Friday, March 27, 2015

Misunderstanding "Peak Gold"; Gold About to Run Out?

Is gold about to "run out"? The correct answer to that question is the likelihood of that happening is precisely 0%.

However, that is not the conclusion one would come to from the Zerohedge headline Peak Gold? Goldman Calculates There Is Only 20 Years Of Gold Supply Left.

Zerohedge supplied a couple of charts.

Peak Gold



Diamonds Aren't Forever



Gold About to Run Out?

Zerohedge comments ...
If the "known reserves" of gold plunge in the coming decade, no matter how many gold futures and GLD short sales are conducted by the BIS, the price will have to go up, and it will go up high enough to where a new surge of gold miners will come online and find thousands of new tons of gold reserves around the globe.

Unless they don't, and Goldman is correct that "peak gold" may have arrived. This will be even more true if over the coming years the long overdue fiat economic panic finally washes over the globe, and a revulsion toward central bank policies forces a scramble into gold whose value (if not price since fiat currencies will be redundant) soars.

The answer is unclear, but what is certain is that like the price of oil over the past decade and until last fall when price discovery finally became somewhat credible, what happens in the physical realm has absolutely zero marginal impact on the price of commodity which has about 100 ounces in deliverable paper contracts for every ounce in underlying. It will be only after the gold price distortions via the derivative market are eliminated that such trivial price-formation forces as supply and demand are once again relevant.
Gold Not About to Run Out

Gold is not about to run out for the simple reason that nearly every ounce ever mined is still in existence. In that regard, mining supply, central bank buying, jewelry demand etc. are essentially meaningless.

Misconceptions About Gold

I discussed jewelry demand and other topics in 2007, in Misconceptions about Gold. The article says written by Trotsky, edited by Mish. "Trotsky" was a spoof name at the time for who is now better known as Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog.
Gold Supply and Demand

If gold's price were determined by fabrication demand alone (jewelry and industrial uses), it could not possibly trade at a price of $650 oz.

Many gold analysts, from the mainstream to fringe groups such as the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) claim that they can predict what the gold price will do by adding up annual fabrication and investment demand (as well as dehedging demand by miners) and contrasting the resulting total with annual supply (mine supply, central bank selling, disinvestment and scrap). In short, they analyze the gold market in the same manner as they would analyze the copper market.

It should be immediately obvious that this can't be correct. After all, nearly the entire gold ever mined (approximately 150,000-160,000 tons) is still here. In short, the total potential supply of gold is some 97-98% greater than the gold produced every year (approximately 2,600 tons).

On that basis it makes no sense to apply traditional commodity supply/demand analysis based on annualized trends in the gold market.

Simply put, there is a big difference between commodities that are effectively used up (aside from scrap residual returning to the market every year) and a commodity the indestructibility and durability of which inter alia made gold the 'money commodity' in the first place.

Jewelry Demand vs. Monetary Demand

One can further illustrate gold's unique nature as money with a study of gold prices vs. jewelry demand. If record fabrication demand for gold (jewelry) must be good for the price of gold, then a historic high in jewelry demand should in theory coincide with a high gold price.

However, record high jewelry demand in 1999 - 2000 in actual fact coincided with a 20 year bear market low in the gold price - the exact opposite of what traditional commodity supply/demand analysis would suggest.

We can therefore conclude that there must be a source of gold demand that is of far greater importance than the jewelry and industrial demand components, and that demand constitutes the true driver of the price of gold in terms of fiat money.

Indeed, there is. This demand component is called 'monetary demand'. Monetary demand and the supply of gold is actually best described as the 'degree of reluctance of the current owners of gold to part with their gold at current prices' since, as mentioned above, some 160,000 tons are owned by somebody already.

De facto gold acts in the markets as if it were another currency rather than a commodity. It often keys off other currency cross rates, such as dollar/euro , and has a strong tendency to ignore all the typical supply/demand analysis thrown at it by the mainstream (including the World Gold Council which should know better).

A rising gold price usually begets falling jewelry demand, which is exactly what the theory of price elasticity would suggest. But at the same time, rising prices actually tend to stoke investment demand, just as a developing uptrend in the stock market tends to invite more demand rather than less.
What's the Real Long-Term Driver for Gold?

Most analysts are totally clueless about gold and gold markets. They cite jewelry, mining production, central bank sales, and all sorts of other irrelevant factors in their analysis.

In an interview on Gold Switzerland Robert Blumen discusses “What’s really key for the price formation of gold?”
Gold is an asset. People buy it in order to hold it. The price of gold is set as people balance, at the margin, the amount of additional units of gold they want to hold against additional units of other assets or cash they want to hold, or consumption.

If you think of the possible gold buyer as the guy who is saying, “Do I want to hold one more ounce of gold or this $1,800 that I have?” The answer to his question is going to be different for each person and for each additional ounce. You might say “yes, I want one more ounce of gold instead of $1,800”. Now, you have an ounce of gold and if I ask you the question again you might say, “No, now that I have bought that additional ounce, I’ve got enough gold”.

On the supply side, are the people who own gold. From their point of view they have to answer the question, “Do I want to keep holding this ounce of gold or do I want to sell it on the market and have $1,800?” That $1,800 might stay in cash or maybe they have another use in mind for it. The supply side is everyone who has any gold and the buy-side of the market is anyone who has any money that they might want to put into gold.

The people who already own gold, they could be active on either side of the market as a buyer or a seller. I want to emphasize that everyone who owns any gold at all is part of the supply-side of the market, not all at the current price, but at some price.

Many of the people who have bought gold in the last few years are not remotely interested in selling at the current price or even double the current price, but there is always a price or some combination of price and circumstances where somebody would put some of their gold on sale — maybe not all of it but some of it. And people on the money side of the market are asking the same question in relation to gold. The market balances all of those choices out and you have a price that brings out the quantities on both sides of the market into balance.

Maybe that’s not totally true, maybe some gold is held by people who wouldn’t sell it for any reason. But I think that the concept of the gold bug who plans to take it all to the grave is over-stated. I asked a person the gold business whether gold retail trade is all selling and no buying. He told me, “No of course not, there are always buyers and sellers”. After all, what is the point of having a store of value if you never use the value?

And it is important to understand the cost of owning gold is not necessarily the amount of money you could get by selling it. Prices are only a way of quantifying true costs. The cost of owning an ounce of gold is whatever other sort of economic opportunity that you are sacrificing by owning the gold instead. People who own gold are every day looking at “what other economic opportunities am I giving up by holding this ounce of gold?” and then “Do I want to shift the next ounce of gold somewhere else that will give me a better return or a better consumption experience?”. If you could swap an ounce of gold for one unit of the American Dow Stock Average that was at the time yielding 12% then the cost of owning an ounce of gold is not owning a unit of the DJIA. The cost of owning gold is the opportunity cost, of which holding cash instead is only one possible choice.
How Much Gold Is There?

Here are a few charts courtesy of Sharelynx Gold from my November 2014 article Swiss Gold Referendum in Perspective in which I presented the case the referendum was meaningless except perhaps from a psychology standpoint.

Annual Gold Production



Cumulative Gold Production Since 1835




Central Bank Holdings vs Cumulative Production



Of the 2013 total (a bit higher now), central banks hold about 31,877 tons.

SNB Purchases Irrelevant

One must exclude central bank holdings from the amount of gold available for central banks to buy. And as stated earlier, one can subtract various other items like rare coins, but the overall numbers show that it's safe to conclude "buying 1,800 tonnes of gold over 5 years" is essentially irrelevant from a "gold available" for purchase standpoint.

Irrelevance

Discounting short-term psychology factors, mining is irrelevant, central bank purchases and sales are irrelevant, jewelry demand is irrelevant, and coin sales are irrelevant as factors in the price of gold.

Finally (and much unlike oil) because nearly every ounce of gold ever mined is still in existence, the entire concept of "peak gold" cannot happen until mining grinds to a total halt.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

SNB Warns of "Temporary Deflation", Promises Further "Unconventional Measures" Including Forex Interventions to Achieve "Stability"

Unconventional Yields

Swiss Bonds are negative out to 10 years. They briefly went negative out to 15 years in the wake of the sudden removal of the Swiss National Bank peg to the euro back on January 13 as shown in the following chart.

Swiss 15-Year Bond Yield



Yield on 20-year Swiss bonds plunged to 0.10% on January 13 as well. Today, you can get 0.19% for 15 years or 0.31% for 20 years. That's how crazy things are.

SNB Warns of "Temporary Deflation"

Please consider SNB Warns of ‘Difficult Times’ as Currency Move Hits Home
Switzerland is facing “difficult times” and a short period of deflation following January’s abrupt unwinding of a currency peg, one of the Swiss National Bank’s most senior policy makers said on Thursday night.

The comments from Fritz Zurbrugg, one of three permanent members of the SNB’s governing board, show the impact of the January 15 currency move on an economy often regarded as a safe harbour during the eurozone crisis. 

The Swiss franc has shot up in value since the removal of the peg that capped it at SFr1.20 per euro, making Swiss exports and Swiss holidays more expensive. A euro is now worth SFr1.05.

Mr Zurbrugg said that the fall in prices that Switzerland faces is “temporary” and would not threaten price stability in the medium term. “A damaging deflationary spiral is not expected.”

Swiss inflation is already in negative territory, with prices falling 0.8 per cent in February — worse than the 0.3 per cent fall in prices across the eurozone in the month.

The SNB complemented January’s currency move by reducing deposit interest to -0.75 per cent in an effort to prevent a wave of cash flowing into Switzerland in anticipation of the Swiss franc’s rise in value.

“The introduction of negative interest is already having the desired effect,” said Mr Zurbrugg, pointing to falling interest rates across the board.

“It is important that the negative interest rate be allowed to take effect and help to bring about a weakening of the Swiss franc,” he said. “Efforts to circumvent negative interest rates by obtaining exemptions or shifting to cash are not in the interests of Switzerland as a whole in the current climate.”

Speaking at the same event, Dewet Moser, an alternate member of the SNB’s governing council, said the central bank had more tools it could use to make sure it achieved its policy objectives.

“If required, the SNB will continue to deploy unconventional methods for monetary policy implementation,” he said. “Equally, it will continue to take account of the exchange rate situation and, if necessary, will intervene in the foreign exchange market.”
Unconventional Measures

It is rather amusing (a word I am using a lot lately) to watch competitive efforts of central banks to destroy their currencies to ward off what should be a welcome event - stable to falling prices.

Instead of welcoming stable prices, the Swiss National Banks promises to deploy more "unconventional measures" including another attempt at currency intervention, to achieve what they already have.

Let's take a look at the "stability" of the last peg and what happened the day it was removed.

Swiss Francs vs. Euro



If that's not the epitome of stability, what is?

If by some chance that does not look like stability, don't worry. Alternate member Dewet Moser says the central bank has "more tools" to achieve desired stability.

Heaven forbid should any currency ever become a "safe harbour".

Clearly, "safe harbour" is nothing but a wart on Cinderella's nose. No central banker could ever allow that to happen. 

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Thursday, March 26, 2015

For Robots Only: Amazon Sponsored Contest; Soft Fingers Needed

Amazon is sponsoring a robot warehouse automation contest to see who can pack the most boxes in the least amount of time without dropping any packages or crushing anything delicate such as cookies.

In the contest, in which human workers are not eligible to apply, the robots will have to work without any remote guidance from their creators.

Please consider the MIT Technology Review, Amazon Robot Contest May Accelerate Warehouse Automation.
Packets of Oreos, boxes of crayons, and squeaky dog toys will test the limits of robot vision and manipulation in a competition this May. Amazon is organizing the event to spur the development of more nimble-fingered product-packing machines.

Participating robots will earn points by locating products sitting somewhere on a stack of shelves, retrieving them safely, and then packing them into cardboard shipping boxes. Robots that accidentally crush a cookie or drop a toy will have points deducted. The people whose robots earn the most points will win $25,000.

Amazon has already automated some of the work done in its vast fulfillment centers. Robots in a few locations send shelves laden with products over to human workers who then grab and package them. These mobile robots, made by Kiva Systems, a company that Amazon bought in 2012 for $678 million, reduce the distance human workers have to walk in order to find products. However, no robot can yet pick and pack products with the speed and reliability of a human. Industrial robots that are already widespread in several industries are limited to extremely precise, repetitive work in highly controlled environments.

Pete Wurman, chief technology officer of Kiva Systems, says that about 30 teams from academic departments around the world will take part in the challenge, which will be held at the International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Seattle. In each round, robots will be told to pick and pack one of 25 different items from a stack of shelves resembling those found in Amazon’s warehouses. Some teams are developing their own robots, while others are adapting commercially available systems with their own grippers and software.

The challenge facing the robots in Amazon’s contest will be considerable. Humans have a remarkable ability to identify objects, figure out how to manipulate them, and then grasp them with just the right amount of force. This is especially hard for machines to do if an object is unfamiliar, awkwardly shaped, or sitting on a dark shelf with a bunch of other items. In the Amazon contest, the robots will have to work without any remote guidance from their creators.

“We tried to pick out a variety of different products that were representative of our catalogue and that pose different kinds of grasping challenges,” Wurman said. “Like plastic wrap; difficult-to-grab little dog toys; things you don’t want to crush, like the Oreos.”

While the Amazon challenge might seem simple, Saxena believes it could quickly make an impact in the real world. “If robots are able to handle even the light types of grasping tasks the contest proposes,” he says, “we could actually start to see a lot of robots helping people with different tasks.”
The preceding MIT review describes the 2015 ICRA Contest May 26-30 in Seattle.

2014 Participant Video



The above video shows the 2014 University of Colorado Amazon Picking Entry.

The Baxter robot actually seems a bit clumsy because grasping and packing random objects is not a precisely repetitive action.

The University of Colorado video gets interesting towards the end, highlighting advancements in "soft fingers" and human-like skin.

Meet Baxter

I discussed Baxter on January 22, 2013 in Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage, No Benefits, Part-Time Job, Because He's Still Much Cheaper; Fed Cannot Win a Fight Against Robots.

Soft Fingers Needed



Soft fingers and better motions are needed to win the 2015 contest, and they are coming (image from the University of Colorado video).

Anything that can be automated, will. The higher the minimum wage and the lower the interest rate, the more incentive companies have to replace humans with hardware and software robots.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Damn the Reports, Full Speed Ahead; Recession Overdue; Good Time to Normalize Rates?

Here's one for the I'll believe it when I see it category: Fed Officials say Rate Hike Plan Intact Despite Weak U.S. Data.
In separate events in Frankfurt and Detroit, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard and Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart said U.S. monetary policy might need to be adjusted in light of the economy's steady improvement since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

"Now may be a good time to begin normalizing U.S. monetary policy so that it is set appropriately for an improving economy over the next two years," Bullard said at a conference in the German financial hub.

The challenge now, Lockhart said, is to sort out whether recent weakness in exports, manufacturing and capital investment indicate the start of an economic slowdown or other temporary factors such as the soaring value of the U.S. dollar.

Lockhart said he is confident for now that the weakness is "transitory," and still regards it as highly likely that the Fed will raise rates at either its June, July or September meetings.

"We're still on a solid track ... The economy is throwing off some mixed signals at the moment and I think that is going to be passing or transitory," Lockhart said in an interview with CNBC from a Detroit investment conference.

"In the beginning when the dollar declined I was prepared to, to some extent, dismiss the influence of the dollar as being not great because our economy is not so export-dependent, but I'm upgrading it as a factor to watch," he said.
Totally Clueless

In simple terms, Lockhart may as well have said that he is "totally clueless."

We are going on 7 years of economic expansion.

The San Francisco Fed has an interesting report on the Duration and Timing of Recessions.
NBER records show that, over the period from the mid-1940s until 2007, the average recession lasted 10 months, while the average expansion lasted 57 months, giving us an average business cycle of 67 months or about 5 years and seven months. However, there has been considerable variation in the length of business cycle expansions and contractions in the past.

The shortest recession between the mid-1940s and 2007 lasted only six months, from January to July 1980. The two longest recessions during the period lasted 16 months each, one extending from November 1973 to March 1975, and the other from July 1981 to November 1982. In both of these periods there was a noticeable decline in real GDP.

In contrast to the relatively short duration of most recessions, periods of expansion tend to last much longer, helping the economy expand over time. The shortest expansion period from the mid-1940s until 2007 lasted only 24 months, from April 1958 to April 1960. The longest expansion continued from March 1991 to March 2001, setting a record of 120 consecutive months of growth.
Recession Overdue

Statistically speaking, a recession is overdue although there is wide variance in both the length of recessions and recoveries.

Yet, there is very little reason to believe weak report after weak report is "transitory". The idea "we're still on a solid track," is downright ludicrous.

Good Time to Normalize Rates?

Is this a good time to normalize rates?

Let's answer it this way: It's better than a month from now but not as good as two years ago. In fact, for the second time, rates never should have gotten as low as they did for as long as they did.

The Fed has sponsored three asset bubbles in recent history, each of increasing amplitude.

Three Major Bubbles

  1. Dot-Com bubble
  2. Housing and credit bubble
  3. Global equity and junk bond bubble

Bubble number three is still expanding. Few admit that it's a bubble, simply because it  hasn't popped yet.

If the Fed does hike (which is doubtful because Yellen is calling the shots, not Bullard or Lockhart), most will point a finger and say the "Fed caused a needless recession".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

By blowing yet another asset bubble, the Fed guaranteed another hugely destructive asset deflation bust.

Why hike? The reason to hike is the bigger the bubble, the bigger the bust, something the Fed should have thought about in advance but didn't, and never does.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Jobs and Employment: How Much Recession Warning Can One Expect?

Watching the Wrong Things

Many market watchers have their eye on jobs and the unemployment rate as the determinant of when the Fed will hike.

Let's investigate the wisdom of that approach with actual data.

I downloaded seasonally adjusted employment and jobs data for the last five recessions from the BLS. Because the recessions start in different months, use of seasonally adjusted data is mandatory for this exercise.

My focus is on jobs and employment in the period three months prior to the recession to three months after the recession.

I used the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) report on US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions as the official arbiter as to when recessions begin.

Jobs are from the Establishment Survey. Employment is from the Household Survey. Results are similar.

Recessions vs. Employment (in Thousands)

Recession DateEmploy -3 MonthsEmploy -2 MonthsEmploy -1 MonthsEmploy -0 MonthsEmploy +1 MonthsEmploy +2 MonthsEmploy +3 MonthsPeak Employment
1980-0199,40499,57499,93399,87999,99599,71399,2331 Month Later
1981-07101,056101,048100,298100,693100,689100,064100,3781 Month Later
1990-07118,852119,151118,983118,810118,802118,524118,5361 Month Prior
2001-03137,614137,778137,612137,783137,299137,092136,873Recession Start
2007-12146,244145,946146,595146,273146,378146,156146,0861 Month Prior


Recessions vs. Jobs (in Thousands)

Recession DateJobs -3 MonthsJobs -2 MonthsJobs -1 MonthsJobs -0 MonthsJobs +1 MonthsJobs +2 MonthsJobs +3 MonthsPeak Jobs
1980-0190,48290,57690,67390,80290,88290,99490,8502 Months Later
1981-0791,28391,29391,49091,60291,56691,47991,380Recession Start
1990-07109,687109,839109,862109,834109,613109,525109,3661 Month Prior
2001-03132,723132,696132,767132,742132,460132,422132,2911 Month Prior
2007-12138,053138,136138,253138,350138,365138,278138,1991 Month Later


How Much Warning Can One Expect?

The answer is clearly none.

In the previous five recessions, jobs peaked two months after the start of the recession once, one month later once, one month prior twice, and once during the recession month.

In the previous five recessions, employment peaked one month after the start of the recession twice, one month prior twice, and once during the recession month.

The NBER says the last US recession started in December of 2007 and lasted until  June of 2009. Let's take a closer look at stats from that recession.

2007-2009 Recession Stats

  • Jobs were higher three months after the recession started than two months before the recession started.
  • Jobs were higher two months after the recession started than one month before.
  • Employment was higher three months after the recession started than two months before.
  • Employment was higher two months after the recession started than one month before.

In the last recession, jobs and employment did not provide a clear signal for months.

Negative Data Pours In

With the exceptions of jobs, most other data has been negative.


Economists keep watching jobs, a lagging indicator, somehow convinced that jobs tell the story of what the Fed is about to do. Such a focus is complete silliness. When it's clear that jobs have turned, the economy will likely be in recession.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

GDP Projections Drop Yet Again, Still Too High

In the wake of a 6th consecutive decline in business spending GDP Growth Estimates Tumble, Again.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta on Wednesday put its gauge at 0.2%, down from its earlier estimate of 0.3%.
  • Morgan Stanley economists lowered their estimate for first-quarter growth to an annualized 0.9% from an earlier forecast of 1.2%, pointing to light inventories and lower capital goods exports as weighing on GDP.
  • Economists at Barclays lowered their projection a tenth of a percentage point to 1.2%.
  • The forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers also trimmed its estimate down to 1.2% from 1.5% before Wednesday. Barclays and Macroeconomic Advisers cited, among other factors, worries that the drop in shipments last month foretells a decline in first-quarter equipment investment.
  • J.P. Morgan Chase economists lowered their first-quarter forecast to an annualized 1.5%, from 2%, saying a decline in investment by oil companies — the result of the plunge in oil prices — could offset the lift from higher consumer spending.

Optimism Still Rules

Optimism is still the order of the day.

"Overall, given the usual noise in the data, as well as a melange of other special factors, we do not view the 1.5% [First-quarter] tracking as so far below the 2.4% average of the current expansion to raise more serious worries," said J.P. Morgan chief U.S. economist Michael Feroli in a note to clients.

Speaking of optimism, Goldman Trims U.S. First Quarter GDP View to 1.8 Percent from 2.0 Percent.

"Goldman Sachs economist Kris Dawson said on Wednesday he scaled back his view of U.S. growth in the first quarter, following an unexpectedly weak report on domestic durable goods orders in February."

Core Business Orders

Today we learned core business spending, defined as new nondefense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, declined for the sixth month.



Core business spending declined seven months at the beginning of 2012, but nearly all data other than jobs growth has been weak this go around.

The series is somewhat volatile as the following chart shows.



GDP Now Forecast Declines Again

Once again, let's tune into the GDPNow Forecast of the Atlanta Fed.



GDPNow History



The initial forecast on February 2, was 1.9% annualized growth. It is now 0.2% annualized growth. That's quite the plunge in less than two months.

Ominous Trends

I was way ahead of this game. On January 31, I wrote Diving Into the GDP Report - Some Ominous Trends - Yellen Yap - Decoupling or Not?
On Thursday, Fed Chair Janet Yellen met with Senate Democrats at a private luncheon. She told the Democrats that the U.S. Economy is Strong.

[I commented ...]

Several PCE [Personal Consumption Expenditures] items stand out. Is the 2.87% increase sustainable?

Curiously, gasoline added 0.25 percentage points to GDP in spite of rapidly falling prices.

Motor vehicles and parts show rapidly slowing growth since second quarter. That's a trend I expect to continue.

I discussed autos on January 6 in Economists Upbeat Despite 4th Consecutive Decline in Factory Orders; Auto Orders vs. Expectations.

Autos are slowing and so will auto-related jobs. Yet economists believe "Auto sales are expected to reach their highest level in a decade this year, bolstered by strong job gains and cheap gas."

My take: Autos will soon subtract from GDP.

Growth in fixed investment is falling rapidly. Equipment, industrial equipment, and transportation equipment are already in contraction.

Inventories added 0.82 percentage points to fourth quarter GDP. Over time, this series trends to zero, so expect a pull back next quarter.

Rising imports subtract from GDP. Imports actually took 1.39 percentage points from GDP. If oil prices head back up, even modestly, this number could get worse.

Exports added 0.37 percentage points to fourth quarter GDP. But note the trend.

Because of the rising US dollar, export growth is dwindling. Will exports add or subtract to GDP next quarter?

All things considered, this GDP report is far more than a simple snapback from the rapid expansion last quarter.

Canada in Recession, US Will Follow in 2015

Earlier today in Canada in Recession, US Will Follow in 2015, I stated "A Canadian recession is underway. US will follow."

Decoupling or Not?

I remain amused by all the pundits who think the US has "decoupled" from the global economy and will grow stronger in 2015.

Let's return to a question I asked above: Will exports add or subtract to GDP next quarter?

I suggest the answer is subtract. Not only are US exports getting more expensive relative to Europe and Japan, the entire rest of the global economy is slowing rapidly. Our biggest trading partner is Canada and Canada is in recession, with a rapidly sinking loonie (Canadian dollar) on top of it.

US Recession

The US won't decouple, just as China did not decouple from the global economy in 2008-2009 (a widely-held thesis I also knocked at the time).

Indeed, now that virtually no economist expects a US recession, I believe we are finally on the cusp of one, just as the Fed seems committed to hike
Much of this seemed pretty obvious back in January. I suppose it's not obvious because economists still don't see it.

Then again, economists have a perfect track record. They have never once in history predicted a recession.

For a full recap of today's disastrous durable goods report, please see Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Decline, Business Spending Declines 6th Month.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com 

Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Decline, Business Spending Declines 6th Month

The durable goods report for February was released today. It was another disaster in a long line of weak economic reports. And once again economists missed their optimistic estimates by a mile.

Apparently the weather has been bad for six straight months because this is the sixth consecutive decline in overall business spending.

The Bloomberg Consensus Estimate was for a 0.7% rise. The actual number was a 1.4% decline.



Durables orders fell 1.4 percent in February after rebounding 2.0 percent the month before. Market expectations were for a 0.7 percent gain.

Excluding transportation, the core declined 0.4 percent, following a 0.7 percent drop in January. Analysts projected a 0.3 percent gain in February.

With those estimates in hand, let's dive into the Commerce Report on durable goods.

Durable Goods Synopsis

New Orders.  New orders for manufactured durable goods in February decreased $3.2 billion or 1.4 percent to $231.3 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today.  This decrease, down three of the last four months, followed a 2.0 percent January increase. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.4 percent [the fifth straight decline].  Excluding defense, new orders decreased 1.0 percent. Transportation equipment, also down three of the last four months, led the decrease, $2.5 billion or 3.5 percent to $69.5 billion. [Orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft dropped 1.4% from January. That marked the sixth straight monthly decline. This is the business spending component for machinery, computers, etc.] 

Shipments. Shipments of manufactured durable goods in February, down four of the last five months, decreased $0.5 billion or 0.2 percent to $244.0 billion. This followed a 1.4 percent January decrease.  Primary metals, down five consecutive months, led the decrease, $0.3 billion or 1.1 percent to $26.1 billion.

Unfilled Orders.  Unfilled orders for manufactured durable goods in February, down three consecutive months, decreased $5.6 billion or 0.5 percent to $1,156.9 billion.  This followed a 0.3 percent January decrease. Transportation equipment, also down three consecutive months, led the decrease, $4.6 billion or 0.6 percent to $731.6 billion.

Inventories.  Inventories of manufactured durable goods in February, up twenty-two of the last twenty-three months, increased $1.1 billion or 0.3 percent to $413.0 billion.  This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 0.3 percent January increase.  Transportation equipment, also up twenty-two of the last twenty-three months, drove the increase, $1.2 billion or 0.9 percent to $135.4 billion.

Capital Goods.  Nondefense new orders for capital goods in February decreased $2.1 billion or 2.6 percent to $77.3 billion. Shipments decreased slightly to $80.2 billion.  Unfilled orders decreased $2.9 billion or 0.4 percent to $727.8 billion.  Inventories increased $0.3 billion or 0.1 percent to $186.8 billion.  Defense new orders for capital goods in February increased $0.8 billion or 10.2 percent to $8.3 billion.  Shipments decreased $0.1 billion or 0.8 percent to $9.0 billion.  Unfilled orders decreased $0.7 billion.

ItemFebJanDecJan-Feb %ChgDec-Jan % ChgNov-Dec % Chg
Total New Orders231,291234,462229,827-1.42.0-3.7
Ex-Transportation Orders161,807162,453163,651-0.4-0.7-0.8
Ex-Defense Orders222,596224,795219,755-1.02.3-3.2
Transportation Orders69,48472,00966,176-358.8-10.0
Capital Goods Orders86,65086,93381,003-1.57.3-10.3
Non-Defense Capital Goods Orders77,32479,37772,990-2.68.8-10.1
Defense Capital Goods Orders8,3267,5568,01310.2-5.7-11.8
Core Capital Goods Orders69,25070,22570,308-1.4-0.1-0.5
Core Capital Goods Shipments70,04469,90970,2120.2-0.40.4

Line items (except the last line which shows shipments) are new orders, in millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted. Core capital goods exclude defense and aircraft.

Once again this was another exceptionally weak economic report, and once again economists were not close to the mark.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites