McKinsey on Economic Regulation: Calling a Spade a Spade...

...or stating the Obvious?


Mckinsey Quarterly just put out an article highlighting the need in the current economic scenario for an increased cooperation between business leaders and regulators. The article states that "As concern over global problems mounts, executives and regulators have everything to gain from building relationships based on trust, and developing solutions that benefit a wide range of stakeholders". First of all I think this is a key area to address as the average Joe asks how come their elected leaders stood by while the business machinery took the free markets doctrine to illogical extremes. If people were rational and self-regulating we wouldn't have the need for the police and the judicial system, and if businesses were rational we wouldn't need the FTC and the SEC. At the same time 2008 was not just about the failure of the free markets system and the article doesn't address some regulatory limitations on dealing with the special circumstances surrounding 2008. In spite of the breadth of the current economic problems, truth of the matter is that trouble began with capital markets and the blatant securitization of all kinds of assets, the true economic risks of which regulators weren't really equipped to assess. Secondly, to some extent the economy validated at least one aspect of the free markets philosophy- survival of the fittest. Take the US domestic automotive sector for instance- these guys were in trouble long before the housing bubble and sub-prime crisis began. The credit crisis and their stocks tanking is forcing them into extinction as their ratings get slashed and they struggle to meet their debt obligations, but the it all boils down to their inability to compete with foreign automakers- evolution principles in action.

So the Recession is finally official- Now What?

On Friday, November 28, 2008 the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research announced a peak in economic activity in December 2007. Since it is the NBER's sacred and ordained task to announce recession beginings and end, finally everyone including the government can admit that we are in an official recession until the NBER announces a 'trough', signalling the end of the recession. Interestingly, neither the GDP or the GDI (Gross Domestic Income) showed an extremely clear pattern in the two consecutive quarters of decline rule to identify a peak, only the payroll employment seems to have declined every month since December '07 and the NBER seems to have weighed heavily on this metric to dtermine that we reached a peak in economic activity in December '07. Interestingly, I had posted previously in Is GDP a Consistent Measure? No, GDP is actually a Deceptive Measure... that relying purely on the GDP to determine the state of the economy is not a good idea since this measure may no longer be as reliable as it used to be in the past. Even if the financial markets and the economic production begins to stabilize, employment may continue to decline (economists are expecting Friday's employment report to be abysmal at a 325,000 decline- ADP has reported a 250,000 decline in the private sector). What probably is also driving private sector declines is the fact that stock prices are down in the dumps and management will continue to leverage every opportunity to be efficient by cutting costs to appease shareholders, until revenue growth returns to a point where it offsets the need to improve profit margins through cost-cutting. After the 2001 recession, jobs took 4 years to return to peak levels according to the Economic Policy Institute and if that is any indicator, we are looking at late 2011 early 2012 for a full recovery. With the dramatic decline in House Prices and the bleak performance of retirement accounts, households are increasing their savings rate in "safer" securities (typically bonds), as they can no longer rely on their real estate equity as a retirement cushion. In any case we are a long way from getting out of the woods.

Ghilarducci's Guaranteed Retirement Account Plan & The Macroeconomy

The last couple of weeks there's this rumor that's been floating around that the Government plans to do away with 401K and replace them with what is being called Guaranteed Retirement Account. The idea apparently originates from an economist, Teresa Ghilarducci, who put forward a paper "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts Toward retirement income security" in November 2007. A year after the paper was published, in the wake of one of the worst financial crises in the history of the US, the author was apparently called to testify before Congress as the paper caught the government's eye. The paper proposes that workers "not enrolled in an equivalent or better defined-benefit pension" be enrolled in a "GRA" plan that combines the best features of defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans, offering workers guaranteed (?) retirement benefits- contributions will earn a rate of return guaranteed by the federal government. Upon retirement these funds will convert into annuities. Ghilarducci claims that combined with Social Security, these annuities will replace 70% of pre-retirement earnings (I thought most of the folks who entered the workforce within the past decade had given up ever seeing their Social Security benefits?). Participants would be guaranteed a fixed rate of return that exceeds inflation by 3 percent (but remember you are foregoing the opportunity to generate market returns on your investment- not amounting much today, which is why we are even entertaining this discussion I guess). Assuming this thing works and the Feds will be able to deliver on their promise, what will be the fallout from pulling that kind of capital out of the investment markets? Of the total $17.1 Trillion in U.S. retirement assets, mutual funds managed $2.2 Trillion, while IRAs accounted for $4.5 Trillion (data as of March 31, 2008 from Investment Company Institute). If a $0.75 Trillion bailout was going to pull us out of the financial crisis, what will be the outcome of withdrawing $6.9 Trillion out of capital markets? Or am I missing the math completely?

October Retail Sales

Macy's reported a disappointing sales for the third quarter losing $44 million. Other retailers are expected to report quarterly results later this week including JC Penney, Kohl's and Nordstrom. Few retailers are already reporting poor sales number for the month of October, which is going to put added pressure on the market and the economy. This is going to be a roller coaster fourth quarter.

Enjoy....

The U.S. GDP & The Non-farm Payroll

On the heels of one of the worst ISM Manufacturing Index numbers in over two decades, the Employment numbers that come out on Friday were expected to be bleak- and it exceeded this expectation as the decline was 40K worse than the consensus average of -200K. The report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is based on two different surveys with different sample sizes and the bigger focus is on the Non Farm Payroll number that comes out of the establishment survey because this survey is more comprehensive with a much larger sample size than the household survey (375,000 businesses vs. 60,000 Households). The number of total employed persons in the U.S. population has been falling for 10 consecutive months and in October '08 there are 1,138,000 fewer employed persons in the U.S. compared to the November '07 peak of 138,037,000. And all this time economists have been debating whether it's really a recession or not- fact of the matter is the relationship between Employment and GDP may not be what it was in the past- correlating Quarterly change trends in GDP vs Employment (15-year moving window) indicates that this relationship may be only half of what it was 4 decades back.

The Economy has become much more complex than what it was back then and we may need to be redefining how we look at these economic indicators.

ISM Manufacturing Index says the worst is not over yet in the U.S. Economy

So we were just talking about how the GDP is not a very consistent measure of the economy.
The Institute for Supply Managements Manufacturing index (formerly known as the NAPM Survey) just came out today and this little guy's been historically good at measuring contractions. The Index is constructed such that levels at 50 or above signal growth in the manufacturing sector, which is a good measure of actual demand. Levels between 43 and 50 indicate the economy is still growing but the manufacturing sector is slowing down it's activities in anticipation of lowering demand. Levels below 43 indicate that the manufacturing sector is taking drastic measures to counter a significant and extended slowdown in demand- basically the manufacturing sector considers the economy in deep recession. Guess what the Index number that came out today read? 38.9- a 26 year low, just 1 basis point above the September 1982 low of 38.8! This underscores the importance of credit in today's economy in a way, the bank's tightening of the credit faucet, and the events in the Financial markets and broader economy, consumer spending has taken a beating. Another point no one is factoring is the impact of people becoming austere in their spending to shore up their battered retirement accounts. With over a Trillion dollars lost in the country's retirement funds, people who were planning to retire within the next 1 to 2 decades are going to need to increase their savings rate to offset the loss of this year. Guess what that means for spending?

The Employment Situation report is coming out later this week, with such a drastic drop in manufacturing, I am expecting a pretty gloomy picture with the Non Farm Payroll number.

Is GDP a Consistent Measure? No, GDP is actually a Deceptive Measure...

In economics, expert and layman alike keep looking at the GDP quarter over quarter for some direction as to the true health of the economy. Talk about the blind leading the lame! If bubbles are reflective of an inflation of values of goods and assets, be it stocks, real estate or currencies, then an inconsistent metric is one that lacks robustness not to be influenced by bubbles. Look at the GDP- it is easily swayed by pretty much any bubble there is out there. The GDP may have been a good measure when the world was simpler, and production and consumption were driven by real growth in wealth, not by credit cards and home equity loans. According to Federal reserve statistics, Revolving Home Equity $100 Billion to $200 Billion from 1997 to 2002, but from 2002 to 2006 reached $500 Billion. It is difficult to believe that people's equity in their homes more than doubled in 4 years, so basically they were riding the wave of the real estate bubble and an artificial inflation in the value of their homes (old news now since even your neighborhood grocer by now knows about the sub-prime crisis). What's bad for the GDP (even Real GDP) as a metric is how much it is influenced by consumption (more than 2/3rd). With such a spike in Home Equity withdrawal, consumption is bound to spike as well, but this growth in consumtpion can hardly be said to be driven by a real increase in wealth and well-being- it is all driven by money advanced through Home Equity withdrawal, on the assumption of sustained growth in Home prices and not as much due to a genuine increase in actual Home Equity. When that market corrected it was payback time for all the uncontrolled spending driven by Home Equity- and GDP as a metric, was not able to see through that scam.