Connect with us

Uncategorized

An Update on the Health of the U.S. Consumer

The strength of consumer spending so far this year has surprised most private forecasters. In this post, we examine the factors behind this strength and…

Published

on

The strength of consumer spending so far this year has surprised most private forecasters. In this post, we examine the factors behind this strength and the implications for consumption in the coming quarters. First, we revisit the measurement of “excess savings” that households have accumulated since 2020, finding that the estimates of remaining excess savings are very sensitive to assumptions about measurement, estimation period, and trend type, which renders them less useful. We thus broaden the discussion to other aspects of the household balance sheet. Using data from the New York Fed’s Consumer Credit Panel, we calculate the additional cash flows made available for consumption as a result of households’ adjustments to their debt holdings. To detect signs of stress in household financial positions, we examine recent trends in delinquencies and find the evidence to be mixed, suggesting that certain stresses have emerged for some households. In contrast, we find that the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations still points to a solid outlook for consumer spending.

Surprising Consumption Strength

Real personal consumption expenditures (PCE) have been remarkably sturdy since the onset of the pandemic, to the surprise of many analysts over much of this period. The surprises have been especially notable over the first half of this year, as real PCE growth has held up in the face of ongoing monetary policy tightening and this spring’s banking system stress. 

To quantify the extent of these surprises, we chart errors in the six-month-ahead Blue Chip Consensus forecasts of quarterly real PCE growth (measured at an annual rate). A positive forecast error (shown in the blue bars) at time t means that the realized growth rate (shown in red) was above the forecasts from six months earlier.

Consumption Has Surprised to the Upside, Especially in 2023

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis; Blue Chip Economic Indicators.
Notes: The red line shows the real (inflation-adjusted) quarterly annualized rate of growth for personal consumption expenditures (PCE). The blue bars show the difference between realized PCE growth and the six-month-ahead Blue Chip Consensus forecasts, with positive values indicating that consumption growth was higher than expected.

In the first half of 2021, real PCE grew much faster than predicted, likely due to an unexpectedly fast rollout of vaccines and a larger-than-expected fiscal stimulus–in terms of both magnitude and multiplier effect on consumption. Throughout 2022, however, consumption was weaker than forecasted, probably due to a combination of higher-than-expected inflation, a larger effect on disposable income from the unwinding of pandemic-related fiscal support, and a faster-than-expected tightening of financial conditions.

But in 2023, we’ve seen upside surprises once again, particularly for the first quarter. Moreover, the most recent Blue Chip Consensus forecast for consumption growth in 2023:Q3 is higher than what was expected six months ago. This shift has occurred because many forecasters in the past few months have abandoned their projections of recession and negative consumption growth. We now attempt to understand these forecast errors.

Excess Savings

We begin our discussion with excess savings, which has received a lot of attention from economists and the business press. The idea is that large fiscal transfers and reduced consumption opportunities during the pandemic led households to save more than they otherwise would have done and now those savings may be available to support consumption. There is tremendous uncertainty, however, about how much excess savings still remain in the household sector.

While analysts generally agree that excess savings reached high levels over the course of 2021, significant differences about their recent level have developed; for example, see Aladangady et al., de Soyres et al., and Abdelrahman and Oliveira (Higgins and Klitgaard study excess savings in the international context). The differences in estimates for the United States are attributable to technical factors like the assumed pre-pandemic trend, and different views about whether the savings rate or gross household saving (in dollars) is the appropriate way to think about any excess.

As we move further beyond the pandemic, measuring excess savings becomes increasingly fraught, since it relies heavily on assumptions about behavior in the absence of the pandemic. Consequently, in thinking about the recent resilience of consumption and the implications for the future, a broader assessment of households’ financial positions now seems a more important consideration than excess savings in isolation. In the remainder of the post, we focus on an important element of such an assessment: the role of debt in supporting households’ capacity to sustain consumption.

Household Debt

In addition to savings, households have relatively illiquid assets (like housing) and liabilities (like mortgages and credit card debts) on their balance sheets. The pandemic period featured forbearances on several types of debt, along with large fiscal transfers and very low interest rates, leading to significant improvements in household cash flows. For example, about 14 million households refinanced their mortgages, reducing their mortgage bill by $30 billion per year through 2021. The red line in the next chart shows that the cumulative savings from these lower payments stood at about $120 billion as of 2023:Q2, with recent quarters bringing declines as newer mortgages carry higher balances and higher interest rates.

In addition to these savings, homeowners withdrew unusually large amounts of home equity, primarily in the form of cash-out refinances during the period of low rates. These funds, shown in the blue line below, are also available for consumption and amount to $280 billion in 2023:Q2.

Equity Extraction and Mortgage Refinances Contributed to Liquid Funds Available for Consumption

Source: New York Fed Consumer Credit Panel / Equifax

Other forms of household debt also supported consumption. Payments on student debt, which competes with auto loans to be the second largest household sector liability, have largely been in forbearance since the early stages of the pandemic. Payments on federal student loans prior to the payment moratorium totaled about $70 billion per year, meaning that through 2023:Q2 about $260 billion was left in the household sector; see the blue line in our next chart. By comparison, auto loans (red line) have made relatively small contributions to the funds available for consumption, while some of the funds that households saved have been reflected in reduced credit card balances (gold line).

Credit Card Paydowns Offset Student Loan Forbearance

Source: New York Fed Consumer Credit Panel / Equifax.

In total, mortgages—through equity extraction and lower interest payments—have provided about $400 billion of the excess savings since 2019, and nonmortgage debt has added about $110 billion as the positive cash flow from student loans is partly offset by the negative cash flow of credit cards. Of course, reduced credit card balances position households well for future consumption: since reduced balances typically mean that more credit is available for future use.

Other Indicators of Households’ Financial Health

These positive cash flows from debt suggest that the household sector is in a strong position. Other indicators also support this assessment. Debt delinquencies are generally low, led by remarkably low mortgage delinquencies (shown in gold in the next chart). Auto loan and credit card delinquencies, on the other hand, have risen fairly sharply from their troughs during the pandemic and are now back to their 2019 levels. A key question going forward is whether these delinquency rates will level off or continue to rise. A further increase in delinquencies would indicate that, for at least some households, cash flow has become insufficient to support their financial obligations.

Will Delinquency Rates Continue to Rise?

Source: New York Fed Consumer Credit Panel / Equifax.

As a second set of indicators, we use data from the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations to assess households’ near-term expectations regarding their spending, debt delinquency, household income, and earnings growth. Median year-ahead expected spending growth has retreated somewhat from its high 2022 levels, but its current reading of 5.3 percent and six-month average of 5.4 percent remain well above its pre-pandemic level in February 2020 of 3.1 percent.

The same pattern is true for median expected household income growth and median expected earnings growth, which have averaged 3.2 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, in recent months—well above their six-month averages going into the pandemic (2.7 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively). Consistent with these findings, the median probability of missing a debt payment over the next three months has been relatively low and stable over the past six months at an average of 11.3 percent, compared to a six-month average of 12.2 percent going into the pandemic. 

What’s Next?

Overall, households report solid and stable expectations for spending growth, consistent with our evidence on the strength and liquidity of household balance sheets, including relatively low delinquencies. Of course, the period of very low interest rates that supported many of these developments is decidedly over, at least for now, suggesting that household finances will likely tighten further in the coming months. Additionally, the resumption of student loan payments could have substantial negative effects on vulnerable households. We will return to this important issue in our accompanying post.

Photo: portrait of Andrew Haughwout

Andrew F. Haughwout is the director of Household and Public Policy Research in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group. 

Donghoon Lee is an economic research advisor in Consumer Behavior Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Daniel Mangrum is a research economist in Equitable Growth Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Jonathan McCarthy is an economic research advisor in Macroeconomic and Monetary Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Davide Melcangi is a research economist in Labor and Product Market Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Joelle Scally is a regional economic principal in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Photo: portrait of Wilbert Vanderklaauw

Wilbert van der Klaauw is the economic research advisor for Household and Public Policy Research in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

How to cite this post:
Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Jonathan McCarthy, Davide Melcangi, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw, “An Update on the Health of the U.S. Consumer,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 18, 2023, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/10/an-update-on-the-health-of-the-u-s-consumer/.


Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending