ISM index dropped: a healthy adjustment.

ISM index dropped: a healthy adjustment.
In the USA, the fall of the ISM may reflect a return to a more normal situation? For many months, this indicator for the manufacturing sector was well above the CFNAI index which is a measure of 85 indicators of the economic activity (prepared by the Chicago Fed).
This situation, which has been a regular occurrence since 2004, always ends with a sharp and brutal adjustment of the ISM to the CFNAI. The adjustment always takes place in this direction. Finally, the overly optimistic expectations contained in the ISM index adjust to the “real economy” which does not present excessive optimism. This adjustment is rather healthy. 

Just a remark on the US growth profile in 2019

US growth is expected at 2.9% on average in 2018. This corresponds to a growth rate of 0.7/0.8% in Q4 (non-annualized figures). This view is consensual, as is the consensual perceived robustness of the economy and the slowdown to an average growth of 2.5% in 2019.
Making all of these elements compatible is interesting.
If the 2.9% of 2018 is ok (with 0.8% in Q4), it is necessary to think about 2019.
The average quarterly growth rate needed to converge to 2.5% is 0.5% (non annualized) The slowdown in the US economy is strong from the very beginning of the year. This figure must be compared to 0.8% which is the average quarterly growth in 2018.
The assumption of maintaining robust growth in the first half of 2019 (0.8% per quarter) implies a rapid decline from the summer. Convergence to 2.5% implies a contraction of -0.2% per quarter from the summer.
If growth is robust at the beginning of 2019, then to be compatible with the consensus forecasts, it will take a break from the summer

The Federal Reserve tells us one hike now and two next year

The Fed raised its benchmark rate by 25 basis points. The fed funds rate will thus evolve in the 2.25 – 2.5% corridor. This rate level is close to the corridor, 2.5-3.0%, considered by the Fed as a long-term target. This is the 4th rise this year.

The central bank does not appear worried about the pace of the economy in the coming months. Growth will slow down somewhat in 2019, but the unemployment rate will remain close to its current level, beyond full employment. Inflation will be close to 2%. It is a little weaker than at the September meeting because of the drop in the price of oil.

The Fed said it could raise its benchmark rate twice in 2019. In September, at the previous meeting, it was considering 3 rises. The pace of oil prices and its effect on the inflation rate probably explain this lessening.

Why two further hikes: the economy still operates on a trend beyond full employment. This imbalance must be offset by a monetary policy that must become a little restrictive to avoid possible imbalances, currently not very visible but that could develop in the not too distant future. The economy has changed, but not so much that it can function too long beyond full employment without having consequences that are difficult to manage in the long run. In addition, the White House policy that fuels domestic demand is resulting in a rapid rise in imports (see here). Through a somewhat restrictive monetary policy the Fed must weigh on the demand and limit the external imbalance.

Large US trade imbalance and the Fed’s tightening

The US external trade is weakening rapidly. Its deficit has never been so important (measured in real terms and ex oil trade). Imports have a strong momentum. It reflects the White House fiscal strategy and it is done at the expense of American citizens. Not the good strategy. This large imbalance is also a good reason for the Fed to maintain its tightening bias in order to limit the domestic demand momentum. Powell has spoken many times of the non sustainable fiscal policy of the White House. This trade imbalance is just an illustration of it.


The flattening of the yield curve and the possibility of a recession in the US.

First step the 5yr-2yr spread is now null before being negative with the Fed tightening. Then the 10yr-2yr will flatten before being negative for the same reason. This has always been a signal of recession. This time is not different and 2020 can be anticipated for it.
The two curves have the same pattern even if levels are different. They provide the same message for 2020.

Trump and the Federal Reserve

Donald Trump hit out again recently at the Federal Reserve for its monetary policy management, taking it to task for hiking interest rates, which he claims would hamper US growth. But this is something of a bold statement given the White House’s fiscal policy.
The chart below depicts US unemployment and the government balance as a percentage of GDP, revealing that the two indicators have trended in a similar way over almost 60 years, each reflecting the US cycle. When economic activity is robust, jobless numbers decrease, while at the same time, tax income increases and spending to support the economy is lower, thereby improving the budget balance. This twofold trend has always worked well, even when Ronald Reagan embarked on economic stimulus at the start of the 1980s. Meanwhile, the budget surplus at the end of the 1990s is also an illustration of this trend, with Bill Clinton’s – fairly smart – moves to implement austerity policies to gain leeway in the event of a downturn in the cycle.

But the current period marks an exception. The cycle is robust, as reflected by the drop in unemployment to 3.7% in September 2018, hitting its lowest since 1969, yet the government balance is not improving, but rather it is deteriorating under the influence of Donald Trump’s policies. The public deficit stands at close to 5%, yet it should have fallen significantly on the back of the economic cycle. The government is driving economic stimulus at a time when the economy is running on full employment.

So it is reasonable for the Fed to take action to counter these excesses and avoid the emergence of persistent imbalances. We cannot rule out the possibility that fiscal policy will bolster domestic demand, triggering a significant surge in inflation and a larger external imbalance despite the White House’s protectionist measures (demand is rising sharply – due to tax cuts and increased spending – and supply does not have time to adjust, which leads to a swell in imports).

The Fed, as embodied by Chair Jay Powell, has clearly indicated that this policy is not sustainable in the medium term and that it must be offset, which is why the Fed is hiking interest ratesand it is right to do so – thereby setting the US economy on a more sustainable path for the medium term.

However, the risk lies in the event of a severe negative economic shock, as there would be no leeway for fiscal policy to adjust, and there would be no scope for raising the budget deficit or implementing a stimulus plan like Obama did in 2009, as the budget deficit is already extensive before a potential shock: the US economy would therefore be hampered over the long term. Trump’s policies will only help the better-off in society, who benefit from lower taxes, while the cost of this policy is spread out across the population via the ensuing increase in the public deficit. And this approach will create even more inequality in the longer term as some Republicans are alarmed at the extent of public debt and are arguing for a reduction in social spending to make this debt sustainable in the medium term. For now, America seems to have lost sight of the meaning of the words equality and fairness.unemploymentand budgetdeficitUS

No more samba in Brazil – My Tuesday column

This post is available in pdf format My Tuesday Column – 9 October 2018

Jair Bolsonaro has come out in the lead in the Brazilian presidential elections with 46%. Looking beyond his very divisive views on certain issues in Brazilian society (status for women, LGBT), on the Paris Agreement and the corruption of previous governments, along with his aim to end Brazil’s endemic violence by allowing Brazilians to take up arms, are there any economic foundations for his likely victory? (see here the Brazilian context of these elections)
This victory has very clear economic explanations. The Brazilian economy has been suffering since 2014 and the collapse in commodities prices. The recession over 2014-2015 and 2016 lasted a very long time, and was followed by a lackluster recovery, which was more of a stabilization than a real rebound. GDP in the second quarter of 2018 still fell 6% short of the 1Q 2014 figure.
This drastic situation can be attributed to two factors. The first is the country’s high dependency on commodities. Brazil enjoyed a very comfortable situation at the start of the current decade when China became its primary trading partner. Opportunities increased and commodities prices soared, so revenues were buoyant and did not encourage investment, creating a phenomenon known as Dutch disease, whereby commodities revenues were such that there was no incentive to invest in alternative businesses. But when Chinese growth began to slow and commodities prices took a nosedive, the Brazilian economy was unable to adapt, so it seized up and plunged into a severe recession.
The other factor is that Brazil devoted hefty financial resources to financing the football World Cup in 2014 and then the Olympic Games in 2016, so in a country with a massive current account deficit, this put a lot of pressure on financing. Funding for public infrastructure replaced investment in production, thereby making the country’s Dutch disease even worse.
The Brazilian population has paid a high price for the country’s brief moment of glory. Continue reading