Connect with us

International

Quarter-End Adjustments Blunt Trend Moves

 Overview:  The US dollar is paring its recent gains against most major and emerging market currencies today, mainly on the back of month and quarter-end position adjustments.  The euro held the $1.1700 level, while the Japanese yen continues to trade…

Published

on

 Overview:  The US dollar is paring its recent gains against most major and emerging market currencies today, mainly on the back of month and quarter-end position adjustments.  The euro held the $1.1700 level, while the Japanese yen continues to trade heavily.  Better than expected PMI readings from China appeared to help sentiment.  The JP Morgan Emerging Market Currency Index is higher for the first time this week.  Asia Pacific equities traded lower after losses in the US yesterday.  Australia was an exception, where the bourse gained about 0.8%.  European shares are slightly firmer, and the Dow Jones Stoxx 600 drew closer to the record high set last February.  US shares are narrowly mixed. The debt markets are quiet.  The US 10-year benchmark yield is a little firmer at 1.73%.  European yields have also edged higher.  Gold prices are hovering near the month's low ($1677) and have been unable to resurface above $1690. Oil is little changed ahead of the OPEC+ Joint Ministerial Meeting.  API reported an unexpected build in US inventories, while the EIA report today was anticipated to show the first drawdown in six weeks.  

Asia Pacific

As it typically does after the Lunar New Year holidays, China's PMI bounced back in March. The manufacturing PMI rose to 51.9 from 50.6, well above expectations.  The service PMI was even more impressive, jumping to 56.3 from 51.4 and just missing last year's high set in November at 56.4.  The net result was that the composite reading now stands at 55.3, up from 51.6.  Last year's high was 55.7. To be sure, March's recovery is not simply from depressed February readings.  Recall, the composite PMI fell for three months through February.  However, confirmation that the world's second-largest economy is out of its soft patch will come from the economy's performance in April. 

Japan reported disappointing February industrial output figures, which served to dent a bit of the optimism that stemmed from the much stronger than expected retail sales figures reported yesterday (3.1% vs. median forecast in the Bloomberg survey for a 0.8% gain).  Industrial output slumped 2.1% in February, well more than the 1.3% decline economists projected.  The world's third-largest economy appears to have contracted in Q1.  Tomorrow it reports the Tankan Survey, and the split is not simply between manufacturing and services, but even more pronounced is the divergence between large companies and small.  Capex plans are expected to still be weak.  

Australia reported slightly softer than expected growth in private sector credit expansion.  However, the dramatic recovery in building approvals blew away forecasts.  Building approvals have fallen 19.4% in January, and economists expected a modest 3% recovery in February.  Instead, building approvals surged by 21.6%.  Approvals for private homes jumped 15.1% after a revised 11.8% decline in January (initially -12.2%).  The Antipodeans, Canada, the US appear to be seeing rising home prices. The UK often is grouped here too, but Nationwide's house price index reported today slipped in March (-0.2%), and the year-over-year gain is modest 5.7%.  It is tempting to attribute it to the low yields, but given that the EMU and Japan have even lower interest rates, it seems that rates are a necessary but not sufficient condition.  The political economy culture that encourages widespread homeownership is also important.  Macroprudential measures that regulate loan-value and aspects are preferred over the blunter instrument of rates to address concerns, which do appear to be gradually rising.  

The dollar approached JPY111 in Tokyo before backing off and finding support in early European turnover near JPY110.50, where an expiring option for $585 mln is struck.  Recall that the dollar made two highs last March as the pandemic hit.  The first was near JPY112.25, and the second was about JPY111.70.  The 2019 high was set in April by JPY112.40.  Those offer obvious targets.  The Australian dollar posted an outside down day yesterday by trading on both sides of Monday's range and closing below its low.  However, there was no follow-through selling, and the Aussie is straddling the $0.7600-area today.  An option for almost A$625 mln at $0.7600 expires today.  A recovery above $0.7665 would lift the technical tone.  The dollar slipped against the Chinese yuan for the first time this week.  The PBOC set the dollar's reference rate at CNY6.5713, spot on what the banks' models anticipated.  Some reports seek to link the yuan's recent weakness to the hidden hand of the state working through the large banks in the swap market.  However, such accounts often ignore the large exposures created by companies that are among the world's largest exporters and importers. 

Europe

The preliminary eurozone March CPI was mixed.  The headline rose by 0.9% after February's 0.2% increase.  The median forecast in Bloomberg's survey called for a 1% increase.  The net result is that the year-over-year pace accelerated to 1.3% (not 1.4% projected) from 0.9% in February.  The core rate unexpectedly slipped to 0.9% from 1.1%.  An unchanged reading was expected.  As ECB President Lagarde sketched at her press conference a few weeks ago, inflation readings are very noisy right now, and what appears to be a rebuilding of price pressures is due to some technical factors and base effect and will prove transitory.  There are no policy implications.  

Monthly house prices in the UK fell by 0.2% in March, according to Nationwide.  A 0.4% increase was anticipated.  It is difficult to read much into one month's data as house prices rose by 0.7% in February.  Some suspect that the impact of the temporary property-tax cut has run its course.  The tax holiday was extended for three months through Q2.  A new mortgage guarantee program will start tomorrow and may help spur activity.  Also, after a strong H2 20, the base effect works against UK house prices later this year.  

The $1.17-level in the euro held on the first attempt.  That area corresponds to the (38.2%) retracement of the euro's recovery from last March's low (~$1.0635) to the January high (~$1.2350).  It recovered to almost $1.1750 in early European turnover.  The single currency had appeared to build a small shelf near $1.1760 before yesterday's drop, and it offers resistance today.  A move above $1.1800 is really needed to improve the technical tone.  Sterling is firm and is approaching $1.38 in Europe after being sold to almost $1.3700 yesterday.  The week's high was set on Monday near $1.3850, which also corresponds to the 20-day moving average.  It seems too far away to be challenged.  That said, the euro is pressing against one-year lows near GBP0.8500, and a break could help underpin sterling against the dollar.  

America

The ADP private-sector job estimate (~550k vs. 117k in February) will draw early attention, but the real interest lies with President Biden's speech in Pittsburgh in which the infrastructure program will be announced.  What the administration has in mind is so large that, as we have suggested, it will be broken into two parts.  According to the latest leaks, the price tag of the first part is about $2.25 trillion.  It is focused on the material infrastructure, including the electrical grid, nationwide broadband internet, modernize the water system, bridges, and roads, and bolster housing and manufacturing. The second part will focus on people, like health care, and making permanent the expansion of the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and paid family leave/medical leave.  The combined cost is estimated at around $4 trillion.  

While the spending part makes some feel uncomfortable, others are more concerned about the revenue enhancers tax increases.  In essence, Biden appears likely to propose the repealing of large parts of the 2017 tax cuts.  This would include returning the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%. There would be a minimum corporate tax.  The new proposals would also close or at least narrow loopholes that provide tax incentives to invest offshore. Federal subsidies for fossil fuel companies would end.  Households with income over $400k would see an increase in the marginal rate.  Unlike the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, which saw votes strictly along party lines, the Democrats are divided over elements of these infrastructure measures, the role of taxes, and how much emphasis on environmentally-friendly initiatives. 

Biden has tried to make a case for these proposals because they are necessary to compete with China.  While it may be true to some extent, the competitive element does not only apply to China.  But aren't there other reasons why one of the richest countries should have a first-rate power grid and better bridges and roads with rural communities have broadband access.  One of the lessons of the pandemic was that poverty and poor health are comorbidities, especially in societies that distribute health care primarily via the pricing mechanism.  Subsuming the issues under national security strategy is not necessary and seems to be a dangerous precedent. As we have seen previously, there is practically no limit to what can be justified on national security grounds. 

Canada reports January GDP figures today.  They are too historical to have much market impact, but barring a downside surprise to the 0.5% gain projected by the median forecast in Bloomberg's survey, the takeaway will reinforce the shift in sentiment.  Previously, the consensus view was the Canadian economy would contract in Q1 by 1% (annualized), but that has switched, and the latest survey shows the expectation is for a nearly 3% expansion.  The economy is forecast to have expanded by 0.5% in January.  Separately, but not unrelated, the IMF will update its forecasts next week, and an upward revision to its US and Chinese forecasts will lift the anticipated global growth from the 5.5% pace seen previously.  Canada benefits from the spillover from the US stimulus.  

The US dollar is consolidating within yesterday's range against the Canadian dollar (~CAD1.2580-CAD1.2650). It has been two weeks since the greenback posted a key upside reversal from the three-year low set near CAD1.2365.  The upside momentum has slowed in recent sessions.  It likely takes a break of the CAD1.2540 area to boost confidence, a top is in place.  The greenback traded at two-week lows against the Mexican peso in the European morning (~MXN20.5225).  A break of MXN20.50 could signal a move toward MXN20.28, last week's low.  Initial resistance is seen around MXN20.65.  



Disclaimer

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show

The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.

Published

on

By

Julian Hochgesang|Unsplash

The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.

The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.

Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.

However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.

Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.

Blocks of flats in London.
Household fuel poverty in England is calculated on the basis of the energy efficiency of the home. Igor Sporynin|Unsplash

Energy security

In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.

We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.

Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).

Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.

In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.

Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.

In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.

Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.

The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.

In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.

In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.

Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.

This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.

Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.

It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.

The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.

The Conversation

Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.

John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

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

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending