Connect with us

Uncategorized

Smart Borrowing Has Made Monetary Policy “Laggier”

Smart Borrowing Has Made Monetary Policy "Laggier"

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Milton Friedman made the term “long and variable…

Published

on

Smart Borrowing Has Made Monetary Policy "Laggier"

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Milton Friedman made the term “long and variable lag” famous. Everyone involved in markets and the economy has been struggling with the question of “what is the amount of lag” that we currently face on monetary policy. “Conventional” wisdom, as I understand it, is that it takes 3 to 6 months for economic policy to be truly felt. I think that is far too short of a “lag” effect.

I’m going to ignore the fact that there was ongoing stimulus when the Fed started to hike. For example, things like the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” came out during the hiking cycle. In addition, the Fed was still expanding its balance sheet almost until the time of the first hike. Finally, student loans were in moratorium and there were promises (and attempts, with limited success) of debt forgiveness.

Basically, I will ignore all the reasons why the lag effect was impacted early on. I will instead focus on the reason why it is still taking so long to kick in.

Borrowers Were Smart

What we will try to demonstrate is that borrowers were very smart and that “smartness” is translating into a much longer lag time for monetary policy to kick in than “normal”.

We will focus on the U.S. investment grade bond market as it is what I live and breath and feel most comfortable discussing (and I have good access to information).

I do think that it applies well to all corporate borrowers, especially since we saw private credit markets explode in size.
I expect that if we did a similar analysis on the auto loan market and mortgage market, we would see that consumers also made some very smart decisions in recent years (minimizing the immediate impact of monetary policy).

We will show that in the corporate credit market, issuers took advantage of incredibly low yields to lock in borrowing costs for longer (and in bigger sizes) than we’ve ever seen.

The more you borrowed at low rates (for extended maturities), the longer the monetary policy lag time is going to be as it will take years for the real impact to be felt (i.e., not in 3 to 6 months). This applies to corporations and households and it should not surprise us that 18 months after the first hike (and barely 6 months after the “slowing” of hikes) we aren’t seeing the impact that many expected.

We tried to describe this using the “birthday paradox” in 99 Problems but the Fed Ain’t One. It is also part of the reason why (only recently) we have been warning that The Real Story is Real Yields.

Without further ado, let’s start analyzing the “smartness” and why we have yet to see much of an impact from what seems like an unprecedented cycle of hikes.

IG Borrowers Were Very Smart

The Fed created ZIRP and some of the easiest monetary conditions ever seen. Not only were they growing their balance sheet with Treasuries, but they also figured out (in conjunction with the Treasury Department) how to buy corporate bonds and even fixed income ETFs!

In any case, we will show that corporations responded to this opportunity and that response is why the lag effect is “laggier” than ever.

Average Coupon

While I tend to live in a “mark to market” world, most companies live in an “accrual accounting” world. It might be fun to watch (and trade) the gyrations in bond markets, but the reality is that current yields are largely irrelevant to most borrowers. What matters is the average coupon. For all the following charts we use data based on the Bloomberg Corporation Bond Index.

The current average coupon is 2.99%. It is creeping higher (towards 3%), but it is still much lower than current yields are anywhere on the curve.

Historically, that is an incredibly low average coupon. Prior to July 2020 this index wasn’t below a 3% coupon in well over 20 years (2000 is as far back as I went for today’s purposes).

Almost 60% of the time (prior to July 2020) the average coupon was above 4%!

So, even after a series of aggressive hikes, average coupons are still low by historical standards.

Despite the Fed hiking rates by 5.25% in less than 2 years, the average coupon has only trickled up to 2.99%. The low was 2.42% in January 2020. So, we’ve seen the average coupon increase by less than 60 bps in the almost 2 years since the hiking cycle began. It will continue to go higher as there is no place on the yield curve to hide. The 10-year at 4.57% is at the lowest point on the Treasury curve and that is before adding any credit spread.

The average coupon is impressive, but it only tells part of the story of just how well borrowers (at least corporate borrowers) navigated ZIRP. However, I strongly believe that individuals, small businesses, and leveraged companies did this well too.

Average Maturity

While traders tend to live in a world driven by duration and DV01 (dollar value of a basis point), most people focus on how long they borrowed money for. How long you’ve locked in your debt for is how you manage your roll risk (for better or for worse, though we will demonstrate that corporations did it for the better).

While not quite as high as it was back in 2000, the average maturity is at 8.5, which is longer than average for this index. It climbed steadily, dipped a bit in 2019, and then rose rapidly while curves were inverted and yields were low. It has come down now, presumably because companies are less interested in issuing longer-dated bonds and some (as we will see next) are apparently paying down debt (unlike our government, but that is a story/rant for another day – US Govt Credit Rating).

Since April 2020, the average maturity went from 7.6 to almost 9 – an incredibly fast rise.

All else being equal, the average maturity declines over time as bonds come closer to their maturity date (it takes an impressive amount of long-dated issuance to drive that maturity extension). It is still coming down, but from elevated levels.

The fact that investment grade borrowers (and I’m sure consumers and other borrowers) extended their maturities to take advantage of historically low yields and inverted curves means that it will take even longer for today’s current high yields to work their way into the system (i.e., it will make monetary policy effects even laggier).

Debt Issuance

Maybe “net” issuance is the right number to look at, but for now, let’s just see what happened to debt issuance (based on the Bloomberg league table data).

2023 isn’t finished, but IG debt issuance has been reasonably stable. 2020 saw a 57% increase from 2019! While 2021 slowed down a bit, it was the 2nd highest in the past decade (behind 2020) and we still saw 25% more debt issued that year compared to 2019.

While net issuance is probably the correct metric, outright issuance alone is enough to send a strong message that companies took advantage of ZIRP to issue lots of debt! That helps explain why the average maturity increased relatively rapidly (and the average coupon dropped reasonably quickly). Typically, a surge in issuance helps overcome the inertia inherent in broad market indices.

Better Preparation Leads to Longer Lag Times

The more people prepared for a change in the rate environment, the longer it will take for that change to impact borrowers.

It seems clear that companies (and borrowers of all types) locked in lower for longer, which by definition (or maybe it is axiomatic) means longer lag times.

I think that the Fed should be very cautious (more cautious than they already have been) about raising rates as the impact is only beginning to be felt and piling on will cause more trouble down the road (especially if the Fed doesn’t want to cut any time soon, which they don’t).

Smart borrowers need to be accounted for in thinking about lag times and many of you on this distribution list deserve a pat on the back for being so well prepared to mitigate an aggressive Fed!

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/01/2023 - 12:50

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