the holding company level, the proposed rule would modify the fixed 2 percent buffer to be set to one half of each firm’s risk-based capital surcharge. For example, if a GSIB’s risk-based capital surcharge is 2 percent, it would now be required to maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of more than 4 percent, which is the sum of the unchanged minimum 3 percent requirement plus a modified buffer of 1 percent. The proposal would similarly tailor the current 6 percent requirement for the insured depository institution subsidiaries of GSIBs that are regulated by the Board and OCC.