Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category
Strong vs weak dollar
Ahem…. this may or may not be the truth, but in the words of my fellow Low-Country South Carolina expat, Stephen Colbert, it’s certainly “truthy”. Reportedly, according to Huffington Post, The Donald called his national security advisor, Flynn, at 3am, to ask whether a strong dollar or a weak dollar was good for the economy. Reportedly, Flynn told The Donald to ask an economist. Since then, economists of all stripes have offered advice, because, well, this is important stuff for a President to know, along with “war is bad” and “full employment is good” and stuff like that.
So, here we go. I’ll take a stab at it. Whenever the world roils, investors of all stripes look for stable currencies in which to invest, and the dollar is the “mother of all stable currencies”. Until Brexit, the same could be said of the Euro and the Pound. Now, not so much. Anyway, paradoxically, the election of The Donald roiled the world’s zeitgeist, causing investors to seek the dollar, and thus strengthening our currency. Now, what’s the impact? Well, a strong dollar makes it tough to export stuff, but it makes it easy to import stuff. That wrecks the trade imbalance, and costs jobs in exportive industries. Conversely, a weak dollar suggests lack of faith in the American economy, but helps with American jobs, albeit makes American consumption more expensive.
ALSO, a strong dollar makes it easy to borrow. As America runs deficits (both fiscal and trade), we have to borrow and much of this borrowing occurs in foreign markets. Conversely, a weak dollar drives up the cost of borrowing.
In short, if The Donald wants to bring American jobs home, he’ll opt for a weak dollar, but that will inevitably drive up the cost of consumption as well as the cost of borrowing. Ironically, the way to achieve a weak (or lets say, “less strong”) dollar is to achieve some sort of stability in the world, and that doesn’t seem to be in the offing.
Share this:
Economic Baseline
I just returned from a hectic several days in NYC. I have to tell you, the vibrancy of the Big Apple never ceases to amaze me. Then again, I was in Lexington, KY, week-before-last, and the core of downtown is alive with new construction. (My darling wife speaks fondly of the Kilpatrick Index of Economic Activity, which is the number of high-rise cranes I can see from my office window.) I was in Atlanta a week ago, and saw much the same, particularly in the tony suburbs of Cobb County. My own main base of Seattle is awash with new construction.
Bottom line — America is actually working pretty well right now. Unemployment is well under 5%, which is an amazing level for a developed economy. Goldman Sachs tells me that global GDP growth should be in the 3% to 3.5% range in the coming year (where it’s been for the last 5 years) driven in no small part by a healthy U.S. economy. According to tradingeconomics.com, U.S. GDP growth was 3.5% in the 3rd quarter of 2016, and is expected to come in at 1.9% in the 4th quarter. Again, for a developed economy, these are not bad numbers.
One great measure of the health of the job market is the Gallup Job Creation Index, which is a weekly survey of 4,000 working adults. It takes into account both job growth (at the respondents workplace) as well as anticipated job shrinkage. The index bottomed below zero in 2008-09, but has steadily increased since then, and now stands as high as it has since the index was started in early 2008. Inflation has been nearly non-existent for the entire century.
I point all this out, because this is the economic baseline that the Trump Administration takes over. This is what they argue they will improve upon. I don’t doubt that there are corners of the U.S. that aren’t on the same economic plane, and I would concur that we, as a nation, should direct attention in those directions. That said, for the nation as a whole, things are going quite well. Most of us in business have seen the flow chart that starts with the question, “Was it broken?” and asks, “yes” or “no”. If no, then it asks, “did you mess with it?” So, here we are, with an economy that, by and large, works pretty well for most people. Let’s see how this works out…… I’ll keep you posted.
Share this:
Unilateral tariffs
It occurs to me that a few people might not understand why unilateral tariffs against Mexico might be a suicidially bad idea, the global equivalent of “Hey, hold my beer while I try this!”
Here are a few random reasons, just off the top of my head, why this is an amazingly stupid idea… in no particular order…
- Any tariffs on imports from Mexico will be born, 100%, by American consumers, and generally those at the bottom tier of the consumption curve.
- It pisses off our one of our two nearest trading partners, and will undermine our relations with the other one.
- It opens the door for China to create and expand a hedgemony in the Pacific Rim….
- …which, in effect, nullifies the Monroe Doctrine (3 & 4 being the most devastating problem — no one in the Pacific Rim will trust us ever again).
- Since the left coast of our country is vitally dependent on Pacific Rim trade, it’s…. well… I’ve already used the word suicide. Given that Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and California didn’t vote for Trump, why does he care???
- We export zillions of things (trucks, airplanes, software, indie movies, timber, building products, video games, wine — just to name the things that come from MY ZIP CODE) to the Pacific Rim. Kiss those asses goodbye.
- Google “Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1939” and see what you get.
- Unilateral shifts in complex demand curves are theoretically unsupported (OK, that one requires a bit of graduate level econ, but bear with me here.)
- On a practical level, I can now import anything I want from El Salvador at a price 1% higher than I previously received from Mexico. Thus, I’ve simply baked in a 1% consumer inflation to be borne entirely by folks who shop at Wal Mart (see #1 above).
- Oh Christ it’s such a stupid idea….
Share this:
A brief word about leadership
If you ever get the chance to visit a Marine unit in the field, do so at mealtime. You’ll note that the lowest private gets fed first. Then the sergeants. Then the officers. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps happens to be there, he eats last. This may sound like a trivial issue, but its usually the trivial stuff that conveys the most important messages. Full disclosure — I was not a Marine, I hung out briefly in the Navy and the National Guard, but had a brother in law, a nephew, and many good friends who served in the Corps. If I had to do it over again, I would head to Quantico in a heartbeat. Second piece of full disclosure — every person who gets elevated to a leadership role at Greenfield gets a copy of David Freedman’s excellent book, Corps Business, the 30 Management Princples of the U.S. Marines. I cannot recommend it too highly.
Leadership is a sacred thing, on an international scale purchased with lives and national treasure. Since World War II, the United States has been the essential nation, exerting leadership directly in the free world and indirectly in the rest of it. This does not come without an ongoing cost, but by and large Americans have enjoyed a standard of living far superior to that seen anywhere else on the globe. In the long run, it works that way. Marine officers eat last in the field, and are the first to jump off the helicopter in the landing zone. On the other hand, there’s better liquor in the officers club, and Generals get padded chairs.
That said, I was terribly disturbed at the inaugural address, and particularly how it’s been interpreted abroad. In short, we have gone from a role of leadership to a role of “America First, and everyone else last.” (History note — google America First and see what you get.) In the long run, this is an economically suicidal strategy. (History note — google “protectionism” and “Smoot Hartley Tariff Act” and see what you get.). Now, apparently, we want to be the first ones in line to get fed, and the last ones to jump off the helicopter in the LZ. Sigh….. we’ll see how this turns out. Fortunately, the White House has promised us “alternate facts”, so perhaps it won’t seem so bad in the 1984-sequel we seem to be living.
Share this:
Vinyl record sales
First, a big caveat — this post is NOT going where you think it’s going. It’s only peripherally about vinyl record sales.
Second, I’ve made my peace with digital music. Thanks to somewhat degraded hearing (not deaf, but you know…) I don’t pick up the subtleties of vinyl records. Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely in love with rock music, particularly some of the new stuff that’s better than we give it credit, but my ears are not dexterous enough to appreciate vinyl. That said, vinyl record sales in 2017 are expected to top $1 Billion. I’ll let that sink in for a minute, because back in the day, my expenses on turntables, speakers, headphones, etc, dwarfed my actual expenditures on vinyl records. Add it all up, and this is a huge business. There continues to be a huge amount of money in this world, and inventive people who figure out ways to market to the demands of folks who have that money, or who have needs in the 21st century, will prosper.
Which leads me inexorably to entrepreneurism. The story 0f the internet revolution has been one of entrepreneurism. I won’t belabor it, only to note that a bunch of college-age kids (often drop-outs — I’m looking at you, Bill Gates) took IBM, DEC, Wang, Amdall, and a bunch of others out back of the barn. I was in the supercomputer biz in 1990-1994 (as an academic, running a scholarly program) and I can tell you NONE of the big-ass suit-and-tie companies I was working with then are still in biz, save for Intel that saw the writing on the wall and got out of supercomputers and back into chips where they belonged. In short, great strides foward in our economy have been made — indeed, have always been made — by entrepreneurs, usually working tirelessly in the shadows.
Which leads me to Robert Henlein. If you haven’t read him, he’s one of the deepest of the deep thinking science fiction authors. Among the top four or five on everyone’s list. Naval Academy (which is where I met him, as a 19-year-old midshipman, 40+ years ago), then a masters in engineering, washed up by 30 with tuberculosis, he dragged himself up to become a masterful writer. Stranger in a Strange Land alone has spawned an untold number of PH.Ds. In creating his fictional worlds, he noted that new colonies always thrived quicker and better than the monther planet. Why, you say? Because it takes a certain gumption, a certain spirit, a certain amount of energy, to jump on a boat on the high seas (or, in his case, in outer space) and take a risk on a new place. The western U.S. thrived because disillusioned Civil War vets — blue and grey — struck out for a new land with new opportunities. Heinlein, an early 20th century Coloradan, saw that first hand.
Which leads me to the wet-foot-dry-foot rule, and all that accompanies it. I note that the Obama administration, for reasons I don’t fully grasp, suddenly suspended the rule this past week. I had the opportunity to go to Cuba last January, and was amazed and overwhelmed buy the entrepreneurship of the people. It’s tough to eek out a living in a totalitarian, centrally-planned dictatorship, but many people seem to do it in a style we can only hope to emulate. As a west-coaster, I’ve seen how the influx of Asian immigrants have fueled the entrepreneurship of the internet age. As a native of the south, steeped in east-coast-ness, I know how our country has been fueled by wave after wave of immigrants from every corner of our planet. In every one of our major cities there is a jewish tailor, there’s a mid-easterner with a falafel stand, an Indian with a hotel, a Chinese merchant, an Italian eatery, a Nisei left with nothing at the end of WW II who started a business and built a fortune. These may seem like stereotypes, but these stereotypes built the nation I call home, and swore to defend w-a-a-a-ay back when. I spend a bunch of my time in Key West, where eastern Europeans have built some nice homes by setting up janitorial businesses and t-shirt shops, doing work I wouldn’t do.
I agree — the laws should be followed, and illegal immigration should be dealt with. But how? Arguably, the deck has been stacked terrifically against brown skinned folks and in favor of people who look and sound like me. The folks who we endeavor to keep out are often the most inventive, figuring out how to make markets out of janitorial services, falafel stands, and yes, selling vinyl records to music afficianados. I’d like to keep America great, and I would argue that only with a constant influx of new, inventive, aggressive, creative blood, that may be a problem.
Share this:
Mueller’s Market Cycle Monitor
I was giving a brief presentation on real estate two weeks ago, and mentioned Glenn Mueller’s great Market Cycle Monitor, which is actually owned and produced by Dividend Capital Research in Denver. Dr. Mueller is a professor at Denver U, and the Market Cycle Monitor stems from a paper he wrote back in the 1990’s. The Monitor basically examines commercial real estate across four phases — recovery, expansion, hypersupply, and recession. It then examines real estate subsectors across these phases (suburban offices, downtown offices, factory outlet retail, etc.) and then examines the top markets in the top 55 geographic markets. If all of this seems massively complicated, Dr. Mueller makes it relatively easy to understand, with great explanations of his graphical presentations.
By the way, the four phases are determined in the context of rising and falling occupancy, rents, and new construction. Thus, a property type or market in recovery evidences declining vacancy rates and no new construction, which leads to rising rents and values. The expansion phase is marked when the market or property type occupancy rises above the long term occupancy average, and that phase evidences continued declining vacancy and some new construction. After occupancy peaks, and begins to decline, the market or property type enters the hypersupply phase, marked by increasing vacancy yet continued new construction. A property type or market enters the recession phase when occupancy falls below long term averages, and yet increasing vacancy rates are met with increased completions of new properties. The report goes on to explain the impacts on rents, rent changes, and how rental rates interact with construction feasibility at different levels of the cycle. Simply reading the Market Cycle Monitor is a great primer on how commercial real estate markets work.
Simply collecting the data is a bear, so there is usually a 2 month delay producing the report. The most recent report covers the 3rd quarter, 2016, and was produced in late November. While the report covers 55 markets and 12 different property type sub-markets, the data generally spans five major property types — office, industrial, apartments, retail, and hotels. Three of the five sectors (office, industrial, and retail) had improving occupancy in 3Q16 and improving rents. Hotel occupancy was flat, but room rates actually increased, albeit at only 2.2% annually. Apartment occupancy actually declined 0.1% in 3Q16, but room rates increased at an annual rate of 3.2%.
The remainder of the report is packed with great information, and extremely readable. Check with Dividend Capital for a copy, or send me an e-mail.
Share this:
Merry Christmas to all!
Hope everyone’s having a great holiday season (Christmas here, but with homage to Hanukkah, Kwanza, Winter Solstice, Festivus, and such and so forth….)! Needless to say, 2016 has continued is reign of terror — our condolences go out to the families of Carrie Fisher, George Michael, and a long list of folks who left us w-a-a-a-a-a-y too soon. (We lost three of my favorite space travelers this year — John Glenn, Carrie Fisher, and David Bowie!) This past year suggests the United States may have been founded on an old Native American burial ground….
Ahhh… but enough on that. NAREIT tells me this morning that 2016 was a tough one for REITs in general, but 2017 looks better. (My wife’s Pomeranian could have written THAT press release.) On a somewhat more realistic tone, private equity fund raising is projected to be down among real estate funds in the coming year, which does not portent good things. The Limited appears to be poised for bankruptcy filing, and many (most?) stores that are still open are refusing to accept returns this week. I just wandered into a shopping mall this morning (as I do about twice a year) and noted that The Limited was boarded up. The timing is interesting, since retailers do about 14% of their holiday sales during the week AFTER Christmas.
On another note, S&P CoreLogic’s Case Shiller Index (whew… a mouthful for something started as a student’s MBA project a few years ago…) just announced that house prices from October 2015 to October 2016 rose 5.8%, which isn’t a bad number, and in fact may be a bit high given the present rate of inflation. However, this doesn’t take into account the impact of November’s election, and the likelihood that newly empowered Republicans in Congress will likely tighten capital constraints on major banks. (Ha-Ha-Ha to everyone who thought the GOP was in the pockets of the bankers.) This portends tightening of capital throughout the lending system. Add to this that the dollar is strengthening (the dollar always strengthens in the wake of global uncertainty, irrespective of the source of the uncertainty!) and you get declines both on the supply side and demand side for capital. Couple with this both recent and impending rate hikes at the FED, and one has to wonder what will be a good investment in 2017. (Hint — cash continues to be King.)
Once again, this blog is NOT investment advice, and Greenfield and its senior folks may, from time to time, have investments in things discussed here. It’s just a blog… nothing more….
Well, by for now! May the Force be with you!
Share this:
FED raises rates — now what?
There is plenty of news about the FED bumping rates today — a whopping 0.25% (“yawn”) and only the 2nd time in a decade. The argument is that the FED no longer sees low rates as a needed crutch for the economy. Perhaps they’re right. My interest is real estate — how will higher rates impact property returns? More to the point, if the Trump administration goes ahead with infrastructure spending, as was promised, and the FED follows with further rate bumps, as has been projected, will real estate continue its upward climb?
Rather than answer that directly, there’s a great piece on that topic from TIAA — you can access it by clicking here. Looking at data from back to 1980, TIAA finds that real estate appears to perform just as well during periods of rising rates as it does in other times. Indeed, they find a 70% correlation between acquisition cap rates and long-term Treasury rates, suggesting that real estate buyers are agnostic on rates, within reason. Indeed, as the graphic above indicates, the most upsetting quarterly property returns came during periods of relatively stable, downward trending long-bond rates. For the last half-decade, quarterly property returns have tracked the long-bond quite nicely.
So there ya have it, folks.
Share this:
Livingston Survey
I’ve noted in the past that one of my favorite economic forecasts comes from the Philadelphia FED. The semi-annual Livingston Survey captures the sentiments of 28 leading economic forecasters on key metrics, such as unemployment, GDP growth, and inflation. Year after year, the forecast remains fairly accurate and steady — much to the disappointment of politicians who fail to realize that the worlds largest non-centrally-planned economy changes course fairly slowly.
Of course, 2017 may be a bit of an exception. Indeed, so was 2009. The forecast can’t take into account shocks to the system (such as the recent economic melt-down) nor can it handle significant policy shifts from D.C. I have some “gut” feelings that differ a bit from the Livingston folks, and I’ll note those at the end.
Now, on to the details. GDP growth for the second half of 2016 was a bit better than had been previously forecast, coming in at about 2.7% rather than the previously forecast 2.4%. Looking forward, the forecasters project a 2.2% annualized growth in the economy during the first half of the coming year, rising slightly to 2.4% in the second half of 2017.
Ironically, unemployment appears to be coming in slightly higher than forecasted, about 4.9% rather than the previously projected 4.7%. Of course, neither of these numbers is anything to complain about. Forecasters look to continued improvement in the unemployment numbers through the coming year, ending up around 4.6% next December.
Inflation measured by the consumer price index (CPI) is right on target at 1.3%. Next year, forecasters are projecting 2.4% (slightly up from previous 2017 forecasts) and the crystal balls (which is all they are this far out) suggest 2.5% in 2018. The yield curve is ending the year a bit steeper than previously projected. Earlier forecasts put the short end (3-month T-Bill) at 0.75% and the long end (10-year) at 2.25%. Currently, they see the year ending at 0.55% and 2.3% respectively. For 2017, the soothsayers forecast a year-end 1.12% at the short end and 2.75% at the high. This is somewhat higher at the high end and lower at the near end than had been projected previously, suggesting an expectation of higher overall interest rates in the future. Finally, forecasters see the stock market rising over the next two years, but at a fairly lackluster rate.
I promised my own bit of forecasting. During the tumultuous months surrounding the recent melt-down, I played a bit of follow-the-leader with this survey, and went on record that the melt-down would be short-lived. Boy was I wrong! As noted, this survey is pretty good when the economic ship is on a steady course, but doesn’t handle rough water very well. For the past several years, we’ve had an unprecedented period of economic growth, by all metrics (GDP, stock prices, unemployment, and inflation). Just from a pure market-cycle perspective, we may be overdue for some unpleasantries. Looking at the political horizon, I’ve already noted that politicians are generally disappointed that the economy doesn’t move as quickly as they wish or even in the desired directly. That said, we have a Congress that is frothing to trim the Federal budget, and will probably opt to do so in the transfer payments arena (welfare, health care subsidies, etc.). They’ll hope to balance this with tax cuts. However, tax cuts fall slowly, and on one sector of the economy, while entitlement cuts (and any budget cuts, for that matter) happen quickly and are usually borne by a different segment of the economy. I think I’ll be watching GDP reports fairly closely for the next couple of years. I would note what happened in the years leading up to the 1982 recession — not withstanding inflation (driving nominal interest rates), the economy looked OK in 1981, and the metrics were generally pointed in the right direction. (For a good visual representation, I’d refer you to the August, 1981, report to Congress of the Council of Economic Advisors, a copy of which you can view on the St. Louis FED’s website by clicking here.)
All in all, we’ve been focused on politics for the past several months, and now we’re going to find if those political decisions have actual economic repercussions. Stay tuned!
Share this:
How many homes do we need?
It is HARD to keep up with a blog when the news seems to move out from under you every day. Now that the election is over, we can get back to normal stuff, like how’s the economy doing and where do we go from here.
Back on the campaign trail, ONE of the presidential candidates (HE will remain nameless) complained about the level of home ownership, which hit the “lowest level” in 50 years or so. Admittedly, that’s true, but also a bit misleading. Since the peak — which led, by the way, to the recent mortgage melt-down, home ownership in America declined from 69.2% (June, 2004) to 62.9%% (June, 2016). That’s not a huge decline, but indicative of just how sensitive our economy is to the level of home ownership. I’ll be the first one to admit (and in my early days, I did more than a bit of research on this) that lots of good things eminate from new home construction and from the home brokerage business. For one, there are a lot of good jobs at stake — from skilled carpentry to mortgage lending and everything in-between. I’ll also note that there have been many studies thru the years focused on the social benefits of home ownership, which add to neighborhood quality, school quality, and even reduced crime levels.
That said, most good things come in “optimum” levels. For example, eating a well balanced diet is superior to either starving or binge eating. Human bodies are optimized for a temperature of 98.6F, and will die if internal temps are sustained even a few degrees on either side. Not enough water and you die, and yet people drown each year from too much. See the connection?
Home ownership would not have hit record levels without lending practices that were neither healthy nor sustainable. We don’t know exactly what the optimum level of home ownership in the U.S. economy might be, since the economy is anything but static. However, right now, the economy seems to be chugging along quite nicely with current home ownership levels. Are we at a sustainable optimum? Perhaps, but only time, and stable economic policies, will give us some empirical data.
From a small northwestern observatory... 