Showing posts with label QE3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label QE3. Show all posts

May 13, 2012

ECRI Reaffirms Recession Call Again

0 Comentarios/Comment
ECRI Reaffirms Recession Call Again: By Erik McCurdy:


Last week, Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) made the rounds on financial television once again to discuss the current state of their recession call from late last year. Achuthan reaffirmed their belief that a return to economic contraction is likely in 2012, noting that the coincident data used to officially define economic cycle boundaries continue to signal slowing growth

Yes, U.S. GDP is still rising, according to the latest reports. But that doesn't mean we've dodged a new recession. Sound surprising? What most people don't understand is that recessions often begin when gross domestic product is still showing positive growth. Four of the past six recessions started during a quarter when GDP was growing, as did 72% of all recessions in the past 94 years.
How can that be? The answer is that expansions end - and recessions begin - at the peak of the business cycle, after which the economy begins to contract. For instance, the initial quarter of the Great Recession of 2007-09 showed 1.7% GDP growth, while the severe 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions began with 3.9% and 4.9% GDP growth, respectively. Revisions are another issue, so GDP could be contracting and we wouldn't know it for some time. That's why real-time data often doesn't show GDP turning negative until about half a year after the recession has actually begun - that's typically been the case in the past six recessions.
It took more than a year to learn that GDP actually shrank by 1.3% during the first quarter of the 2001 recession. But back then, it was initially reported as having grown at 2.0%. That's not very different from the latest reading for GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012: 2.2%. In August 2008 - just before the Lehman collapse - GDP was reported to have risen in the first and second quarters with the latter revised up sharply, triggering over a 200-point rally in the Dow that day. Today we know that GDP actually shrank in the first quarter while the second has been revised down by two full percentage points. In the end, even if we don't see two successive down quarters of GDP, which is commonly believed to define a recession, that doesn't mean we've skirted one. That's only a rough rule of thumb, not an actual recession definition. In fact, two of the last 8 recessions did not contain two straight quarters of negative GDP.
Confusion around what constitutes a recession is so common that we've gone into the details every time one appears on our radar screen. The last time we wrote about it was four years ago, in May 2008, when many still doubted our recession call. As we explained at the time, there are four key elements to consider: output, which includes GDP, but also employment, income and sales. One reason we believe the economy is heading for recession now is weak job growth. Since February, job growth has turned down, as have other key indicators. Ominously, in the past 60 years we haven't seen a slowdown where year-over-year job growth has dropped this low without recession. Separately, for the past three months, year-over-year growth in real personal income has stayed lower than it was at the start of each of the last ten recessions. These are facts, not forecasts - so the popular story that more jobs will lead to more consumption is missing a key link, which is income growth.
In fact, our research shows a new recession is likely to start by mid-2012. Under the circumstances, complacency about U.S. recession risk is likely to prove badly misplaced.



The decline in year-over-year growth in real personal income noted by Achuthan is displayed on the following graph from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) web site. A drop of this magnitude and duration has been accompanied by recession the last ten times it has occurred.

click to enlarge images



The mainstream view remains that a return to economic contraction in 2012 is not a viable scenario worth seriously considering. Only a few high-profile analysts, such as the folks at the ECRI and Hussman Funds, have maintained that the development of a recession is likely. Our own long-term computer models, which analyze a large basket of fundamental, internal, technical and sentiment data, also continue to favor the recession scenario and our Cyclical Trend Score (CTS) issued a sell signal in early April, indicating that the development of a cyclical bear market in stocks is highly likely.



As always, there are no certainties in the realm of financial market forecasting, only possible scenarios and their associated probabilities. However, the most reliable leading data continue to suggest that a return to economic contraction is likely in 2012. If the recession scenario does unfold as expected, the mainstream view will be forced to adjust eventually, but well after the fact, as usual.

May 12, 2012

QE3 o crecimiento negativo en 2013

0 Comentarios/Comment
La economía de Estados Unidos, recordando para lo nuevos lectores, se encuentra en un periodo de desaceleración que lo llevará a promediar un crecimiento de 1.5  a 2  por ciento este año. Pero es ahora pensemos un poco más hacia adelante.

Hemos comentado en diversas ocasiones que la tasa de desempleo en ese país, el menos por el momento, ha dejado de ser un indicador verídico de la situación real del empleo. Esto por que el número de personas "no en la fuerza laboral" ha aumentado pero eso no significa que no le interese trabajar o no necesiten de un ingreso; otro factor importante  son los baby boomers que ya se empiezan a retirar del mundo laboral. De manera rápida, hay factores demográficos que están causando este efecto que llevará el desempleo a 7% a finales del año que entra.

Ahora, recordemos que desde la administración anterior se implementó las extensiones de beneficios para las personas desempleadas, es decir, las personas que pierden su trabajo pueden solicitar un apoyo económico al estado para que reciban de manera semanal un cheque "mientras" buscan empleo. Con la crisis y para mantener un poco a flote la economía el senado, por propuesta de el presidente G. Bush, aprobó la extensión de estos beneficios cuando las personas no encontraban empleo en digamos 26 semanas que es el periodo máximo que se les puede dar el beneficio de manera regular, ahora con la extensión podía llegar hasta 60 o 75 semanas.

Pero dicho beneficio extra depende de cada uno de los estados, es decir, no todos los estados tienen el mismo periodo extra. Pero el que se puede aplicar o no depende del nivel de desempleo estatal. Como resultado del pequeño crecimiento que tuvo a finales del año pasado e inicio de este la economía de Estados Unidos, y aunado con el efecto mencionado antes de la caída del desempleo; varios estados están saliendo y saldrán de ser elegibles de los beneficios extra. 

Como no hay una recuperación real todavía de la economía, pues los pocos trabajos que están abriéndose son con menores salarios o son trabajos temporales y las empresas no están contratando más personal; la economía de Estados Unidos tendrá, una vez más, una caída fuerte al inicio del año que entra, a menos que el Senado baje el nivel mínimo de desempleo o cambie de indicador de eligibilidad o la Fed haga un QE para mantener inflada la economía un poco más.

Se ve poco acuerdo y que se vayan a  pasar nuevas medidas en el Senado durante este año, me parece que la opción más probable es un QE3 viviendero no sin antes un incremento en los discursos de Bernanke solicitando a los políticos que hagan lo que deben hacer para apoyar su propia economía.