First things first: unlike the last two months when both the January and February jobs prints were beyond ridiculously manipulated and goalseeked to pass a terrible number as a strong one, the March print was not a complete disaster.

To be sure, superficially the March report was another artificially goalseeked blowout that guaranteed it would have zero credibility: with 303K payrolls added which was a 4 sigma beat to the median estimate of 214K and above the highest Wall Street forecast. There is just one problem: the number of multiple-sigma beats in recent months has been so high, the entire concept of "beats" has become laughable.

Consider this: January was a 5-sigma beat to expectations; February was a 3-sigma beat and March, we just learned, beat the median estimate by 4-sigma. Not only that, but in every of the last 3 months, the actual payrolls number (at least before it was revised lower the next month), has come in higher than the highest Wall Street estimate! We kinda feel bad for Biden trying so hard to manipulate the economy and population into liking Bidenomics and approving of his disastrous economic policies. Maybe he should just report one month that jobs rose by 10,000,000 and sit back and wait for his approval rating to hit 100... or something.

The silver lining, is that unlike previous months when the Household Survey reported sharp drops in the number of actually employed workers, in March, employment finally rose by 498K to 161.466 million, the first monthly increase in the past 4 months.

Still, despite the modest rebound in employment, it still lags payrolls by almost 9 million jobs since the covid trough.

However, that's where the mitigating factors end, because while there was some improvement in the quantitative aspect of the March report, when it comes to the qualitative aspect, it was another disaster for one simple reason: all the job gains were part time jobs!

Here is exhibit A: in March, the number of part-time jobs soared by 691K to 28.632 million, up from 27.941 million while full-time jobs dropped by 6,000, to 132.940 million from 132.946 million.

This number only gets scarier when we extend the period to the past year: as shown in the next chart, since March 2023, the number of full-time workers has collapsed by 1.347 million while the number of part-time workers exploded by 1.888 million!

There's more.

Regular readers are aware that all the job gains since 2018 have gone to immigrants, mostly illegal immigrants, something we spent last month's jobs post discussing in detail.

So what happened in March? It will come as no surprise that there was more of the same, and after the collapse in native-born workers in the last three months when nearly 2.5 million native-born workers lost their jobs, March saw some pick up, and 929K native-born workers were added. Meanwhile, after last month's record increase in foreign-born workers, in March illegal immigrants added another 112K jobs, pushing the total number of foreign-born workers to a new record high of 31.114 million.

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

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

This, as we have been saying for months now, 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.

To this point, we are delighted to observe that after everyone had been ignoring what we have been saying for months, namely that all job growth has gone to illegals...

How is this not the biggest political talking point right now: since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs. pic.twitter.com/Z5HVWmQ24C

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2024

... overnight none other than Goldman admitted that not only has all job growth in recent years gone to illegal immigrants, but that America is now being invaded. Below we excerpt from the note from Goldman economist Elsie Peng, who amusingly calls illegal aliens "unauthorized immigrants" in her note (available to pro subs in the usual place):

Net US immigration surged in 2023. Recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office and border encounter data from the Office of Homeland Security suggest that net US immigration was running above the estimate implied by the change in the foreign-born population in the household survey over the last couple of years. We estimate that net US immigration surged to roughly 2.5 million in 2023, the highest level in the last two decades (Exhibit 1). In today’s note, we look at where recent immigrants are coming from, what parts of the US they are heading to, and how they compare to the rest of the US labor force.

Unauthorized immigrants from South America, Central America, and Mexico have accounted for most of the recent surge in immigration. Using immigration court case data, we estimate that the number of unauthorized immigrants from these three regions likely tripled in 2023 from its pre-pandemic average (left side of Exhibit 2). We note that these estimates of unauthorized immigration inflow carry some degree of uncertainty because some immigration court cases also reflect visa overstays. In contrast, the overall level and origin composition of authorized immigrants is similar to pre-pandemic trends (right side of Exhibit 2).

Where are they going? According to Goldman, the most popular destination states for new immigrants are Florida, California, Texas, and New York, which together have received over 50% of recent immigrants.

And the punchline, or how the establishment is trying to spin the flood of illegals into a positive feature for the US economy: apparently all these illegals are little gifts from god, keeping wages low and taking jobs that nobody else would ever want.

Data from the 2023 Current Population Survey suggest that recent adult immigrants are more likely to be young or prime age (90%) than the native-born adult population (62%) or adult immigrants who arrived earlier (64%). Recent immigrants have a higher labor force participation rate than the native-born population but a lower rate than immigrants who have been in the US for longer, have a higher unemployment rate than either group, are more likely to work in construction and food services and accommodations, and earn significantly lower wages on average.

This is hardly a surprise: none other than Fed Chair Powell fired the starting gun one month ago when in his 60 Minutes interview he effectively said Americans are lazy and that it was the illegals that have been critical in keep wages lower even as jobs have grown substantially in the past year (at least according to the Establishment survey). Recall this exchange from the interview:

PELLEY: Why was immigration important?

POWELL: Because, you know, immigrants come in, and they tend to work at a rate that is at or above that for non-immigrants. Immigrants who come to the country tend to be in the workforce at a slightly higher level than native Americans do. But that's largely because of the age difference. They tend to skew younger.

PELLEY: Why is immigration so important to the economy?

POWELL: Well, first of all, immigration policy is not the Fed's job. The immigration policy of the United States is really important and really much under discussion right now, and that's none of our business. We don't set immigration policy. We don't comment on it.

I will say, over time, though, the U.S. economy has benefited from immigration. And, frankly, just in the last, year a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.

PELLEY: The country needed the workers.

POWELL: It did. And so, that's what's been happening.

But that's not all: just in case praising illegal immigration wasn't enough to keeping wage growth low (completely ignoring that all these millions in illegals will require trillions in additional welfare spending, and are the primary beneficiaries of the latest explosion in US debt), there has been a second angle this time courtesy of the CBO which recently hilarious "calculated" that illegal immigrants will boost US GDP by $7 trillion in the next decade.

This is how CBO Director Phill Swagel summarized it: "as a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise."

And there you have it: yes, the US hasn't added any jobs to native-born Americans in six years, as instead all jobs have gone to immigrants, mostly the illegal variety, but that's good news you see, because if it wasn't for these lovely creatures flooding into the US, wages would be higher (that's a bad thing according to the Fed), and the US economy would not grow by $9 trillion. Just please ignore that that $9 trillion in "growth" will come only thanks to $20 trillion in debt, almost all of it soaked up by these same illegals, and of course, a handful of corrupt, embezzling politicians.

And so the scene has been set: if and when Trump or Republicans finally get their act together and halt the flood of illegals, then and only then, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis admit just how ugly the US economy, the labor market and inflation truly are... and then they will blame Trump for pushing the US into a stagflationary recession because he halted the record inflow of immigrants without which the US is - drumroll - doomed.

Authored by Mike Maharrey via Money Metals,

If a formula spits out a number you don't like, just change the formula so you get a better number!

That’s exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics did to the Consumer Price Index formula in the 1990s. Because the CPI kept indicating price inflation was too high, the BLS tweaked the formula to spit out a lower inflation number.

Now the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) is trying to talk the Federal Reserve into changing the formula for the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) to make bank balance sheets look better.

This proposal sends some alarming messages about the stability of the banking system and confidence in U.S. government debt.

What Is the SLR and Why Do They Want to Change It?

The SLR is calculated by dividing the bank’s tier 1 capital (capital held in a bank's reserves and used to fund business activities for the bank's clients) by all assets on the bank’s balance sheet, including U.S. Treasuries and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks.

Banks use the SLR to calculate the amount of equity capital they must hold relative to their total leverage exposure. Regulations imposed after the 2008 financial crisis require category I, II, and III banks to maintain an SLR of 3 percent. “Globally Systemically Important Banks” are required to keep an extra 2 percent SLR buffer.

During the pandemic, the Fed temporarily altered SLR requirements, allowing banks to exclude Treasuries and reserves from the formula’s denominator. This made it easier to maintain the required SLR ratio.

As a Federal Reserve note explained, the banking system “exhibited considerable strains” during the reign of COVID-19. As the pandemic unfolded and governments began shutting down economies, banks quickly liquidated risky assets and increased their cash holdings. This resulted in a “sharp increase in bank deposits.”

According to the Fed note, “The associated rise in the overall balance sheets had the potential of causing their tier 1 capital levels to fall below the amount required by the SLR, which could have resulted in banks limiting their provision of financial services.”

To provide some relief, the central bank made temporary changes to the SLR formula effective April 1, 2020. The emergency rule allowing banks to exclude U.S. Treasuries from the calculation expired a year later.

In a letter addressed to the Federal Reserve, along with the FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the ISDA urged these government agencies to make that “temporary, emergency” rule change permanent.

