SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 9:13:55 AM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery?
[this is a very interesting article on structural vs cyclical employment changes]

newyorkfed.org



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 9:44:07 AM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Mauldin on Jobs
[Another excellent article - key snips below]

The reasons for the jobless recovery are complex. They stem from a structural shift in the US and global economy, capital labor ratios and productivity, among other factors. It's not just job-outsourcing to China and India, the favorite whipping boys of the month.

The Structure of Unemployment

Many economists are looking at historical charts of recoveries and predict that any day now we will see employment rise substantially. That is because in past recoveries, by 18 months after the end of the recession the employment numbers were soaring. Even in 1991, which was the first jobless recovery, the job growth started later than the typical recession cycle, but eventually took off.

To get a clue as to what's so different now, let's go to a study from the New York Federal Reserve entitled "Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery?" by Erica L. Groshen and Simon Potter. newyorkfed.org

"The current recovery has seen steady growth in output but no corresponding rise in employment. A look at layoff trends and industry job gains and losses in 2001-03 suggests that structural change--the permanent relocation of workers from some industries to others--may help explain the stalled growth in jobs."

"While everyone is looking for the answers to this lackluster job market cycle, businesses are actually far from stingy. They are focused on the input that is increasing less costly in the production process, with a focus towards upgrading their tech infrastructure. In fact, real business spending on tech capital expenditures has risen in 7 of the past 8 quarters and at an average annual rate of better than 12%. At the same time, more than 2 million payrolls have been shed and even the household survey shows job creation basically in line with the sluggish upturn in the early 1990s.

"The net effect has been to boost productivity sharply, which is running at a 5.3% year-on-year rate, almost double the pace of two years ago. At the same time, slack in the labor market has helped companies keep a lid on wage growth and as a result we have unit labor costs running at a -2.3% y/y rate. Unit labor costs have the most powerful statistically significant correlation with core consumer inflation, and are a key reason why the Fed can remain accommodative and the primary reason why corporate profit margins have remained wide even in the face of rising raw material prices."

Rosenberg pointed out, it is often cheaper for employers to buy technology than hire new employees. Partially that is because the price of technology is coming down and partly because the cost of borrowing is so cheap.

These two factors are not going away. We are seeing continuing high numbers of lay-offs, much more than one would expect for this point in a recovery. Money is going to be cheap for quite some time. These are headwinds against which rising employment must sail.

When both blue and white collar positions are being eliminated permanently, it simply takes more time for people to find new jobs. This may mean that the average duration of unemployment is now a more important gauge of the labor market than the unemployment rate in influencing consumer sentiment and spending as well as voter attitudes."

The average duration of unemployment is over 21 weeks, and was just barely under the all-time highs of last quarter. (I did not ask Gary if this included those who are no longer classified as unemployed because they are not looking for a job, but I bet it does not, which if they were included would make the number even higher. Next week, we will see if my cynical attitude is correct.)

Now, let's examine some of the implications. First, this underscores several of my long time themes. The Fed is not going to raise rates in this environment. Ultimately, without job growth, the stimulus driven recovery is going to weaken. Third, this is going to weaken consumer spending, contrary to what almost every mainstream economist believes. Simply the loss of benefits will put less money in the hands of consumers.

When and if consumer spending slows down, the stock market is in big trouble.

What can offset this and make consumers spend more? Mortgage rates are once again dropping. This will allow anyone who missed the last round of re-financing to once again hit the piggy bank of increasing home values. The irony is that a weak economy allows for lower rates which allows for increased borrowing and spending. We will have to watch this carefully, as it could be a pre-cursor to another large stimulus.

On the negative side of the ledger, gasoline and energy prices are acting as a huge tax increase. My bet is that the government will soon stop (or at least slow down) topping off the strategic petroleum reserves. They are increasing them quite steadily, and it does put upward pressure on prices. Would Bush open up the reserves to lower prices in the summer as a further stimulus?

On the political front, my bet is that the Bush team argues that Kerry, by raising capital gain taxes, would damage what new business formation there is. Along with the dividend tax cut, it is a large part of the stock market rebound.

The correlation between employment and consumer confidence is quite high. Kerry is going to play upon that uncertainty.

But at least the debate will be as stark and contrasting as any we have seen in years. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
============================================================
Here is the complete text:

frontlinethoughts.com



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 11:36:41 AM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Feeding the Dragon: China Will Pay for Commodities
Message 19886379

Mish



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 11:43:29 AM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Buffett Annual Report and Letter to Shareholders
Here is an interesting snip:
=======================================
On May 20, 2003, The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece by me that was critical of the Bush tax proposals. Thirteen days later, Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Treasury, delivered a speech about the new tax legislation saying, “That means a certain midwestern oracle, who, it must be noted, has played the tax code like a fiddle, is still safe retaining all his earnings.” I think she was talking about me.

Alas, my “fiddle playing” will not get me to Carnegie Hall – or even to a high school recital. Berkshire, on your behalf and mine, will send the Treasury $3.3 billion for tax on its 2003 income, a sum equaling 2½% of the total income tax paid by all U.S. corporations in fiscal 2003. (In contrast, Berkshire's market valuation is about 1% of the value of all American corporations.) Our payment will almost certainly place us among our country's top ten taxpayers. Indeed, if only 540 taxpayers paid the amount Berkshire will pay, no other individual or corporation would have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. That's right: 290 million Americans and all other businesses would not have to pay a dime in income, social security, excise or estate taxes to the federal government. (Here's the math: Federal tax receipts, including social security receipts, in fiscal 2003 totaled $1.782 trillion and 540 “Berkshires,” each paying $3.3 billion, would deliver the same $1.782 trillion.)

Our federal tax return for 2002 (2003 is not finalized), when we paid $1.75 billion, covered a mere 8,905 pages. As is required, we dutifully filed two copies of this return, creating a pile of paper seven feet tall. At World Headquarters, our small band of 15.8, though exhausted, momentarily flushed with pride: Berkshire, we felt, was surely pulling its share of our country's fiscal load.

But Ms. Olson sees things otherwise. And if that means Charlie and I need to try harder, we are ready to do so. I do wish, however, that Ms. Olson would give me some credit for the progress I've already made. In 1944, I filed my first 1040, reporting my income as a thirteen-year-old newspaper carrier. The return covered three pages. After I claimed the appropriate business deductions, such as $35 for a bicycle, my tax bill was $7. I sent my check to the Treasury and it – without comment – promptly cashed it. We lived in peace.
===================================================
WEB on the US$ and the deficit:

During 2002 we entered the foreign currency market for the first time in my life, and in 2003 we enlarged our position, as I became increasingly bearish on the dollar. I should note that the cemetery for seers has a huge section set aside for macro forecasters. We have in fact made few macro forecasts at Berkshire, and we have seldom seen others make them with sustained success.

We have – and will continue to have – the bulk of Berkshire's net worth in U.S. assets. But in recent years our country's trade deficit has been force-feeding huge amounts of claims on, and ownership in, America to the rest of the world. For a time, foreign appetite for these assets readily absorbed the supply. Late in 2002, however, the world started choking on this diet, and the dollar's value began to slide against major currencies. Even so, prevailing exchange rates will not lead to a material letup in our trade deficit. So whether foreign investors like it or not, they will continue to be flooded with dollars. The consequences of this are anybody's guess. They could, however, be troublesome – and reach, in fact, well beyond currency markets.

As an American, I hope there is a benign ending to this problem. I myself suggested one possible solution – which, incidentally, leaves Charlie cold – in a November 10, 2003 article in Fortune Magazine. Then again, perhaps the alarms I have raised will prove needless: Our country's dynamism and resiliency have repeatedly made fools of naysayers. But Berkshire holds many billions of cash-equivalents denominated in dollars. So I feel more comfortable owning foreign-exchange contracts that are at least a partial offset to that position.

These contracts are subject to accounting rules that require changes in their value to be contemporaneously included in capital gains or losses, even though the contracts have not been closed. We show these changes each quarter in the Finance and Financial Products segment of our earnings statement. At yearend, our open foreign exchange contracts totaled about $12 billion at market values and were spread among five currencies. Also, when we were purchasing junk bonds in 2002, we tried when possible to buy issues denominated in Euros. Today, we own about $1 billion of these.

When we can't find anything exciting in which to invest, our “default” position is U.S. Treasuries, both bills and repos. No matter how low the yields on these instruments go, we never “reach” for a little more income by dropping our credit standards or by extending maturities. Charlie and I detest taking even small risks unless we feel we are being adequately compensated for doing so. About as far as we will godown that path is to occasionally eat cottage cheese a day after the expiration date on the carton.
===================================================
WEB has posted the annual report and his letter to shareholders.

berkshirehathaway.com

berkshirehathaway.com



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 12:53:04 PM
From: NOW  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
gold and interst rate: presumably becasue as rates move down the market is interpretting that as inflationary due to refi picking up?



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 1:19:36 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Mish and Russ debate Employment

Message 19886626



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 4:38:19 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
A rational voice in the gold community?
[post by Rein on the FOOL - mish]

resourceworldradio.com

I estimate it to be about 5-10 minutes.
High point: The true value of gold is right now about $750.

See also he latest installment on the value of gold:
kitco.com



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 4:44:54 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Sun Microsystems Debt Cut to 'Junk'
By LAURIE J. FLYNN
Published: March 6, 2004
nytimes.com

SAN FRANCISCO, March 5 - After a period of small but steady improvement, shares of Sun Microsystems sank on Friday after Standard & Poor's announced that it had cut Sun's corporate credit rating to junk status.

The company's shares fell 36 cents, or 7 percent, on the news to close at $4.80.

The credit rating company cited continuing financial losses and fierce competition in the market for computer network servers. Sun, based in Mountain View, Calif., has posted 11 consecutive quarters of declining revenue since 2001.

Sun has about $1.3 billion of senior unsecured notes, and about $5 billion of cash and marketable securities, Standard & Poor's said. It cut Sun's corporate credit rating to BB+, its highest junk rating, from BBB. The outlook is stable.
======================================================
Look for lots more of these in the coming year.
Lots more

Mish



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 4:49:27 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
The entire following post from sonnypage a realtor on my board on the FOOL
==========================================================
Let me introduce you to Bill and Sarah Wilson. Really nice folks, but Bill and Sarah have a bit of a problem. I suspect that, unfortunately, many Americans share in the Wilson's problem.....and that is a problem for us all.

My wife and I listed the Wilson's home four months ago...the week before Thanksgiving. We are Realtors...we live and practice real estate in Roswell and Alpharetta...upscale communities north of Atlanta. The Wilson's were referred to us after the previous agent listed...and could not sell...their home for $625,000. Reduced to $600,000...still no takers. We recommended $550,000....showed them the neighborhood comparables....they insisted on $580,000...not a dime less. We found out why a couple of weeks later after we listed. Our attorney did a title search as part of the listing process. It seems that a couple of years before Bill had used his home as collateral for loans for two ice cream shoppes. To make a long story short...they owe $650,000....on a home worth, we think, $525,000...tops.

As interest rates have gone down....home values have continued to climb. I read a news item yesterday...many of you saw it....which said that the net worth of the average American family was at a new all time high. I don't believe it for a second. As home values have risen, what the "average" American family has done is either "cash out" their new equity, or do a debt consolidation home equity loan. Dump all of that credit card debt into a home loan...get a tax deduction...and then start spending again...continue to spend more than you make.

I have seen no figures to prove this, but I strongly suspect that more Americans than you might believe already have negative equity in their homes. Many more, little or no equity. But, no problem, right...home values will continue, as always, to go up. But what if...just if...they don't? Falling home prices would put many Americans into a position of making payments on homes in which they have negative equity. As foreclosures mount...as more of them are dumped on the market by lenders at distress prices....prices fall further...still more Americans walk away...still more foreclosures. Not hard at all to visualize a snowball effect. If residential real estate rolls over and dies...the American consumer dies...big time. If the American consumer dies....who buys all of the "stuff" from China and the other emerging markets? The American consumer....too big to fail??? The only way out....higher home prices and another round of refis and cash outs....on and on forever, right? It may well be...or the game may indeed go on much longer than many of us would believe possible. We shall see.

sonnypage



To: marginmike who wrote (1370)3/6/2004 5:27:45 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Housing Saturation Point
Mish Email to Mauldin
=======================================================================
John. Thanks for your great articles. I post them on my board on the Motley FOOL all the time (with your credit and copyright as per your instructions of course).

Have a question for you. Here goes:

I am intrigued by a concept I will call the "housing saturation point". I will define that as the maximum number of people in the US that could potentially own a home.

There is an absolute maximum as well as a relative maximum (the latter being dependant on easy money and expectations of forever rising prices).

The absolute maximum is based on demographics alone taking into account
1) a certain subset of people just do not want to own
2) a certain subset of people will just never make enough money, have medical problems etc
3) everyone else

Factors on #3 would include birth rate, immigration rate, and marriage rate. Obviously if the population is rising there will be new potential buyers every year.

The key to figuring out how long the housing boom can continue is knowing how close we are to the saturation point. I saw an article somewhere that showed current % home ownership, but figuring out the % of people that just do not want to own (primarily big city dwellers perhaps whose main requirement is living near work or people who just do not want the hassles of owning) is probably the hard part.

I am sure there are immigration stats as well as birthrate stats and % ownership stats to dwell on. If we can reasonably figure out the growth in houses and % ownership vs the eligible pool, I think we can predict the saturation point. Such information could be useful to your readers.

Care to take a stab at where we are on housing saturation?

PS: apologies if you already did something like this. If so we might have missed it.

Thanks Mike Shedlock