Showing posts with label Philly Fed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philly Fed. Show all posts

Saturday, March 18, 2017

These US States Entered A Recession In 2016

At the beginning of 2016, a minor war broke out between two intellectual camps: one said that as a result of the collapse in energy prices, the US economy would slide in a recession as the bulk of the states responsible for job gains under Obama were the same ones that would get crushed with oil plunging. The opposing camp - which boasted Janet Yellen at one point - vociferously claimed that sliding oil prices are great for consumers and with thanks to the extra purchasing power, the US would not only avoid a recession but prosper. One year later we look back to see which, if any, of the two camps was correct.


As it turns out, the truth was in the middle, because while the US in total may have avoided an economic contraction (at least according to the NBER), numerous states did in fact enter a recession.


Based on new research by Kansas Fed Economist Jason Brown, several states suffered severe downturns as of the third quarter of 2016 that hampered growth nationwide. According to the report, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming experienced recessions last year, while others saw milder contractions, including Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Louisiana and West Virginia.


As noted first by Bloomberg, Brown said a ripple effect from the decline in commodity prices hit the oil- and coal-dependent states particularly hard, leading to economic contractions as local governments such as Oklahoma cut back on spending. 


The findings also underscore the growing sense of economic inequality in the nation, as data compiled by Bloomberg show states like Washington and Massachusetts grew well above the national average last year. They saw employment climb as joblessness expanded in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska.




These "mini recessions" may have had far greater political implications than previous expected: of all the states mentioned that experienced some degree of economic downturn, only New Mexico and Maine supported his rival, Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps it was sheer luck, or an active analysis of which US states are in the more dire of economic straits, but Donald
Trump targeted his campaign to voters "left behind by the economic
recovery", pledging after his win to help Americans he called “the
forgotten men and women of our country," and which were found mostly in the contracting states. He won.



To be sure, as Bloomberg notes, identifying recessions at the state level isn"t an exact science, as there’s no single authority that does so. Further complicating matters is the fact that data on GDP is published with a longer lag than at the national level.  So, to come up with his findings, Brown took monthly, state-level data on economic activity from the Philly Fed and ran two different statistical models, for two periods ending in September 2016. There"s not enough information to say definitively whether states are out of recession just yet, he said.


Other researchers have found similar results. In January, S&P Global Ratings said that six of eight major oil-producing states fell into recession in 2015 and 2016, including New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming. The report also shows Alaska, Louisiana and North Dakota entered recession and that North Dakota went from the fastest growing state in 2014 to the worst performer in 2015.


Finally, since the states that S&P and Brown said were in recession represent 4.4% of U.S. GDP, their downturns “certainly” affected national growth.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Turn on any mainstream business channel (or President Trump"s tweet stream) and you will be told how "awesome" everything is going to be... look at stocks, look at sentiment surveys, look at consumer confidence, look at small business optimism.


There is two small problems with all of this...


1) The "hard" data is not confirming the "soft" data at all...



Philly Fed beating by 10 standard deviations, NFIB small business optimism at record highs, but Industrial Production is dropping, real wages are shrinking, and the housing market is imploding.


And 2) Earnings Expectations are declining...




Do the analysts not pay attention to how awesome everything will be? Are the CEOs not adjusting expectations higher because of how great America is going to be again?


It appears not.


As Factset notes, the S&P 500 forward P/E is at its highest since 2004...






During the past week (on February 15), the value of the S&P 500 closed at yet another all-time high at 2349.25. As of today, the forward 12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 stands at 17.6, based on yesterday’s closing price (2347.22) and forward 12-month EPS estimate ($133.49). Given the high values driving the “P” in the P/E ratio, how does this 17.6 P/E ratio compare to historical averages? What is driving the increase in the P/E ratio?



The current forward 12-month P/E ratio of 17.6 is now above the four most recent historical averages: 5-year (15.2), 10-year (14.4), 15-year (15.2), and 20-year (17.2).



In fact, this week marked the first time the forward 12-month P/E has been equal to (or above) 17.6 since June 23, 2004. On that date, the closing price of the S&P 500 was 1144.06 and the forward 12-month EPS estimate was $65.14.



Back on December 31, the forward 12-month P/E ratio was 16.9. Since this date, the price of the S&P 500 has increased by 4.8% (to 2349.45 from 2238.83), while the forward 12-month EPS estimate has increased by only 0.5% (to $133.49 from $132.84).



Thus, the increase in the “P” has been the main driver of the increase in the P/E ratio to 17.6 today from 16.9 at the start of the first quarter.



It is interesting to note that analysts are projecting record-level EPS for the S&P 500 for Q2 2017 through Q4 2017. If not, the forward 12-month P/E ratio would be even higher than 17.6.



Even Factset sounds skeptical.