“To facilitate participation by banks in U.S. Treasury markets—including clearing U.S. Treasury security transactions for clients—the Agencies should revise the SLR to permanently exclude on-balance sheet U.S. Treasuries from total leverage exposure, consistent with the scope of the temporary exclusion for U.S. Treasuries that the Agencies implemented in 2020.”

The proposed rule change would allow banks to exclude both “on-balance sheet U.S. Treasuries that a bank holds in inventory or as part of its liquidity portfolio, as well as U.S. Treasuries the bank has received in a repo-style transaction to the extent the bank records the U.S. Treasuries on its balance sheet.”

This raises a question: does this indicate that the banking system is under “considerable strain?”

What Would a Change to the SLR Mean in Practice?

According to the ISDA, the change would “promote the stability of the U.S. Treasury market.” The organization also said it would more broadly “help support market liquidity in the context of projected increases in the size of the U.S. Treasury market and the importance of bank participation in the market.”

From a practical standpoint, it would incentivize banks to buy and hold more U.S. Treasuries by allowing them to hold them on their balance sheet without impacting their SLR. This would be good news for the U.S. Treasury Department, given that is selling billions of dollars in Treasuries every month to cover the massive government budget deficits.

The impact would be similar to quantitative easing.

In effect, the proposed change in the SLR would boost demand for Treasuries, driving prices higher and interest rates lower than they otherwise would be. Given the impact of Treasury yields on the broader bond market, it would also likely push other borrowing costs lower.

It would also enable banks to lend more money than they otherwise could under the current SLR scheme. This is a form of money creation and would have an inflationary effect.

European Investment Bank senior policy analyst Antonio Carlos Fernandes called this proposal “alarming.”

In an article published by Medium, Fernandes identifies several reasons banks would love to adjust the SLR requirements to exclude U.S. Treasuries.

1. Treasuries are generally considered “risk-free” assets because they are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government. The proposal to exclude them from the leverage ratio requirement implies banks perceive them as more risky. This could “potentially undermine confidence in U.S. government debt." 
2. The SLR is intended to backstop risk-based capital requirements and to ensure banks don’t become overleveraged, even with “safe” assets. The carveout for Treasuries would weaken these protections.
3. The formula change would incentivize banks to load up on U.S. Treasuries. Fernandes called this a “concentration of risk” that would “heighten the interconnectedness between the banking system and government debt, posing systemic risks.”
4. The request to exclude Treasuries from the SLR could signal “broader anxiety” about the U.S. fiscal situation and government debt levels. Given the spending problem in Washington D.C., this anxiety is certainly justified.

Fernandes summed up the situation this way:

“Any perception that banks require special exemptions for holding U.S. government debt could shake global confidence in Treasuries as a safe haven asset and could impact the status of the U.S. dollar.”

Trouble in the Banking System?

This proposal also casts doubt on the notion that the banking system is “sound and resilient.”

A year ago, rising interest rates precipitated a banking crisis kicked off by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. The Fed managed to paper over the problem with a bailout program.  

Through the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions were able to take out short-term loans (up to one year) using U.S. Treasuries, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral.

Instead of valuing these collateral assets at their market value, banks were able to borrow against them “at par” (Face value). It would be like the bank extending you a second mortgage based on the original value of your house after a flood caused significant damage. Normal people would never get this kind of sweetheart deal.

The BTFP was set up to address a specific problem that took down Silicon Valley Bank and two other financial institutions.

SVB went under because it tried to sell its undervalued bonds to raise cash. The plan was to sell the longer-term, lower-interest-rate bonds and reinvest the money into shorter-duration bonds with a higher yield. Instead, the sale dented the bank’s balance sheet with a $1.8 billion loss driving worried depositors to pull funds out of the bank.

The BTFP gave banks facing similar problems an alternative. They could quickly raise capital against their bond portfolios without realizing big losses in an outright sale. It gave banks a way out, or at least the opportunity to kick the can down the road for a year.

The BTFP shut down in March.

Fernandes said the timing of this ISDA proposal should raise some questions about the global banking system.

“With the conclusion of the BTFP, are banks signaling a potential banking crisis on the horizon? Or perhaps, even more significantly, are they indicating concerns about an impending international financial crisis, given the central role that U.S. Treasuries play in the global financial markets?" 

Money Metals President Stefan Gleason said these are just “more games” to try to make banks look safer than they really are, “even though they have a lot of exposure to U.S. bonds." 

“Especially after they've experienced big value declines and an erosion in bank equity, causing their measured leverage to increase.”

Gleason is right. When you dig beneath all of the technical, regulatory mumbo-jumbo, this is just another example of the powers that be moving the goalposts to keep the game tilted in their favor.