Why is 20 % of the American Workforce Unemployed?

Posted on September 25, 2012

Originally Published at Global Economic Intersection under the title Buddy Can You Spare a Dime?

Written by , Capital Matters

Republicans are heartless monsters who have no compassion for the victims of a financial crash they caused by manipulating Wall Street.”

Democrats are committed to destroy the American system by redistributing the hard-earned products and services of America’s businesses to shiftless moochers.”

duel-chipmunks-360x361

Wow, are we making progress in the current political debate!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow up:

Cyclical or Structural?

For economists the discussion revolves around a more civil discourse on whether the current high level of unemployment results from a severe cyclical downturn or from a structural change in the American economy. The Federal Reserve has forcefully adopted the cyclical downturn mantra, committing $500 billion per year to the assumption that, with more financial stimulus, the jobs will come back.

Buffalo Springfield’s insight from the 1960s is still valid:

I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down
What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

A Big Bet With Millions of Human Poker Chips

We are in the process of making an enormous bet with the American economy. The risks are not trivial: inflation, deflation, financial and social collapse are just a few. Yet what if this bet is being made based upon a misunderstanding of the problem with which we are faced.

Steven Hansen recently produced a rather depressing chart showing that, despite a period of steady economic recovery, civilian employment in relation to population flatlined beginning in late 2009, after a very sharp drop from 63% to 58% during the financial crisis.

employment-population-ratio-2007-2012

The Robot read the rest

A Swan Blacker Than The Darkest Night

Posted on August 18, 2012

Interest Rates Rise at 2652% Annualized Rate! That’s probably a headline you will not see in the Wall Street Journal and it’s certainly a bit over the top, but those are the facts. From July 18 to August 17, the interest rate on the two-year Treasury jumped from .22% to .29%. That’s a 32% one month increase and works out to an annual jump of 2652% if you compound the increase monthly. Just to be fair the ten-year rate “only” rose from 1.52% to 1.81% or about 19% over the same period. With the magic of compound interest that generates a far more benign 713% annualized rate rise.

If you haven’t already done the math, those growth rates would take you to a 43.8% annual interest rate on the two year a year from now and a 12.9% interest rate on the ten year at that point. Of course that is not going to happen. Most likely we’ve just seen a random fluctuation in an overbought market. The Fed has promised to keep interest rates low for an extended period after all.

We’ve been saying for some time that the seeds have been planted for a move into a period of stagflation comparable to what we saw from the mid-1960’s and the 1970’s. That move, which transformed the benign inflation of the 1950’s to a raging inferno by the end of the period, eventually took Treasury rates for the 10 year to unheard of levels of 15% by the end of the 1970’s. This resulted in a collapse of the bond market and the eventual failure of entire savings and loan industry in the United States in the 1980s.

The United States and most of the developed world have benefited tremendously over the past 30 years from a steady drop in long-term bond rates.… read the rest

QE Anyone?

Posted on August 10, 2012

If anyone doubts we are moving to more monetary accommodation, take a look at the excerpt below from last night’s U.S. Financial Data release from the St. Louis Fed. The lower right hand corner reflects the most recent trends.

In June, we posted an article indicating a seeming correlation between the trend in direction and magnitude of U.S. M2 growth and U.S. economic activity. The decline in the M2 growth rate has now turned, and is headed up again, as you can see below, but the turn is not as dramatic as the growth in the Monetary Base.

We’ve previously stated our concern that the U.S. could be heading into a period of rapidly increasing inflation, similar to that experienced in the early 1970s that led to many years of stagflation, only ending with Mr. Volcker’s monetary castor oil. We’ve got all the ingredients, including this summer’s rapid runup in commodity prices. The past twelve month the GDP price deflator has dropped from 2.4% to 1.9% on an annual basis, averaging a bit above the Fed’s 2% target. 2-3% is in the range where the 1970’s inflation began to take off. Yet, we’re in a period where many, if not most, observers have been talking recession and increased likelihood of deflation. Real inflation will come as a black swan for many, with significant implications for both fixed income and equity markets.

Could the current round of easing be the spark that finally ignites the inflationary flame? There are lots of reasons to suspect that’s possible. Calculated Risk just supported a growing belief that housing may finally be bottoming. Declining home prices have been a primary force that’s kept inflation in check for the past few years. Add to that a renewed commodity spiral, annual wage inflation in China hitting 13-15% and evidence that the read the rest

Are We Measuring the Wrong Money Supply … Again?

Posted on June 12, 2012

Back in 2008 we wrote that the U. S. was facing a serious credit squeeze in part because we had failed to take into account some important structural changes in the credit markets: i.e. the rapid growth and subsequent collapse of the Shadow Banking system. Since then the Fed and the Treasury have spent enormous resources addressing the impact of that collapse through the purchase of assets from financial institutions, the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie and numerous other actions to prop up the housing market in hopes of repairing shrunken balance sheets throughout the economy.

We may be suffering from a different, but equally portentous, issue today arising from another misreading of what the term money really means. In response to our recent article on Fed tightening since the fall of 2011, John Lounsbury, Managing Editor of econintersect.com, made a very astute observation:

You do not mention it in your article but is it possible that the Fed has not been taking a sufficiently global view and has insufficiently reacted to a recessing Europe and a rapidly slowing Asia? India just dropped to a GDP growth rate below anything seen during the Great Financial Crisis. The manufacturing numbers in China have been flirting with contraction for several months. If the Fed reacts to these factors after they have gained a solid foothold, doesn’t that likely increase the magnitude of the yo-yo swings?

The U.S. dollar is without question the world’s reserve currency and the current problems of the Euro have only served to cement that position. Given the global demand for $100 bills, in many parts of the globe the dollar is not only the reserve currency, but the defacto physical currency as well. Yet we continue to look at money as a national, or in the case of the Euro, regional … read the rest

Will Business Owners Hit the Bid in 2012?

Posted on January 24, 2012

Over the years one of the best indicators of M&A activity has been what I call the Free Lunch Index. I live in Memphis, normally not a hotbed of middle market M&A activity.  That’s why my practice is national in scope.  When banks or private equity groups do come to town looking for deals, I often get a call for lunch, breakfast or coffee.

Since the crash in 2008 it’s been fairly lonely out here and I pretty much buy my own lunches. Starting this month, however, I’ve seen a marked pickup in calls and lunch invitations.  The word appears to be out among both the private equity groups and the financial institutions that now is the time to get back into the market and they’re actually spending money to look for deals.

Our experience at Focus indicates that business sale interest has increased strongly since yearend. Apparently we are not alone.  Cyprium Partners, a leading mezzanine financing specialist, recently completed a survey of 175 investment-banking firms throughout the U. S.  Among their findings, 44% of respondents reported more assignments signed or in the market than at a comparable time in 2010.  56% reported that new business pitches were up and less than 10% of the firms reported lower activity.  Bottom line the M&A business is improving and that’s consistent with our belief that the overall economy will surprise to the upside.

It’s no secret that the U. S. private equity industry has been in a depression over the past three years.

Source: Pitchbook

Private equity deal flow showed great promise this time last year, but fell precipitously by the end of 2011.  Interestingly, according to Capital IQ, global aggregate annual deal flow in terms of number of transactions has been far more stable while dollar values have fluctuated widely.

Year                          # of  … read the rest

Is 2012 More Like 1972 Than 1992?

Posted on January 23, 2012

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are quick to remind us that twenty years ago they lifted America from the depths of recession, initiating an unprecedented period of prosperity, jobs growth and balanced budgets. Sounds nice, but what if the America of today bears a closer relationship to 1972 than 1992?

In January 1972 America was a bit over a year past the recession of 1969-1970. We had spent much of the prior decade mired in increasingly unpopular wars that had placed a huge drain on the nation’s financial resources and we were headed toward a messy exit from our Asian adventure. The Democratic Party was so ideologically divided that it was preparing to nominate George McGovern as its presidential candidate and thus give a resounding second term victory to Richard Nixon. After hitting an all time high of just under 1000 in 1968, the Dow Jones Industrials had experienced a sharp drop during 1969-1970 recession, but had since rallied back to near its highs and was poised to continue to rise into the election season.

Source: Capital IQ

On the monetary front the U. S. had been engaged in a period of what we would now call quantitative easing, funding debts incurred in the Vietnam War through the printing of new money. M2 had grown 12% in 1971 and was poised to grow another 12% in 1972. As a result the U. S. was running a then unheard of balance of payments deficit and had been forced off the gold standard in August of 1971.

Subsequent events certainly did not turn out well for the U. S. While inflation remained comparatively mild in 1972 at 3.7% for the year, the rate of price growth jumped to 6% by the end of 1973 and 11% in 1974. The ensuing recession of 1973-1975 was comparable in … read the rest

Is QE3 Already Underway?

Posted on January 17, 2012

Much ink is being spilled on when/if the Fed will move to the next iteration of its quantitative easing program. That’s the wrong question. The Fed and the world’s other major monetary authorities have effectively been captured by national treasuries running historically high budgetary deficits and their chief function has become the funding of governmental expenditures that cannot or will not be funded through taxes. Continued pressure to monetize the debt is a foregone conclusion so long as the deficits continue at their current levels.

A year ago we explored Chairman Bernanke’s position that “QE II (the purchase of long term Treasury Bonds by the Federal Reserve) is not inflationary and has not created an explosion of the money supply.”

How could it be the case that rapid monetary expansion could be accomplished without an inflationary impact? Keynes, though much maligned and misused, provided a clear explanation for this one with his description of a “liquidity trap”. In normal credit environments new reserves added to the banking system are magically multiple through the working of fractional banking, creating a significant multiplier effect on business activity throughout the economy.

In a liquidity trap this no longer works; reserves just sit at the banks and the money multiplier sinks. That’s where we are today as recently outlined by Paul McCulley, Chairman of the Society of Fellows of the Global Interdependence Center and former PIMCO trader, in a recent CNBC interview. As a result the Fed has been able to create in excess of $1.5 Trillion of excess bank reserves since the 2008 crash


(Click to enlarge)

Looked at globally, the trend is even more dramatic.


(Click to enlarge)

Source: Zero Hedge

The size of the combined Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and Bank of Japan balance sheets has grown from a historical norm of … read the rest

Inequality Debate Based on Bad Data

Posted on December 19, 2011

America is stumbling toward one of the most important decisions it has made in decades: how to bring our financial accounts back to a sustainable balance.  Due to a lack of perspective on tax policy over time, the political decision makers and the media have accepted misleading data with regard to an assumed increase in inequality of income as the primary framework for the debate.

With tax receipts at historic lows and expenditures heading for the stratosphere, no rational observer doubts that this decision will entail a combination of both spending cuts and tax hikes.  Republican rhetoric aside, the real question on the tax side of the debate is how these tax increases will be structured.  I am increasingly concerned that Congress will make a huge mistake that will penalize the mid-sized businesses, i.e. growing companies with 50 to 500 employees, that serve as the backbone of American productivity and that are the only hope for domestic jobs growth.

Let’s start with a bit of history from my personal experience, first as a business and tax lawyer and for twenty-eight years as an investment banker serving entrepreneurial businesses in M&A and arranging business financings.  When I started in practice, essentially all substantial businesses with which we worked were structured as C Corporations.  A typical client might be a manufacturer with 100 plus employees, revenue of $10 million plus and pre-tax profits of $1-2 million.  The owner often took a surprisingly small salary, say $100-125,000, paid a small amount of personal expenses from the business and retained the rest of the company’s profits in the corporation.

As a result of changes in federal tax law and the parallel development of Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs), a major shift from C-Corporations to pass-through entities began in the middle 1980s.  To demonstrate how dramatic this shift has been, … read the rest

Categories: Banks, Economics, Inequality, Innovation, Taxes

Tags: Tags: , , , ,

Permalink | | Comments Off on Inequality Debate Based on Bad Data

We’re Seven Months into the Great Mess. What’s Going to Happen Next?

Posted on April 14, 2009

Seven months ago (Monday September 15, 2008) we learned of the failure of Lehman Brothers and soon thereafter the sale of Merrill Lynch and the bailout of AIG.  These events were the culmination of a series of market shocks that had started with the demise of the sub-prime loan market, had accelerated with the collapse of the leveraged loan market starting in August 2007 and had included the takeover of Bear Stearns in March 2008.  But September 15, 2008 is the current era’s equivalent of 1929’s Black Monday.

Since September we have witnessed dramatic governmental actions designed to prevent the current crisis from descending into a downward spiral reminiscent of the 1930s.  For the moment, the stock market seems to be giving these actions (as well as our charismatic new President) a vote of confidence.  We’re also hearing from some of our clients that their operations improved in March and that they are more optimistic about their businesses looking toward the summer.  Another “green shoot” is the middle market M&A market, where I spend much of my time.  The M&A market has definitely improved since the first of the year and indications are that it will remain reasonably strong for a while, at least for profitable companies in favored industries such as government contracting, IT services and health care.

So what is the economic scorecard to date and what can we expect to see going forward?

1)    The World economy is in the midst of the first major global recession of the postwar era.  Global trade has been collapsed for many of the major exporters, particularly China, Japan and Germany.

china-exports1

While there have been some recent hints that the rate of decline is slowing (the second derivative of negative growth) or even bouncing a little, world trade is still an area of significant concern.  … read the rest

How Much Risk is the Treasury Really Assuming from the Financial Institutions?

Posted on April 7, 2009

What does it really mean to talk about saving “the banks”?  The Treasury would like us to have a mental picture of Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life, protecting the savings and mortgages of the good citizens of Bedford Falls.  In truth, for all material purposes, the current Public Private Investment Plan (PPIP) is about saving four mammoth financial institutions considered too big to fail, BankAmerica, Citicorp, J. P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.

These financial behemoths, each as large as a significant number of the world’s national economies, bear as much relationship to the Bedford Falls Building and Loan as a rowboat does to the Titanic.  For public consumption, however, it is convenient for the Treasury to continue to describe its efforts as a rescue of “the banks”;   rescuing hydra-headed financial giants just doesn’t have quite the same ring.  Additionally by lumping these institutions under the category of “banks” the Treasury can continue the fiction that the bailout is about “getting the banks lending again.”

Notwithstanding this fiction, as we showed last week, even Secretary Geithner has abandoned the pretense that the PPIP program is about encouraging direct bank lending in the traditional sense of taking deposits and making loans, admitting that the primary purpose of PPIP is to restore the strength of these wholesale institutions so that they can restart the private securitization markets that fueled the credit bubble earlier in the decade.  So here’s the plan.  Just remove the toxic assets from the books of the financial giants and the system will be restored to its former picture of robust health.  Hopefully the PPIP will be sufficient to fund the fix.  If not the Treasury can use its proposed new liquidation authority, invest few hundred billion dollars more to fill the gaps and sell the freshly minted “clean” … read the rest

Categories: Bailouts, Banks, Business Survival, Business Turnarounds, Distress, Economics

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Permalink | | Comments Off on How Much Risk is the Treasury Really Assuming from the Financial Institutions?

Next Page »