Connect with us


Key Events This Week: ECB, BOE, Payrolls, Euro CPI And Earnings Galore

Key Events This Week: ECB, BOE, Payrolls, Euro CPI And Earnings Galore

It’s a relatively busy week with several key central bank announcements, notably from the ECB and BOE, as well as European CPI updates and the US payrolls report on Frida



Key Events This Week: ECB, BOE, Payrolls, Euro CPI And Earnings Galore

It's a relatively busy week with several key central bank announcements, notably from the ECB and BOE, as well as European CPI updates and the US payrolls report on Friday.

Starting with the ECB, Deutsche Bank economists now expect a policy rate liftoff in December 2022 of 25bps, a view apparently shared by the market this morning. They’re also anticipating a faster pace of tightening, with 25bp hikes in the deposit rate per quarter from December 2022, until rates reach +0.5% in September 2023. In terms of what it means for this February meeting, they write in their preview that they expect the slow, step-by-step pivot to exit will continue. Their view is that President Lagarde will reiterate the ECB’s capacity to act once the inflation criteria in the rates guidance are met, whilst at the same time differentiating the needs of the Euro Area from the US.

The other central bank decision that day is from the Bank of England, where expectations are for the BoE to follow up their December rate hike with another 25bps increase, taking the Bank Rate to 0.5%. Furthermore, the MPC should confirm that any APF reinvestments will cease from here on out, resulting in around £38bn falling out of the Bank’s balance sheet this year.

The data highlight in a busy week will be payrolls Friday. Economists expect nonfarm payrolls to have grown by a relatively subdued +150k in January, with the unemployment rate remaining at a post-pandemic low of 3.9%. Clearly Omicron will impact this data, so it'll be tough to get a clear read though but Fed Chair Powell has already said that his personal view is that labor market conditions were consistent with maximum employment, “in the sense of the highest level of employment that is consistent with price stability.” The JOLTS report tomorrow will also be a good indicator of the tightness of the labor market and one we've preferred to payrolls as a lead indicator during the pandemic.

Otherwise, Wednesday's flash CPI reading from the Euro Area for January will be interesting. Our economists expect that year-on-year inflation will subside to +4.3% from its peak of +5.0% in December, which was also the fastest pace since the formation of the single currency.

On the earnings side, we’ll get an array of reports this week as the season continues in full flow, including 111 companies from the S&P 500 and a further 56 in the STOXX 600. Among the highlights: ExxonMobil, PayPal, UPS, Starbucks, General Motors and UBS tomorrow. Then on Wednesday we’ll hear from Alphabet, Meta, AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, Qualcomm, T-Mobile US, Santander, Sony and Spotify. On Thursday, releases include Amazon, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Shell, Honeywell and Ford. Finally on Friday, there’s reports from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi and Aon.

Source: Earnings Whispers

Finally, there’ll be a continued focus on the trajectory of oil prices over the week ahead, particularly with the OPEC+ group meeting on Wednesday to discuss a March production increase. With inflation running at multi-decade highs in numerous countries and Brent Crude having surpassed $90/bbl at points in trading over the week just gone for the first time since 2014, oil prices are likely to remain a significant issue for policymakers over the coming months. For YoY comparisons, Oil was around $55 this time last year.

Day-by-day calendar of events, courtesy of Deutsche Bank

Monday January 31

  • Data: Euro Area Q4 GDP, Italy Q4 GDP, Germany preliminary January CPI, US January MNI Chicago PMI, Dallas Fed manufacturing index, Japan December jobless rate (23:30 UK time)
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Daly speaks

Tuesday February 1

  • Data: Global manufacturing PMIs, France preliminary January CPI, Germany January unemployment change, Italy December unemployment rate, UK December mortgage approvals, Euro Area December unemployment rate, Canada November GDP, US January ISM manufacturing, December JOLTS job openings, construction spending
  • Central Banks: Reserve Bank of Australia monetary policy decision
  • Earnings: ExxonMobil, PayPal, UPS, Starbucks, General Motors, UBS

Wednesday February 2

  • Data: Euro Area January flash CPI, Italy preliminary January CPI, US January ADP employment change
  • Central Banks: Central Bank of Brazil monetary policy decision
  • Earnings: Alphabet, Meta, AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, Qualcomm, T-Mobile US, Santander, Sony, Spotify

Thursday February 3

  • Data: Global services and composite PMIs, Euro Area December PPI, US weekly initial jobless claims, January ISM services index, December factory orders
  • Central Banks: ECB monetary policy decision, Bank of England monetary policy decision, US Senate Banking Committee holds confirmation hearings for Fed governor nominees
  • Earnings: Amazon, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Shell, Honeywell, Ford

Friday February 4

  • Data: Germany December factory orders, France December industrial production, January construction PMIs from Germany and UK, Euro Area December retail sales, US January change in nonfarm payrolls, unemployment rate, average hourly earnings
  • Central Banks: BoE’s Broadbent and Pill speak
  • Earnings: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Aon

* * *

Finally, focusing on just the US, the key economic data releases this week are the ISM manufacturing report on Tuesday and the employment situation report on Friday. There are a few speaking engagements from Fed officials this week, including the Fed Board nominees’ confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Thursday.

Monday, January 31

  • 09:45 AM Chicago PMI, January (GS 62.0, consensus 61.8, last 64.3): We estimate that the Chicago PMI declined to 62.0 in January from 64.3 in December, reflecting sequential weakness in other manufacturing surveys and an Omicron-related sentiment drag.
  • 10:30 AM Dallas Fed manufacturing index, January (consensus 8.5, last 8.1)
  • 11:30 AM San Francisco Fed President Daly (FOMC non-voter) speaks: San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly will be interviewed as part of a Reuters Breakingviews event. In an interview on January 12th, Daly stated that she saw “rate increases coming, as early as March,” and that the economy was “very close” to what she “would consider full employment.” Earlier this week, Chair Powell stated that the FOMC was “of a mind” to increase the federal funds rate in March, and hinted at the possibility of hikes at consecutive meetings this year. We now expect that the Fed will hike five times in 2022, with consecutive hikes in March and May, and start balance-sheet normalization in June.

Tuesday, February 1

  • 09:45 AM Markit manufacturing PMI, January final (consensus 55.0, last 55.0)
  • 10:00 AM Construction spending, December (GS +1.0%, consensus +0.6%, last +0.4%): We estimate a 1.0% increase in construction spending in December.
  • 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, January (GS 58.2, consensus 57.5, last 58.7): We estimate that the ISM manufacturing index declined 0.5pt to 58.2 in January, reflecting the pullback in other business surveys but a rebound in the supplier deliveries component related to Omicron.
  • 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, December (consensus 10,300k, last 10,562k)
  • 05:00 PM Lightweight motor vehicle sales, January (GS 14.5mn, consensus 12.70mn, last 12.44mn)

Wednesday, February 2

  • 08:15 AM ADP employment report, January (GS flat, consensus +200k, last +807k): We expect a flat reading for ADP payroll employment in January. Our forecast assumes a smaller drag from Omicron than in the official payroll data, reflecting differences in methodology. However, we also expect a drag on the ADP data from rebounding jobless claims, which is an input to their model.

Thursday, February 3

  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended January 29 (GS 245k, consensus 250k, last 260k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended January 22 (consensus 1,600k, last 1,675k): We estimate initial jobless claims declined to 245k in the week ended January 29.
  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm productivity, Q4 preliminary (GS +3.2%, consensus +3.2%, last -5.2%); Unit labor costs, Q4 preliminary (GS +1.2%, consensus +1.0%, last +9.6%): We estimate nonfarm productivity growth of 3.2% in Q4 (qoq saar) and unit labor cost—compensation per hour divided by output per hour—growth of 1.2%.
  • 09:45 AM Markit US services PMI, January final (consensus 50.9, last 50.9)
  • 10:00 AM ISM services index, January (GS 60.0, consensus 59.0, last 62.0): We estimate that the ISM services index declined 2.0pt to 60.0 in January. Our forecast reflects an Omicron-driven pullback in the employment and business activity components partially offset by a boost to the headline from slower supplier deliveries.
  • 10:00 AM Factory orders, December (GS -1.0%, consensus -0.2%, last +1.6%); Durable goods orders, December final (last -0.9%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, December final (last +0.4%); Core capital goods orders, December final (last flat); Core capital goods shipments, December final (last +1.3%): We estimate that factory orders decreased by 1.0% in December following a 1.6% increase in November. Durable goods orders declined by 0.9% in the December advance report, and core capital goods orders were flat.
  • 10:00 AM Fed Board Nominees Raskin, Cook, and Jefferson’s confirmation hearings: Former Fed Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin, Michigan State Professor Lisa Cook, and Davidson Professor Philip Jefferson will appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for their confirmation hearings for their nominations to the roles of Vice Chair for Supervision (Raskin) and Governor (Cook and Jefferson). The new nominees have generally expressed dovish policy views, but the continuity in Fed leadership and pressing nature of the current inflation overshoot likely mean that their near-term monetary policy impact will be limited. We see a potentially larger shift in the Federal Reserve’s regulatory agenda, as Raskin generally supported greater bank regulation.

Friday, February 4

  • 8:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, January (GS -250k, consensus +150k, last +199k); Private payroll employment, January (GS -275k, consensus +150k, last +211k); Average hourly earnings (mom), January (GS +0.6%, consensus +0.5%, last +0.6%); Average hourly earnings (yoy), January (GS +5.3%, consensus +5.2%, last +4.7%); Unemployment rate, January (GS 3.9%, consensus 3.9%, last 3.9%): We estimate nonfarm payrolls declined by 250k in January (mom sa). Our forecast reflects a large and temporary drag from Omicron on the order of 500-1000k, as survey data indicate a surge in absenteeism during the month. Dining activity also slowed sharply, and Big Data indicators are consistent with an outright decline in nonfarm payrolls. However, the number of end-of-year layoffs was below normal, and this should partially offset the Omicron drag (the BLS seasonal factors assume ~3mn net job losses in the month of January). We also estimate a 50k rebound in education employment (public and private), reflecting fewer janitors and support staff departing for winter break.
  • We estimate an unchanged unemployment rate of 3.9%, reflecting a decline in household employment offset by a drop in labor force participation due to the virus wave. We estimate a 0.6% rise in average hourly earnings (mom sa) that boosts the year-on-year rate by six tenths to 5.3%, reflecting positive calendar effects, a boost from composition effects, and potentially larger-than-normal annual raises for some production and nonsupervisory workers.

Source: DB, Goldman, BofA

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/31/2022 - 09:05

Read More

Continue Reading


Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…



Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading


Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),




Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading


Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…



Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.


A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading