Connect with us

The Employment Situation Is Still a Disaster

The Employment Situation Is Still a Disaster

Published

3 years ago

on

Last Friday, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released new unemployment data. The report surprised many because it showed a decrease in the unemployment rate, while many observers had expected an increase.

According to the official headline (seasonally adjusted) number, the unemployment rate was 13.3 percent in May. That was down from April's rate of 14.7 percent. This data point was seized upon by commentators who insist that there will be a "V-shaped" recovery. "The economy is fundamentally in great shape," this narrative goes, "and everything will bounce back as soon as mandated lockdowns are lifted."

Those who support this narrative thus concluded that May's drop in unemployment proved the "V-shaped" recovery was already underway.

But it may yet be much too early to rejoice and declare the economy on the mend.

For one, it turns out that the unemployment rate in May may have actually increased depending on how the "absent" workers are counted. BLS economists called this a "misclassification error" and it was noted in the BLS report itself, near the end:

[T]here was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but absent from work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers were instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business closures as unemployed on temporary layoff….However, it is apparent | that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking additional steps to address the issue. If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other reasons" (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis).

In other words, it is likely that the unemployment rate was closer to around 16 or 17 percent. How much did the misclassification error affect April's numbers? That's not quite clear.

What we do know is that it's rather odd to point to an unemployment rate of 16 percent and declare the economy to be roaring back or well into a "V-shaped" recovery. At this time there is no evidence at all to support such a conclusion.

After all, the data that has come out since Friday's numbers hardly points to an economy that's roaring back. New data on initial unemployment claims released today shows that 1.5 million new workers filed for unemployment over the past week. This was hailed by some commentators as great news.

Yes, this number was "good" compared to the previous eleven weeks, but it's hardly anything to celebrate. After all, keep in mind that during the Great Recession initial claims peaked at around 960,000. So, even accounting for growth in total employment, a jobless claims number of 1.5 million is still a disaster. But this round of job losses certainly didn't peak at 1.5 million. It peaked (hopefully) at 6.2 million in early April.

Thus, last week's 1.5 million is just another 1.5 million in addition to the 40.3 million newly unemployed that have cropped up since March.

To put this in perspective, note that over the past decade the US economy has added 22 million payroll jobs, (and has lost 19.5 million jobs since the end of 2019):

Basically job losses in recent months are "off the charts." Meanwhile, in May our alleged V-shaped recovery added back 2.9 million jobs from April to May. But that's only 7 percent of the 40 million people who filed for unemployment claims in recent months.

Yes, that 2.9 million jobs is an improvement but not exactly a reason to throw a party.

Here's another way to look at the employment situation. How far below the jobs peak are we, even after May's gains?

Let's compare to other job recovery periods. Here we see the current job losses indexed to the peak level. Using payroll jobs data we see that employment was already off peak in late 2019. This may have very well been largely due to wintertime drops in employment. But, of course, total jobs then collapsed in March, and to a level far below anything we've seen in well over forty years:

In April, total jobs were at 85 percent of peak levels. Happily, that number improved to 87 percent in May.

But, it's quite clear that we have a long way to go.

Now, it's entirely possible that job growth will completely buck the trend of the past forty years. That trend has been one in which each new round of job losses takes longer and longer to be erased. For instance, it took more than six years after the Great Recession for total jobs to reach previous peak levels. That's compared to just 2.5 years during the early 1990s recession.

So, are May's job gains just the first part of a rapid surge of employment back toward the previous peak? Or will job gains be a long, hard slog, as they have typically been during the past twenty years?

That's unknown at this point.

But in order to have a recovery that is indeed V-shaped we'll need to see job gains of several million with each passing month. The economy is in a very odd position, to say the least, so I'm not saying that's impossible. But I'm also looking in vain for any evidence that such a thing is likely. After all, the economy was already weakening in late 2019, as suggested by the relaunch of QE (quantitative easing) to "stabilize" the repo (repurchase) market, and the Fed's repeated cuts to the federal funds rate at the time.

For what it's worth, Federal Reserve economists have already weighed in against a V-shaped recovery. As Bloomberg reports:

In updating its projections for growth and unemployment Wednesday, the Federal Reserve poured cold water on the notion that last week's surprise jobs report signaled a sharp V-shaped recovery for the U.S. economy….The Fed's latest economic forecasts suggest a 6.5% contraction in gross domestic product in 2020 that would take 2 years to reverse. The projection for the unemployment rate was also downbeat with a 9.3% unemployment rate at the end of the year.

Fed economists have shown no particular skill in producing accurate forecasts, but the Fed does tend to take a more optimistic and measured tone than is frequently warranted. Fed economists predicted a very fast bounceback after the Great Recession. They were wrong. And during the past twenty years Fed reports typically soothe the reader with descriptions of an economy that is "moderate" or "strengthening." The fact that the Fed doesn't have much good news to share suggests there isn't much good news to share.

On the other hand, it's not too late to put into place some policy measures that could help spur a fast recovery. But what is required is contrary to what most policymakers consider to be politically acceptable: widespread deregulation, lowering of minimum wages, and free trade. These measures would significantly reduce costs to employers and bring a real jobs bounce to those employers who adapt to the new realities of the 2020 economy.

Read More

Related Topics:

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New ways to protect food crops from climate change and other disruptions

“There’s no doubt we can produce enough food for the world’s population – humanity is strategic enough to achieve that. The question is whether…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

“There’s no doubt we can produce enough food for the world’s population – humanity is strategic enough to achieve that. The question is whether – because of war and conflict and corruption and destabilization – we do,” said World Food Programme leader David Beasley in an interview with Time magazine earlier this year.    

Credit: NMBU

“There’s no doubt we can produce enough food for the world’s population – humanity is strategic enough to achieve that. The question is whether – because of war and conflict and corruption and destabilization – we do,” said World Food Programme leader David Beasley in an interview with Time magazine earlier this year.    

Indeed, projections show that we are not on track to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 of Zero Hunger by 2030. As climate and security crises continue to destabilise our food sources, researchers are taking a critical look not just at how we produce food – but at the entire systems behind our food supplies. In this case, the systems behind the seeds that produce our food crops.    

“Whilst adapting crops to climate change and conserving their variation is essential for food security, these measures are meaningless if farmers do not have access to the seeds,” says crop scientist and food system expert Ola Westengen. Westengen leads the team of researchers from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) who recently reviewed the state of seed systems for small-holder farmers in low/middle income countries. Their findings are now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).   

What are seed systems?    

Seed systems are the provision, management and distribution of seeds. They cover the entire seed chain, from the conservation of their diversity and variety development, to their production and distribution, and the rules that govern these activities.  In short, they are the structures that make seeds available to farmers so that crops can be sown, harvested and end up on our plates.    

Whilst a well-functioning seed system will ensure seed security for all farmers, the researchers say that, in practice, it is rarely the case that seed systems function as well as they might. Seed systems can be disrupted by conflict and disasters, as well as by problems stemming from social inequality, lack of coordination or inappropriate policies.      

What does this study tell us that we don’t already know?   

“There are recent innovations and investments by governments and donors to improve farmers’ access to diverse crop varieties and quality seeds,” explains Teshome Hunduma, a seed governance researcher and co-author of the study. “For example, there are now more flexible policies and regulations that encourage diversity in the seed systems used by farmers, rather than pushing farmers to switch to commercial seed systems that focus on less diverse commodity crops – which is the norm.” Commodity crops are those grown in large volume and high intensity for the purpose of sale, as opposed to those grown by small-holder farmers for direct processing and consumption.   

“The study highlights emerging initiatives that are helping farmers to secure food supplies, such as participatory plant breeding,” says Teshome. Participatory plant breeding is the development and selection of new crop varieties where the farmers are in control. Farmers, who know the needs of their farms best, work with researchers and others to improve crops and develop plant varieties that are in line with their household needs and culture, and that are resilient to environmental and climate challenges.    

“Farmers prefer and need different types of seeds, based on diverse social, cultural and ecological conditions,” adds ethnobotanist and co-author Sarah Paule Dalle.       

The study discusses various disruptions to farmer’s access to seeds. Social inequality is one such disruption. How so?   

“A seed system that only serves a segment of a farming society contributes to seed insecurity,” replies Teshome. “For example, commercial seed systems deliver high-yielding varieties of quality hybrid seeds. Whilst wealthy farmers can afford such seeds, poor farmers can’t.”    

“Similarly, whilst commercial seed systems that focus on commodity crops may benefit men who might primarily be interested in market value, such systems have little to offer women who want crops that provide household nutrition and meet their cultural preferences.”   

“This means poor farmers and women do not have the same access to seeds that meet their needs. The result is seed, and thus food, insecurity due to social and economic inequality.”     

Political-economic factors have driven the globalization of food systems over the last decades, which also includes seed systems. “Seeds have become big business”, say the researchers. According to studies quoted in the article, the four largest multinational companies in seed trade today control about 60% of the ~50 billion USD global commercial seed market. The large private actors have the power not only to shape markets, but also to influence science and innovation agendas and policy frameworks.     

This can be problematic, say the researchers, when private sector research and development typically focuses on the most profitable crops, such as maize and soy. Crops grown and consumed by subsistence farmers are thus largely neglected, and the potential of crop diversity – the foundation of agriculture – remains largely untapped. Technology that could help develop more robust varieties remains hypothetical.   

How does the ownership of crop diversity threaten food supplies and what can be done?      

The term crop diversity refers both to different crops and different varieties of a crop. According to the Global Crop Diversity Trust (one of the world’s primary international organizations on crop diversity conservation), securing and making available the world’s crop diversity is essential for future food and nutrition security.      

“Plant breeders and scientists use crop diversity to develop new, more resilient and productive varieties that consumers want to eat, that are nutritious and tasty, and that are adapted to local preferences, environments and challenges,” explains Benjamin Kilian, a plant genetics expert at the Global Crop Diversity Trust. The Crop Trust, together with the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, implements the major project from which this study emerged: Biodiversity for Opportunities, Livelihoods and Development (BOLD). Coordinated by Kilian, the project supports the conservation and use of crop diversity to strengthen food and nutrition security on a global scale. It builds on the Crop Wild Relatives project and is funded by the Norwegian government.   

“In the BOLD project, researchers work with genebanks, plant breeders and others in the seed value chain to co-develop seed systems that are both resilient to climate stresses and inclusive of small-holder farmers on the frontline of adaptation,” adds Westengen.     

Will access to seeds in the vulnerable areas that you are studying be improved in time to make a difference?   

“We hope so, if we make the right moves to include small-holder farmers in seed system development,” says Dalle. “A well-functioning seed system should also be resilient. That is, it should withstand shocks such as drought or pandemics and breakdowns or disruptions such as war and conflict.”    

“To do this, the system should promote a diversity of seeds, both local varieties and those improved to better adapt to stresses. It should also involve diverse groups of people such as farmer cooperatives/groups, and both public and private companies to increase the choice of seeds and seed sources. During lockdowns in the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, farmers’ own seed systems enabled access to seeds in developing countries when the activities of private companies and agro-dealers were restricted,” explains Dalle.   

Westengen summarizes: “Our study highlights links between the crucial work of the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the farmers on the frontline of adapting our food systems to climate change. It is an argument for co-designing seed system development in full cooperation with farmers and other actors in the seed system. This way, efforts can meet the needs of various groups of farmers in different agroecological contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all; if there is one natural law in biology, it is that diversity is key to future evolution. That also goes for seed systems – and food system development.”   

Navigating towards resilient and inclusive seed systems by Ola T. Westengen, Sarah Paule Dalle and Teshome Hunduma Mulesa was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week. PNAS is widely considered one of the most prestigious and highly cited multidisciplinary research journals.   

About the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)  
NMBU’s research and education enables people all over the world to tackle the big, global challenges regarding the environment, sustainable development, how to improve human and animal health, renewable energy sources, food production, and land- and resource management. 

 About the Crop Trust 
The Crop Trust is an international organization working to conserve crop diversity and thus protect global food and nutrition security. At the core of Crop Trust is an endowment fund dedicated to providing guaranteed long-term financial support to key genebanks worldwide. The Crop Trust supports the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and coordinates large-scale projects worldwide to secure crop diversity and make it available for use. The Crop Trust is recognized as an essential element of the funding strategy of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.  

About the BOLD Project 
BOLD (Biodiversity for Opportunities, Livelihoods, and Development) is a major 10-year project to strengthen food and nutrition security worldwide by supporting the conservation and use of crop diversity. The project works with national genebanks, pre-breeding and seed system partners globally. Funded by the government of Norway, BOLD is led by the Crop Trust in partnership with the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and the International Plant Treaty. 

Journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2218777120

Method of Research

Systematic review

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Navigating toward resilient and inclusive seed systems

Article Publication Date

27-Mar-2023

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your “Fair Share”

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your "Fair Share"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Every year the IRS publishes…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your "Fair Share"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Every year the IRS publishes a detailed report on the taxes it collects. And the statistics are REALLY interesting.

A few weeks ago the agency released its most recent report. So this is the most objective, up-to-date information that exists about taxes in America.

This is important, because, these days, it’s common to hear progressive politicians and woke mobsters calling for higher income earners and wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

But this report, directly from the US agency whose job it is to tax Americans, shows the truth:

The top 1% of US taxpayers paid 48% of total US income taxes.

And that’s just at the federal level, not even counting how much of the the local and state taxes the wealthy paid.

Further, the top 10% paid nearly 72% of total income taxes.

Meanwhile, the bottom 40% of US income tax filers paid no net income tax at all. And the next group, those making between $30-$50,000 per year, paid an effective rate of just 1.9%.

(Again, this is not some wild conspiracy theory; these numbers are directly from IRS data.)

But the fact that 10% of the taxpayers foot nearly three-fourths of the tax bill still isn’t enough for the progressive mob. They want even more.

The guy who shakes hands with thin air, for example, recently announced that he wants to introduce a new law that would create a minimum tax of 25% on the highest income earners.

But the government’s own statistics show that the highest income earners in America— those earning more than $10 million annually— paid an average tax rate of 25.5%. That’s higher than Mr. Biden’s 25% minimum.

So he is essentially proposing an unnecessary solution in search of a problem.

I bring this up because whenever you hear the leftist Bolsheviks in government and media talking about “fair share”, they always leave out what exactly the “fair share” is.

The top 1% already pay nearly half the taxes. Exactly how much more will be enough?

Should the top 1% pay 60% of all taxes? 80%? At what point will it be enough?

They never say. They’ll never commit to a number. They just keep expanding their thinking scope.

Elizabeth Warren, for example, quite famously stopped talking about the “top 1%” and started whining about the “top 5%”. And then the “top 10%”.

She has already decided that the top 5% of wealthy households should not be eligible for student loan forgiveness or Medicare.

And when she talks about “accountable capitalism” on her website, Warren calls out the top 10% for having too much wealth, compared to the rest of households.

Soon enough it will be the “top 25%” who are the real problem…

Honestly this whole way of thinking reminds me of Anthony “the Science” Fauci’s pandemic logic on lockdowns and mask mandates.

You probably remember how reporters always asked “the Science” when life could go back to normal… and he always replied that it was a function of vaccine uptake, i.e. whenever enough Americans were vaccinated.

But then he kept moving the goal posts. 50%. 60%. 70%. It was never enough. And there was never a concrete answer.

This same logic applies to what the “experts” believe is the “fair share” of taxes which the top whatever percent should pay.

They’ll never actually say what the fair share is. But my guess is that they won’t stop until 100% of taxes are paid by the top 10% … and the other 100% of taxes are paid by the other 90%.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/29/2023 - 11:25

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Financial Stress Continues to Recede

Overview: Financial stress continues to recede. The Topix bank index is up for the second consecutive session and the Stoxx 600 bank index is recovering…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

Overview: Financial stress continues to recede. The Topix bank index is up for the second consecutive session and the Stoxx 600 bank index is recovering for the third session. The AT1 ETF is trying to snap a four-day decline. The KBW US bank index rose for the third consecutive session yesterday. More broadly equity markets are rallying. The advance in the Asia Pacific was led by tech companies following Alibaba's re-organization announcement. The Hang Seng rose by over 2% and the index of mainland shares rose by 2.2%. Europe's Stoxx 600 is up nearly 1% and US index futures are up almost the same. Benchmark 10-year yields are mostly 1-3 bp softer in Europe and the US.

The dollar is mixed. The Swiss franc is leading the advancers (~+0.3%) while euro, sterling and the Canadian dollar are posting small gains. The Japanese yen is the weakest of the majors (~-0.6%). The antipodeans and Scandis are also softer. A larger than expected decline in Australia's monthly CPI underscores the likelihood that central bank joins the Bank of Canada in pausing monetary policy when it meets next week. Most emerging market currencies are also firmer today, and the JP Morgan Emerging Market Currency Index is higher for the third consecutive session. Gold is softer within yesterday's $1949-$1975 range. The unexpectedly large drop in US oil inventories (~6 mln barrels according to report of API's estimate, which if confirmed by the EIA later today would be the largest drawdown in four months) is helping May WTI extend its gains above $74 a barrel. Recall that it had fallen below $65 at the start of last week.

Asia Pacific

The US dollar is knocking on the upper end of its band against the Hong Kong dollar, raising the prospect of intervention by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It appears to be driven by the wide rate differential between Hong Kong and dollar rates (~3.20% vs. ~4.85%). Although the HKMA tracks the Fed's rate increases, the key is not official rates but bank rates, and the large banks have not fully passed the increase. Reports suggest some of the global banks operating locally have raised rates a fraction of what HKMA has delivered. The root of the problem is not a weakness but a strength. Hong Kong has seen an inflow of portfolio and speculative capital seeking opportunities to benefit from the mainland's re-opening.  Of course, from time-to-time some speculators short the Hong Kong dollar on ideas that the peg will break. It is an inexpensive wager. In fact, it is the carry trade. One is paid well to be long the US dollar. Pressure will remain until this consideration changes. Eventually, the one-country two-currencies will eventually end, but it does not mean it will today or tomorrow. As recently as last month, the HKMA demonstrated its commitment to the peg by intervening. Pressure on the peg has been experienced since last May and in this bout, the HKMA has spent around HKD280 defending it (~$35 bln).

The US and Japan struck a deal on critical minerals, but the key issue is whether it will be sufficient to satisfy the American congress that the executive agreement is sufficient to benefit from the tax- credits embodied in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration is negotiating a similar agreement with the EU. The problem is that some lawmakers, including Senator Manchin, have pushed back that it violates the legislature's intent on the restrictions of the tax credit. Manchin previously threatened legislation that would force the issue. The US Trade Representative Office can strike a deal for a specific sector without approval of Congress, but that specific sector deal (critical minerals) cannot then meet the threshold of a free-trade agreement to secure the tax incentives. 

The Japanese yen is the weakest of the major currencies today, dragged lower by the nearly 20 bp rise in US 10-year yields this week and the end of the fiscal year related flows. Some dollar buying may have been related to the expirations of a $615 mln option today at JPY131.75. The greenback tested the JPY130.40 support we identified yesterday and rebounded to briefly trade above JPY132.00 today, a five-day high.  However, the session high may be in place and support now is seen in the JPY131.30-50 band. Softer than expected Australian monthly CPI (6.8% vs. 7.4% in January and 7.2% median forecast in Bloomberg's survey) reinforced ideas that the central bank will pause its rate hike cycle next week. The Australian dollar settled near session highs above $0.6700 in North America yesterday and made a margin new high before being sold. It reached a low slightly ahead of $0.6660 in early European turnover. The immediate selling pressure looks exhausted and a bounce toward $0.6680-90 looks likely. On the downside, note that there are options for A$680 mln that expire today at $0.6650. In line with the developments in the Asia Pacific session today, the US dollar is firmer against the Chinese yuan. However, it held below the high seen on Monday (~CNY6.8935). The dollar's reference rate was set at CNY6.8771, a bit lower than the median projection in Bloomberg's forecast (~CNY6.8788). The sharp decline in the overnight repo to its lowest since early January reflect the liquidity provisions by the central bank into the quarter-end.

Europe

Reports suggest regulators are finding that one roughly 5 mln euro trade on Deutsche Bank's credit-default swaps last Friday, was the likely trigger of the debacle. The bank's market cap fell by1.6 bln euros and billions more off the bank share indices. Then there is the US Treasury market, where the measure of volatility (MOVE) has softened slightly from last week when it rose to the highest level since the Great Financial Crisis. While the wide intraday ranges of the US two-year note have been noted, less appreciated are the large swings in the German two-year yield. Before today, last session with less than a 10 bp range was March 8. In the dozen sessions since, the yield has an average daily range of around 27 bp. The rapid changes and opaque liquidity in some markets leading to dramatic moves challenges the price discovery process. The speed of movement seems to have accelerated, and reports that Silicon Valley Bank lost $40 bln of deposits in a single day.

