Showing all posts tagged #real-sector:


US Univ. of Michigan Sentiment: Lowest expected long term inflation rate since this question was first asked in 1979!

Posted on February 12th, 2016

Main takeaways:
  • Lowest expected long term inflation rate since this question was first asked in 1979!
  • Declining equity prices, weak global economy, ..., have become old news -- mentioned by 1-in-5 among rich households (down from 1-in-3 in Jan and last Sept).
  • Current level of Sentiment is associated with real consumption growing at 3.1%.
  • Historical episodes show that real consumption grows in the 2.2%-4.0% range while Sentiment is near current levels, with no episode of real growth below 2%.


Additional highlights in the report:
  • "February decline was due to a less favorable outlook for the economy during the year ahead"
  • "consumers viewed their personal financial situations somewhat more favorably"
  • "consumers anticipated the lowest long term inflation rate since this question was first asked in the late 1970".
  • "The proporstion of households that reported an improved financial situation rebounded to 45% in early February, the highest level in six months"
  • "when asked about their financial prospects over the next five years, 54% anticiated improved finances, while just 10% expected worsening finances over the longer term, the best reading since 1984 "
  • "Although declining equity prices, weak global economy, and sagging exports have continued, they have become old news -- mentioned by one-in-five among households with income in the top third in February, down from one-in-three last month (and in Aug/15)"
  • "fewest consumers in two years to report recent improvement in the economy"
  • "fewest consumers since Aug 2014 to anticipate good times in the economy during the year ahead"
  • "consumers thought that unemployment would inch upward by the end of 2016"
  • "Buying plans remained favorable due to discounted prices and low interest rates"

Preliminary Michigan Sentiment in February at 90.7, down 1.3 points from the January estimate.


Looking closer at the relationship between Michigan Sentiment and household consumption:
The chart below plots the 3mma of Michigan Sentiment in the x-axis and real consumption (3mma, YoY) in the y-axis. The vertical black line shows the most recent monthly print. The expected growth rate of consumption based on the latest Sentiment reading would be close to 3.1%.

Perhaps even more important, the current level of Sentiment is compatible with consumption growth in the 2.2%-4.0% range, with a few outliers above this range and no episode of real consumption growth below 2% in the vicinity of the current level for Michigan Sentiment.


Lowest expected long term inflation rate since this question was first asked in 1979!



US: tight financial conditions have not (yet?) shaken retail sales

Posted on February 12th, 2016

Main takeaways:
  • January retail sales were a positive surprise.
  • The numbers:
    • advance retail sales increased 0.2%mom, a bit better than market consensus; December was revised up from -0.1% to 0.2%mom gain;
    • excluding gasoline stations, sales increased 0.4%mom and December was revised from flat to +0.2%;
    • control group increased 0.6%mom well above +0.3% consensus, more than offsetting December's -0.3%mom report.
  • Trend growth remains unchanged:
    • 12-month growth of total retail sales ex gasoline stations increased from 4.6% to 4.8%.
    • 12-month growth of the 'control group' remained at 3.3%.
    • Both trends are very close to the 4-year growth pace: consumers remain resilient!
    • Recall that retail prices have trended slightly down -- so the above growth rates understate volume growth!
  • Despite all the headlines of an inventory problem in the retail sector, inventory-to-sales ratio remained roughly flat (excluding gasoline).

The overall trend for retail sales excluding gasoline at gas stations increased to 4.8% in the last 12 months (from 4.6%). This trend is broadly unchanged compared to the longer (4 year) trend of 4.5% nominal growth.



The chart below compares total retail sales with retail excluding gasoline sales. It is clear that most of the slowdown in retail sales since mid-2015 was due to falling gasoline prices. Moreover, even considering gasoline, sales moved up in Nov/Dec/Jan.

Looking at the "control group" (total retail excluding auto dealers, bldg materials, gas stations) a similar growth picture emerges: 3.3% growth in the last year and 3.0% in the last 4 years.

Excluding residual gasoline sales that are inside the control group (fuel dealers) shows a better picture, with adjusted-control sales growing faster than the number reported.


Also, it is important to recall that (control group) retail prices have been trending down in the last year...

...which results in a very healthy growth rate in retail volumes.



Inventories: stable if one excludes gasoline sales (latest: December)




Extra charts

The charts below show retail and food services by kind of business. The red line is an index in log (averages zero in the period) so that a number 10 in the scale means sales are 10% higher than the period average. The red dashed line is the trend in the last 12 months and the blue bars (right scale) are the monthly percentage change. The headline is how the slope of the red dashed line has changed compared to last two months.


Last 12 months trend moved from 6.4% to 7.2% to 7.6%


Last 12 months trend moved from 5.8% to 6.5% to 5.4%


Last 12 months trend from -1.8% to -2.6% to -2.9%


Last 12 months trend moved from 3.0% to 3.9% to 5.3%


Last 12 months trend moved from 1.8% to 1.5% to 1.7%


Last 12 months trend moved from 3.8% to 4.4% to 4.5%


Last 12 months trend moved from -11.6% to -8.8% to -9.3%


Last 12 months trend moved from 1.8% to 1.7% to 1.6%



Last 12 months trend moved from 7.0% to 8.4% to 8.2%


Last 12 months trend from 2.9% to 2.1% to 2.4%


Last 12 months trend moved from 2.9% to 2.9% to 2.9%


Last 12 months trend moved from 7.2% to 7.2% to 7.3%


Last 12 months trend from 5.9% to 6.4% to 6.3%

(Update) Energy crisis and its impact on the US economy

Posted on January 21st, 2016

The Q3 2015 GDP data by industry was released today. Below I've updated the two charts showing value added and gross output for the mining sector. It shows the collapse of the sector continued well into Q3.





I have compiled some key numbers of the mining sector (a broad classification, which includes oil and gas) to give some color on the importance of the sector to the broad US economy. The overall point is that the sector has collapsed in 2015 and will likely continue to contract in 2016. Despite the collapse in 2015, the broader economy has, so far, shown resilience to the crisis in the sector: GDP up by 2%, 2.6 million jobs created (220k/month average), consumer confidence close to highs, etc.

The good news is that the size of the mining sector compared to the overall economy has shrunk substantially. Therefore a similar sized collapse in 2016 would have a smaller impact in the broad economy.

The bad news is that contagion (HY market and overall tightening in financial conditions), assuming the level of stress in the market continues, can be enough to slowdown the economy substantially.


Main takeaways:
  • US mining sector (which encompasses the oil and gas sector):
    • investment is 0.4% of GDP (down from 0.9%);
    • value added is 1.9% of GDP (down from 2.7%);
    • gross output is 2.5% of GDP (down from 4.1%);
    • employment is 0.5% of total employment (down from 0.6%);
    • employment is 730 thousands (down from 860 thousands).
  • Real activity:
    • investment fell 45% in three quarters since 2014 (-55% annualized)
    • this subtracted 0.25 percentage points from the 2.15% GDP growth observed in the last four quarters to Q3 2015.
  • Spillover:
    • a rough calculation (based on employment in the oil-producing vs non oil states) suggests that for each job lost in the mining sector another one was lost outside the sector (one-to-one spillover);
    • if mining employment goes back to 500-550 thousands observed before the boom (2004) that would imply an additional loss of 180k-230k jobs;
    • assuming a one-to-one spillover that would imply total job losses in the 360k to 460k range; wage income loss (based on an average annual individual income of $57.5 thousands) would amount to a mere 0.1% of GDP.
  • Debt of energy/mining companies:
    • Total debt of the energy and mining companies in the S&P500 is $410bn (out of which $40bn is short-term);
    • total debt of energy companies with coverage ratio below 2 is $225bn;
    • about $100bn debt of "really junk" companies (rating below CCC+);
    • median debt to equity ratio for the oil sector is around 50% (up from 40% in 2013), with 10 with debt/equity ratio above 80; median debt/equity for the S&P is 80 (up from 60);
    • cashflow from operating activities (for S&P500 oil and mining companies) dropped from $230bn in 2014 to $155bn in 2015; this compares to gross operating surplus (from BEA data) going from around $300bn in 2014 to $200bn in 2015.
  • HY debt and financial conditions



How big is the oil/mining sector?
Investment on mining exploration, shafts, and wells structures peaked at 30% of the total nonresidential investment in structures, but has already dropped to 15% (Obs: this sector is broader than just the oil & gas).
However, investment on the sector is much smaller when compared with overall investment or GDP. Mining exploration, shafts, and wells structures account for 2.5% of total investment (down from 5.7%) and for 0.4% of GDP (down from 0.9%).



Both the increase since early 2000 and the recent drop are not a merely a price effect -- when comparing quantities it is also clear that the volume of investment in the sector outpace the overall volume of nonresidential investment in structures from 2000 to 2011 and has now underperformed materially since 2014.


The chart below shows that the high frequency data on rig count is a good proxy for the investment in the sector; and it suggests further downside in the near term.

GDP measured via the product approach is released with a delay and the most recent data refers to Q2 2015. Data is only available (quarterly) for the mining sector, which is broader than the oil sector. Value added in the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for about two-thirds of the broader mining sector. The chart below shows that the value added by the mining sector amounts to 1.9% of GDP, down 0.8 percentage points from the 2.7% peak in mid-2014.


But value added does not account for the sector spending on intermediate inputs (materials, services). For the mining industry, intermediate inputs are roughly 45% of the value added (a bit lower for the oil sector alone: 35%). The chart shows that gross output of the mining sector amounts to 2.5% of GDP, down 1.6 percentage points from the recent peak in mid-2014.


Employment
There are currently around 185 thousands employed in the oil and gas extraction sector, down from 200 thousands by late 2014. This represents a mere 0.1% of total employment. Even though the oil and gas industry accounts for about two-thirds of gross output in the mining sector (and two-thirds of value added) it accounts for a much lower share of total employment (25%). Total employment in the mining sector fell from 860 thousands to 730 thousands in one year (and now accounts for 0.5% of total employment). Before the boom, mining employment was 500 thousands (0.4% of total employment).


Another way of looking at the impact of the mining crisis in employment and its potential spillovers is to split the US states in oil producing vs non-oil states.
The chart below clearly shows that employment growth in the oil producing states has slowed since late 2014. Total employment in the oil producing states, however, is much smaller than the overall employment in non-oil states (25 million vs 118mn).

If employment in the oil producing states (outside of the mining sector) had moved in tandem with employment in the non-oil states, then employment in the non-mining sector of the oil states would be around 140 thousands higher than what is currently observed (or an average of 12k/month). Comparing this with the loss of employment in the mining sector (130 thousands) one can guess that the spillover to employment in other sectors was large (about one-to-one). The good news is that the counterfactual (i.e., the employment growth without the oil / mining crisis) would have been 2.9 million in 2015, rather than the 2.6 million reported.

If employment in the mining sector goes back to levels before the boom, around 500-550 thousands (depending on whether the low is measured in absolute or relative to total employment), that would imply an additional loss of 180k-230k jobs on top of the 130k loss reported in 2015.

Assuming the same spillover reported above, that would imply total job losses in the 360k-460k range. If this loss happens over a one-year period it would reduce job growth from the 2.9 million pace (counterfactual) to 2.4 million (substantial, but still a healthy 200k/month monthly payroll !!).
Even doubling the spillover (2 jobs for each job loss in the mining sector), the outcome would be job growth of 2.2 million (185k/month) !
Note:
Off course it all depends on the counterfactual job growth of 2.9 million / year, which is 2% yoy growth. If the counterfactual (or underlying growth, not related to the mining direct and/or indirect impact) slows down to, say, 1.5% yoy, then average monthly payroll would be in the 120k-140k per month ballpark.


Income
The average mining worker earns $1250/week and works 46 weeks/year, taking home an annual pay of $57,500. If, as assumed above, 200 thousands mining workers lose a job, that will represent a loss of $11.5bn in total wages. Even accounting for the one-to-one spillover mentioned above, the total wage loss would amount to $23.6bn, a mere 0.1% of GDP.



Energy crisis and its impact on the US economy

Posted on January 19th, 2016

I have compiled some key numbers of the mining sector (a broad classification, which includes oil and gas) to give some color on the importance of the sector to the broad US economy. The overall point is that the sector has collapsed in 2015 and will likely continue to contract in 2016. Despite the collapse in 2015, the broader economy has, so far, shown resilience to the crisis in the sector: GDP up by 2%, 2.6 million jobs created (220k/month average), consumer confidence close to highs, etc.

The good news is that the size of the mining sector compared to the overall economy has shrunk substantially. Therefore a similar sized collapse in 2016 would have a smaller impact in the broad economy.

The bad news is that contagion (HY market and overall tightening in financial conditions), assuming the level of stress in the market continues, can be enough to slowdown the economy substantially.


Main takeaways:
  • US mining sector (which encompasses the oil and gas sector):
    • investment is 0.4% of GDP (down from 0.9%);
    • value added is 1.9% of GDP (down from 2.7%);
    • gross output is 2.5% of GDP (down from 4.1%);
    • employment is 0.5% of total employment (down from 0.6%);
    • employment is 730 thousands (down from 860 thousands).
  • Real activity:
    • investment fell 45% in three quarters since 2014 (-55% annualized)
    • this subtracted 0.25 percentage points from the 2.15% GDP growth observed in the last four quarters to Q3 2015.
  • Spillover:
    • a rough calculation (based on employment in the oil-producing vs non oil states) suggests that for each job lost in the mining sector another one was lost outside the sector (one-to-one spillover);
    • if mining employment goes back to 500-550 thousands observed before the boom (2004) that would imply an additional loss of 180k-230k jobs;
    • assuming a one-to-one spillover that would imply total job losses in the 360k to 460k range; wage income loss (based on an average annual individual income of $57.5 thousands) would amount to a mere 0.1% of GDP.
  • Debt of energy/mining companies:
    • Total debt of the energy and mining companies in the S&P500 is $410bn (out of which $40bn is short-term);
    • total debt of energy companies with coverage ratio below 2 is $225bn;
    • about $100bn debt of "really junk" companies (rating below CCC+);
    • median debt to equity ratio for the oil sector is around 50% (up from 40% in 2013), with 10 with debt/equity ratio above 80; median debt/equity for the S&P is 80 (up from 60);
    • cashflow from operating activities (for S&P500 oil and mining companies) dropped from $230bn in 2014 to $155bn in 2015; this compares to gross operating surplus (from BEA data) going from around $300bn in 2014 to $200bn in 2015.
  • HY debt and financial conditions



How big is the oil/mining sector?
Investment on mining exploration, shafts, and wells structures peaked at 30% of the total nonresidential investment in structures, but has already dropped to 15% (Obs: this sector is broader than just the oil & gas).
However, investment on the sector is much smaller when compared with overall investment or GDP. Mining exploration, shafts, and wells structures account for 2.5% of total investment (down from 5.7%) and for 0.4% of GDP (down from 0.9%).



Both the increase since early 2000 and the recent drop are not a merely a price effect -- when comparing quantities it is also clear that the volume of investment in the sector outpace the overall volume of nonresidential investment in structures from 2000 to 2011 and has now underperformed materially since 2014.


The chart below shows that the high frequency data on rig count is a good proxy for the investment in the sector; and it suggests further downside in the near term.

GDP measured via the product approach is released with a delay and the most recent data refers to Q2 2015. Data is only available (quarterly) for the mining sector, which is broader than the oil sector. Value added in the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for about two-thirds of the broader mining sector. The chart below shows that the value added by the mining sector amounts to 1.9% of GDP, down 0.8 percentage points from the 2.7% peak in mid-2014.


But value added does not account for the sector spending on intermediate inputs (materials, services). For the mining industry, intermediate inputs are roughly 45% of the value added (a bit lower for the oil sector alone: 35%). The chart shows that gross output of the mining sector amounts to 2.5% of GDP, down 1.6 percentage points from the recent peak in mid-2014.


Employment
There are currently around 185 thousands employed in the oil and gas extraction sector, down from 200 thousands by late 2014. This represents a mere 0.1% of total employment. Even though the oil and gas industry accounts for about two-thirds of gross output in the mining sector (and two-thirds of value added) it accounts for a much lower share of total employment (25%). Total employment in the mining sector fell from 860 thousands to 730 thousands in one year (and now accounts for 0.5% of total employment). Before the boom, mining employment was 500 thousands (0.4% of total employment).


Another way of looking at the impact of the mining crisis in employment and its potential spillovers is to split the US states in oil producing vs non-oil states.
The chart below clearly shows that employment growth in the oil producing states has slowed since late 2014. Total employment in the oil producing states, however, is much smaller than the overall employment in non-oil states (25 million vs 118mn).

If employment in the oil producing states (outside of the mining sector) had moved in tandem with employment in the non-oil states, then employment in the non-mining sector of the oil states would be around 140 thousands higher than what is currently observed (or an average of 12k/month). Comparing this with the loss of employment in the mining sector (130 thousands) one can guess that the spillover to employment in other sectors was large (about one-to-one). The good news is that the counterfactual (i.e., the employment growth without the oil / mining crisis) would have been 2.9 million in 2015, rather than the 2.6 million reported.

If employment in the mining sector goes back to levels before the boom, around 500-550 thousands (depending on whether the low is measured in absolute or relative to total employment), that would imply an additional loss of 180k-230k jobs on top of the 130k loss reported in 2015.

Assuming the same spillover reported above, that would imply total job losses in the 360k-460k range. If this loss happens over a one-year period it would reduce job growth from the 2.9 million pace (counterfactual) to 2.4 million (substantial, but still a healthy 200k/month monthly payroll !!).
Even doubling the spillover (2 jobs for each job loss in the mining sector), the outcome would be job growth of 2.2 million (185k/month) !
Note:
Off course it all depends on the counterfactual job growth of 2.9 million / year, which is 2% yoy growth. If the counterfactual (or underlying growth, not related to the mining direct and/or indirect impact) slows down to, say, 1.5% yoy, then average monthly payroll would be in the 120k-140k per month ballpark.


Income
The average mining worker earns $1250/week and works 46 weeks/year, taking home an annual pay of $57,500. If, as assumed above, 200 thousands mining workers lose a job, that will represent a loss of $11.5bn in total wages. Even accounting for the one-to-one spillover mentioned above, the total wage loss would amount to $23.6bn, a mere 0.1% of GDP.



US industrial activity remained weak in December

Posted on January 15th, 2016

Main takeaways:
  • Industrial production fell 0.4%mom in December, and November decline was revised down to -0.9%mom (from -0.6%).
  • Non-energy IP and core manufacturing were both close to flat for the second month in a row.
  • ISM / Markit surveys and Conference Board leading indicator do not suggest any rebound for industry in the near term.
  • Weakness in oil sector and strong dollar remain a concern for industry activity.


Industrial production fell 0.6% mom in November, again largely due to energy. Non-energy industrial production was flat in November.

The table below compares total IP, Manufacturing production, Core manufacturing and IP excluding energy. All have been weak in recent months, but the energy sector has had a material negative impact on total industrial activity. Excluding energy, one can see a slowdown in production since late 2014 -- but the overall picture still seems aligned with the trend growth observed since 2010.

Production level and growth rates
Capacity utilization



What about the upcoming months? Can we expect any improvement?

The Markit PMI has converged to the (weak) ISM, and both suggest there's no upside for industry in the near term.

A simple linear regression with the ISM makes this point clear.

The Conference Board leading indicators are also catching down with weak industrial activity.

The diffusion index of industrial production tends to lead actual production by a few months, but it weakened in the last few of months.

Weakness in the oil sector and USD strengthening continue to weight on industrial activity.


US Univ. of Michigan Sentiment: Consumers Unabated

Posted on January 15th, 2016

Main takeaways:
  • Preliminary Michigan Sentiment in January at 93.3, up 0.7 points from December.
  • Sentiment rebounded sharply from Sep/15 low.
  • The recovery in Oct/Dec was led by poor households ("felling better about current situation"), contrasting with concerns among rich households ("worried about the future").
  • January was the first month in which the increase in Sentiment was led by the rich ("all the gain was recorded among households with income above $75k")...
  • ...despite they being aware of the stock price declines and weak global economy.
  • Current level of Sentiment is associated with real consumption growing at 3.4%.
  • Historical episodes show that real consumption grows in the 2.5%-4.5% range while Sentiment is near current levels.
  • 5-year inflation expectation ticked up to 2.7%.


Additional highlights in the report:
  • "Consumer confidence inched upward for the fourth consecutive month due to more positive expectations for future economic growth"
  • "All of the early January gain was recorded among households with incomes above $75k"
  • "Stock price declines and a weakened global economy were spontaneously mentioned by nearly one-third of all households with incomes in the top third, identical to the levels following the August plunge in stock prices"
  • "Nonetheless, households held more favorable prospects for the national economy than in the closing months of 2015"
  • "Buying conditions for household durables were rated favorably by 81% of all consumers for the past two months, the highest level since January 2006"

Preliminary Michigan Sentiment in December at 93.3, up 0.7 points from the December estimate.


Looking closer at the relationship between Michigan Sentiment and household consumption:
The chart below plots the 3mma of Michigan Sentiment in the x-axis and real consumption (3mma, YoY) in the y-axis. The vertical black line shows the most recent monthly print. The expected growth rate of consumption based on the latest Sentiment reading would be close to 3.4%.

Perhaps even more important, the current level of Sentiment is compatible with consumption growth in the 2.5%-4.5% range, with a few outliers above this range and no episode of real consumption growth below 2% in the vicinity of the current level for Michigan Sentiment.


Inflation expectations ticked up to 2.7%.



US: December was a really bad month for retail; but trend is unchanged

Posted on January 15th, 2016

Main takeaways:
  • December was a really bad month! But followed a strong November...
  • The numbers:
    • advance retail sales dropped 0.1%mom, in line with market consensus; gave back part of the 0.4%mom gain in November;
    • excluding gasoline stations, sales were flat in the month (vs. +0.5%mom in November);
    • control group dropped 0.3%mom well below +0.3% consensus; gave back part of the 0.5%mom gain in November.
  • However, despite monthly disappointment, trend growth remains unchanged:
    • 12-month growth of total retail sales ex gasoline stations increased from 4.4% to 4.6%.
    • 12-month growth of the 'control group' slowed from 3.4% to 3.3%.
    • Both trends are very close to the 4-year growth pace: consumers remain resilient!
    • Recall that retail prices have trended slightly down -- so the above growth rates understate volume growth!
  • Despite all the headlines of an inventory problem in the retail sector, inventory-to-sales ratio remained roughly flat (excluding gasoline).

The overall trend for retail sales excluding gasoline at gas stations increased slightly to 4.6% in the last 12 months (from 4.4%). This trend is broadly unchanged compared to the longer (4 year) trend of 4.5% nominal growth.



The chart below compares total retail sales with retail excluding gasoline sales. It is clear that most of the slowdown in retail sales since mid-2015 was due to falling gasoline prices.

Looking at the "control group" (total retail excluding auto dealers, bldg materials, gas stations) a similar growth picture emerges: 3.3% growth in the last year and 3.0% in the last 4 years.

Excluding residual gasoline sales that are inside the control group (fuel dealers) shows a better picture, with adjusted-control sales growing one percentage point faster than the number reported.


Also, it is important to recall that (control group) retail prices have been trending down in the last year...

...which results in a very healthy growth rate in retail volumes.



Inventories: stable if one excludes gasoline sales (latest: November)




Extra charts

The charts below show retail and food services by kind of business. The red line is an index in log (averages zero in the period) so that a number 10 in the scale means sales are 10% higher than the period average. The red dashed line is the trend in the last 12 months and the blue bars (right scale) are the monthly percentage change. The headline is how the slope of the red dashed line has changed compared to last two months.


Last 12 months trend moved from 6.7% to 6.4% to 7.2%


Last 12 months trend moved from 5.5% to 5.8% to 6.5%


Last 12 months trend from -3.8% to -1.8% to -2.6%


Last 12 months trend moved from 3.4% to 3.0% to 3.9%


Last 12 months trend moved from 1.9% to 1.8% to 1.5%


Last 12 months trend moved from 4.0% to 3.8% to 4.4%


Last 12 months trend moved from -14.2% to -11.6% to -8.8%


Last 12 months trend moved from 2.6% to 1.8% to 1.7%



Last 12 months trend moved from 6.0% to 7.0% to 8.4%


Last 12 months trend from 2.0% to 2.9% to 2.1%


Last 12 months trend moved from 3.9% to 2.9% to 2.9%


Last 12 months trend moved from 6.7% to 7.2% to 7.2%


Last 12 months trend from 5.6% to 5.9% to 6.4%

US December employment by category

Posted on January 11th, 2016

December employment by category

The charts below show employment by category. The blue line is total employment in the category, the orange bar is monthly change and the red line is the linear regression in the last two years.

Total payroll increased 292k in December, after a 252k growth in November (which was revised up from 211k). The trend for the last 6 months slowed from 280k/month by the end of last year to 229k in the 6 months to December.

Private payroll increased 275k in December, after 240k growth in November (revised up from 197k). The trend for the last 6 months slowed from 270k/month by the end of last year to 219k in the 6 months to December.

Most of the slowdown in the pace of job creation was concentrated in the goods producing sector (mining and manufacturing); construction jobs are doing ok and the the services sector has, so far, not being affected by manufacturing slowdown. Overall, the 6-month pace of job creation in the goods sector slowed from 50k (at the end of last year) to close to 17k, while in the services sector it slowed from 220k to 202k in the same comparison.

Employment categories

  • Total nonfarm
    • Total private
      • Goods-producing
        • Mining and logging
        • Construction
        • Manufacturing
      • Private service-providing
        • Trade, transportation, and utilities
          • Wholesale trade
          • Retail trade
          • Transportation and warehousing
          • Utilities
        • Information
        • Financial activities
        • Professional and business services
          • Temporary help services
        • Education and health services
          • Educational services
          • Health care and social assistance
        • Leisure and hospitality
        • Other services
    • Government

Charts

Total nonfarm (trend from 242.1 to 241.7 to 243.3/m)

Total private (trend from 235.0 to 234.5 to 235.5/m)

Goods-producing (trend from 32.4 to 30.4 to 28.9/m)

Mining and logging (trend from -1.5 to -2.0 to -2.3/m)

Construction (trend from 21.8 to 21.7 to 21.8/m)

Manufacturing (trend from 13.0 to 12.0 to 11.2/m)

Private service-providing (trend from 202.6 to 204.1 to 206.7/m)

Wholesale trade (trend from 7.8 to 7.5 to 7.3/m)

Retail trade (trend from 23.9 to 24.2 to 23.9/m)

Transportation and warehousing (trend from 12.1 to 11.4 to 11.5/m)

Utilities (trend from 0.7 to 0.8 to 0.8/m)

Information (trend from 3.8 to 3.9 to 4.2/m)

Financial activities (trend from 11.8 to 12.2 to 12.4/m)

Professional and business services (trend from 54.2 to 54.4 to 54.9/m)

Temporary help services (trend from 11.7 to 11.2 to 11.1/m)

Educational services (trend from 4.1 to 4.4 to 4.6/m)

Health care and social assistance (trend from 40.9 to 42.3 to 43.8/m)

Leisure and hospitality (trend from 37.1 to 37.3 to 37.5/m)

Other services (trend from 6.1 to 5.8 to 5.8/m)

Government (trend from 7.1 to 7.2 to 7.7/m)


Dr. Paulo Gustavo Grahl, CFA (2016-01-11)



Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook: weak + interesting special question

Posted on December 17th, 2015

Weak headline Philly Fed, below expectations of a roughly flat 1.0 reading.
The "modified" Philly Fed (using weights / components similar to ISM) shows a small up-tick, but it also depicts a very weak manufacturing.

Philly Fed Diffusion Index
Philly Fed Modified (according to ISM weights)

The special question focused on business costs. As expected, input costs other than labor costs are not a reason for concern. However, a significant share of business expect wage and health costs to increase. This is negative for profits.





US Industrial Production remained weak in November/2015

Posted on December 16th, 2015

Main takeaways:
  • Industrial production fell 0.6% in November, again largely due to energy.
  • Non-energy IP was close to flat in the month. Core manufacturing rose 0.1%.
  • ISM / Markit surveys and Conference Board leading indicator do not suggest upside for industry in the near term.
  • Weakness in oil sector and strong dollar remain a concern.


Industrial production fell 0.6% mom in November, again largely due to energy. Non-energy industrial production was flat in November.

The table below compares total IP, Manufacturing production, Core manufacturing and IP excluding energy. All have been weak in recent months, but the energy sector has had a material negative impact on total industrial activity. Excluding energy, one can see a slowdown in production since late 2014 -- but the overall picture still seems aligned with the trend growth observed since 2010.

Production level and growth rates
Capacity utilization



What about the upcoming months? Can we expect any improvement?

The Markit PMI has converged to the (weak) ISM, and both suggest there's no upside for industry in the near term.

A simple linear regression with the ISM makes this point clear.

The Conference Board leading indicators are also catching down with weak industrial activity.

The diffusion index of industrial production tends to lead actual production by a few months, but it weakened in the last few of months -- reducing the room for upside surprises in total production.

Weakness in the oil sector and USD strengthening continue to weight on industrial activity.


Paulo Gustavo Grahl, CFA

Random comments on macro data. Views are my own. Except when they aren't.