Italy's Meloni government will tap into a 21 bln euro reserve in the budget to give a three-month extension of help to low-income families cope with higher energy bills but eliminate it for others. It is projected to cost almost 5 billion euros. The energy subsidies have cost about 90 mln euros. Most Italian families are likely to see higher energy bills, though gas will still have a lower VAT. Meloni also intends to adjust corporate taxes to better target them and cost less. Separately, the government is reportedly considering reducing or eliminating the VAT on basic food staples. Meanwhile, the EU is delaying a 19 bln euro distribution to Italy from the pandemic recovery fund. The aid is conditional on meeting certain goals. The EU is extending its assessment phase to review a progress on a couple projects, licensing of port activities, and district heating. These are tied to the disbursement for the end of last year. The EU acknowledged there has been "significant" progress. Italy has received about a third of the 192 bln euros earmarked for it. Despite the volatile swings in the yields, Italy's two-year premium over Germany is within a few basis points of the Q1 average (~46 bp). The same is true of the 10-year differential, which has averaged about 187 bp this year. 

After slipping lower in most of the Asia Pacific session, the euro caught a bid late that carried into the European session and lifted it to session highs near $1.0855. The session low was set slightly below $1.0820 and there are nearly 1.6 bln euros in option expirations today between two strikes ($1.0780 and $1.0800). Recall that on two separate occasions last week, the euro be repulsed from intraday moves above $1.09. A retest today seems unlikely, but the price actions suggest underlying demand. Sterling has also recovered from the slippage seen early in Asia that saw it test initial support near $1.2300. Yesterday, it took out last week's high by a few hundredths of a cent, did so again today rising to slightly above $1.2350. However, here too, the intraday momentum indicators look stretched, cautioning North American participants from looking for strong follow-through buying.

America

What remains striking is the divergence between the market and the Federal Reserve. On rates they are one way. Fed Chair Powell was unequivocal last week. A pause had been considered, but no one was talking about a rate cut this year. The market is pricing in a 4.72% average effective Fed funds rate in July. On the outlook for the economy this year, they are the other way. The median Fed forecast was for the economy to grow by 0.4% this year. The median forecast in Bloomberg's survey anticipated more than twice the growth and projects 1.0% growth this year. As of the end of last week, the Atlanta Fed sees the US expanding by 3.2% this quarter (it will be updated Friday). The median in Bloomberg's survey is half as much. 

The US goods deficit in February was a little more than expected and some of the imports appeared to have gone into wholesale inventories, which unexpectedly rose (0.2% vs. -0.1% median forecast in Bloomberg's survey). Retail inventories jumped 0.8%, well above the 0.2% expected and biggest increase since last August. Given the strength of February retail sales (0.5% for the measure that excludes autos, gasoline, food services and building materials, after a 2.3% rise in January), the increase in retail inventories was likely desired. FHFA houses prices unexpectedly rose in January (first time in three months, leaving them flat over the period). S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller's measure continued to slump. It has not risen since last June. The Conference Board's measure of consumer confidence rose due to the expectations component. This contrasts with the University of Michigan's preliminary estimate that showed the first decline in four months. Moreover, when its final reading is announced at the end of the week, the risk seems to be on the downside, according to the Bloomberg survey. Meanwhile, surveys have shown that the service sector has been faring better than the manufacturing sector. However, the decline in the Richman Fed's business conditions, while its manufacturing survey improved, coupled with the sharp decline in the Dallas Fed's service activity index may be warning of weakness going into Q2.

The US dollar flirted with CAD1.38 at the end of last week is pushing through CAD1.36 today to reach its lowest level since before the banking stress was seen earlier this month. The five-day moving average has crossed below the 20-day moving average for the first time since mid-February. Canada's budget announced late yesterday boosts the deficit via new green initiatives and health spending, while raising taxes, including a new tax on dividend income for banks and insurance companies from Canadian companies. The market appears to be still digesting the implications. Today's range has thus far been too narrow to read much into it. The greenback has traded between roughly CAD1.3590 and CAD1.3615. On the other hand, the Mexican peso has continued to rebound from the risk-off drop that saw the US dollar surge above MXN19.23 (March 20). The dollar is weaker for fifth consecutive session and seventh of the last nine. It finished last week near MXN18.4450 and fell to about MXN18.1230 today, its lowest level since March 9. However, the intraday momentum indicators are stretched, and the greenback looks poised to recover back into the MXN18.20-25 area. Banxico meets tomorrow and is widely expected to hike its overnight target rate by a quarter-of-a-point to 11.25%.

 


Disclaimer

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending