All posts by Joseph Mayans
Rays of hope are beginning to shine in the economy that suggest the U.S. may have moved beyond the most acute phase of the economic crisis. The housing sector, in particular, looks poised to regain momentum and perhaps lead the path towards stabilization in the second half of 2020. A “V-Shaped” rebound in mortgage applications Despite record levels of unemployment and widespread economic uncertainty, homebuyers have returned to the market with conviction. After shelter-in-place restrictions curtailed open-house visits and crimped buyer demand in early April, applications to purchase a home have risen for six consecutive weeks, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. The latest data for the week of May 22nd, indicate that purchase applications were 9% higher than during the same period in 2019. If this trend continues, it will show that significant pent-up demand exists in the housing market that may be able to offset some of the lost spring buying season. April new home sales far exceed expectations After declining by 13.7% in March, new home sales rose a modest 0.6% in April. While this was only a slight gain, it was considerably above economists’ projections of a fall of 20% and may mark the turning point in the downtrend. Since the recording of new home sales data occurs when the purchase contract is signed or a deposit is accepted – and is typically for a house that hasn’t been built yet or is currently under construction – it provides a gauge of how buyers feel about their future economic prospects. Building a home also requires hiring new construction workers, buying building supplies, and supporting a host of ancillary industries, thus making it an indicator of further economic activity. Some of the increase in demand for new homes may have been driven by coronavirus quirks. The number of existing homes on the market is at record lows and many people may have been reluctant to put their home up for sale and have buyers tour as health concerns remain. Buyers, as well, may have preferred to steer clear of occupied homes or were unable to make in-person visits due to shelter-in-place restrictions. This lack of options for home buyers, coupled with record-low mortgage rates, likely drove sales of new homes higher. However, for the same reasons why new home sales rose, pending sales for existing homes fell sharply. In April, the National Association of Realtors reported that sales declined by 21.8%, which is the largest drop in ten years. Home prices continue to gain ground Even with shelter-in-place restrictions dampening buyer demand in early April, home values have continued to rise. This is because the supply of homes on the market also contracted, resulting in a simultaneous drop of demand and supply. According to Zillow Research, the total inventory of homes for sale is down roughly 20% from this time last year. With fewer competing homes on the market, sellers have been reluctant to slash prices and are betting that the lack of options and low mortgage rates will keep buyers on the hook. In April, U.S. home values rose 4.3% from the year before. The states with the strongest growth were Idaho (9.8%), Arizona (8.5%), Maine (7.6%), and Washington (7.4%). It will be interesting to see if this pattern of growth changes as newly implemented work from home policies may shift where people prefer to live and work. Why it matters The housing market has an outsized influence on the overall direction of the U.S. economy. Housing is not only is a big contributor to economic growth, but many owners have a large portion of their wealth tied up in their home. If the housing market can find its footing in the second half of 2020, then it could set the stage for an eventual economic recovery. Learn more
With jobs losses mounting and the prospects for a quick economic rebound fading, some segments of the financial markets are beginning to bet that the Federal Reserve will take interest rates negative for the first time in U.S. history. If that happens, it could have a profound impact on the U.S. economy, and more specifically, on financial institutions. While other nations such as Denmark, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland have experimented with negative rates over the years, the U.S. has shied away – both for political and economic reasons. Instead, when interest rates are near zero, the Fed prefers to use a mix of large-scale asset purchases and forward guidance to support the economy. In the current crisis, the Fed has also launched several new emergency lending programs to ensure the smooth functioning of the financial system. The question remains, however, if these tools will be enough to keep the U.S. out of a deep recession, especially if Congress fatigues on further fiscal support. The Fed is independent but keep an eye on the markets In his May 13th remarks to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said that he and the rest of the rate-setting committee unanimously shared the same view on negative rates: “For now, it is not something we are considering”. While some market watchers looked for clues in the “for now” phrasing, it was clear from the rest of his remarks that the bar for enacting negative rates was set very, very high. However, despite the Fed having independence in its policy-making decisions, financial markets and to some extent, politics, still have influence. And there is precedent for markets exerting pressure on the Fed and perhaps even getting their way. In 2013, when then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made a surprise announcement that the Fed would reduce the level of asset purchases, global financial markets went into a frenzy. That period, now known as the “Taper Tantrum”, altered the way the Fed signals its policy actions. More recently, the big declines in equity markets in late 2018 were seen by many as a primary driver in the Fed’s sudden U-turn from raising rates four times that year to lowering them three times in 2019. Now, with equity markets wanting more stimulus and traders in fed fund futures appearing to anticipate negative rates from the central bank in early 2021, there is concern that the markets are trying to bully their way again. And with the president’s renewed call for the Fed to take rates negative, there is some reason to believe that “not now” could become “now” sooner than many expect. Concerns for financial institutions While several central banks have resorted to negative interest rate policy for years, the efficacy of its use is unclear. But what is clear, is that financial institutions bear the greatest burden in implementing the policy. Currently in the U.S., banks earn interest on excess reserves held at the Fed. Negative rates would essentially flip the script and penalize this practice, forcing banks either to pay the Fed interest or do something else with the money. The hope is that this will encourage banks to make more loans and stimulate the economy. However, as Fed Chair Powell said in his remarks, he believes that negative rates could have the opposite effect and curtail lending. Since negative rates would put a downward pressure on interest rates across the board, the net interest margin – the spread banks make between what they pay depositors and what they charge for loans – would be compressed and profitability would sink. If banks and other financial institutions are struggling, credit availability could decline when it is needed the most. Why it matters Financial institutions cannot ignore the possibility of negative interest rates in the U.S. as it would have wide-ranging effects and potentially significant consequences. And while Fed officials have said they are not considering negative rates, the notion is not totally off the table. As the famous economist, Stanley Fischer, advised his fellow central bankers in his well-known piece “Central Bank Lessons from the Global Crisis”: “In a crisis, central bankers (and no doubt other policymakers) will often find themselves deciding to implement policy actions that they never thought they would have to undertake – and these are frequently policy actions that they would prefer not to have to undertake. Hence, a few final words of advice for central bankers: Never say never.”
There is no doubt that there will be many headlines published about the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report. The official unemployment rate spiked to 14.7%, the highest level since the Great Depression, and employers shed an unprecedented 20.5 million jobs. However, given the scale and pace that businesses around the country are adjusting their workforces, these headline numbers – especially the official unemployment rate – fall short in capturing the nuances and internal dynamics of the crisis. To get a better picture of labor market health in the coming months, there are three other components reported in BLS’s employment release that require close attention: the underemployment rate, the labor force participation rate, and the employment-population ratio. Tracking underemployment The BLS reports six unemployment figures in its monthly employment release, U1 – U6. The most cited is the “official” unemployment rate, which is U3. However, in the current crisis, the more salient measure of unemployment is U6, which is often known as the “underemployment” rate. This is because the underemployment (U6) rate takes the unemployed and adds on part-time workers who want a full-time job (BLS calls this segment “part time for economic reasons”), plus marginally attached and discouraged workers (those who don’t think they can find work). Viewing the employment landscape through this lens provides greater insight into the pain points within the labor market. In April, the underemployment rose from 8.7% to 22.8% - the largest jump on record. A large contributor to the rise was a doubling of the number of part-time workers that wanted a full-time job. Mirroring what happened in previous downturns, the rise in this segment was caused by employers downshifting workers into part-time roles. The official unemployment rate will miss this insight as it classifies everyone who is working as “employed”, regardless if they worked one hour or 100 hours. Trends in the underemployment rate will be especially important to watch as the recovery gets underway. If employers are doubtful of a strong rebound, they may keep employees on as part time and forgo filling any full-time positions. Who’s in and who’s out of the labor force The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the working-age population (aged 16+) that is employed or searching for a job. A decline in the labor force participation rate means that people are leaving the workforce and are no longer looking for employment. April’s employment report showed labor force participation declining from 62.7% to 60.2%. Teenage participation was especially hard hit, dropping from 35.5% to 30.8% - the lowest level since the government started collecting the data in 1948. During the recovery phase, tracking what happens with labor force participation will provide insight into how potential workers perceive their chances of landing a job and if it is safe to return. A healthy (or improving) labor market will bring people off the sidelines in search of work, while a weak labor market will do the opposite. Get a clearer view with the employment-population ratio In the current environment where people are bouncing rapidly between employed, unemployed, underemployed, and out of the labor force, tracking the employment-population ratio provides a more stable baseline to view the economic environment. The latest data shows that the employment-population ratio dropped to the lowest level on record of 51.3% in April. This means that only half of people who are of working age in the U.S. are currently employed in some form. Unlike the unemployment rate, which is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed workers by the labor force and thus subject to more variation as people start and stop looking for work, the employment to population ratio is the percentage of the total working-age population that is currently employed. By having a more stable baseline, it is easier to locate trends and see through the market gyrations. And finally, why it matters The labor market is the backbone of the economy and is the engine that powers the US consumer. But the ongoing crisis and rapid reallocation of the workforce has made it difficult to get a clear picture on what is happening at the ground level. By going beyond the headlines, businesses and financial institutions can glean nuanced insights that provide a better view of where the opportunities lie and how the recovery is likely to unfold. Learn more
After two consecutive emergency meetings in March and numerous stimulus announcements, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) finally got back on track and wrapped up their standard two-day meeting on April 29th. While Fed officials did not make any changes to the federal funds rate – which is currently sitting near zero - or to the level of purchases of treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, they did provide a glimpse into how long rates are likely to remain at their current levels. Hint: It is going to be a while. Understanding the Fed’s statement In order to get a clearer picture of what the Fed is thinking, skip the headlines and go straight to the source – the post-meeting press release. Here is the most important paragraph from their statement (with the key components underlined): “The ongoing public health crisis will weigh heavily on economic activity, employment, and inflation in the near term, and poses considerable risks to the economic outlook over the medium term. In light of these developments, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its maximum employment and price stability goals.” Just by taking the statement at face value, it is clear the Fed is going to keep rates where they are for some time, but for how long? That depends on how the key phrases are interpreted. The first, “over the medium term”, seems simple but requires some detective work. What does “medium term” mean? In the post-meeting press conference, the Fed Chairman was asked this question and he alluded that it likely means a year or more. So, there is part 1 - the Fed expects to keep rates near zero for at least a year. That is not all that surprising, but it does provide a floor: a minimum timeframe. Key phrase 2, however, requires a bit more effort but is where the real story lives. The dual mandate is no longer a balancing act “The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its maximum employment and price stability goals.” There is a lot of economics in that sentence. The Fed has been mandated by Congress to achieve two primary goals – maximum employment and price stability (inflation near 2%). These two goals, or the “dual mandate” as they are often referred to, seem simple but have historically been at odds. The thinking went that if the Fed kept interest rates low to support employment, then inflation would rise. And if the Fed increased interest rates to control inflation, then employment would decline. A delicate balance - at least it was thought. Somewhere in the last couple of years Fed officials have realized that even after a decade of near-zero interest rates following the financial crisis and very-low levels of unemployment, inflation has remained persistently below their 2% target. Something has broken in the relationship. This is key, because it means that the Fed now feels free to keep interest rates exceptionally low in order to get employment back on track, without having to worry about inflation; and may in fact need to keep rates lower for longer in order to boost inflation. Both sides of the dual mandate now appear to require low rates. Chasing “maximum employment” With inflation no longer a priority for Fed officials at the moment, their sights are set squarely on achieving the maximum employment portion of the mandate. But what does it mean to achieve “maximum employment”? Well, it is an elusive target, but in general, it is the point at which rising wages leads to higher inflation – the result of businesses increasing pay to compete for a shrinking supply of workers. What is known is that even when the unemployment rate was at a 50-year low of 3.5% in early 2020, wages were not rising much. Which indicates that the economy may have been near maximum employment but was not quite there yet. So, to achieve maximum employment, unemployment needs to be somewhere near 3.5% and that could take some time, a long time. Current range estimates show the unemployment rate rising to anywhere between 12 – 30% in the coming months. And a recent report out of the Congressional Budget Office projected that unemployment will still be around 9.5% at the end of 2021. The last time the unemployment rate was at 9.5% was right after the financial crisis, and from that point it took nearly a decade for the rate to fall to 3.5%. And while it is not expected that the current crisis will be as prolonged as the previous one, it still provides a reference point as to how long it can take to recover job losses. So how long does the Fed expect to keep rates near zero? One year at the very minimum, easily two years, and perhaps up to a decade.
Many small businesses in the hardest-hit states missed out on the first round of federal relief through the recently created Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act established the PPP in order to disburse $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses hurt by the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the program’s funding limit and first-come, first-serve method for accepting loan applications put an immense strain on the financial institutions tasked with getting the money out the door. This resulted in many small businesses unable to get their applications submitted, approved, and funded before the program ran out of money after only two weeks. Where did the money go? The latest data from the Small Business Administration shows that the most populous states received the largest number of PPP loans. This is unsurprising, as states with higher populations tend to have a greater number of small businesses. One way to get a better picture of the impact of PPP loans on communities is to examine what percentage of a state’s small businesses received PPP loans (Figure 1). When viewed through this lens, the results are a quite striking - many of the coastal areas and larger markets missed out, while the rural, north-central states won out. Less than 4% of small businesses in California, Florida, and New York – three of the top five largest markets – were approved for PPP loans. While more than 12% of small businesses in North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota received support. What happened? There are several factors that could have played a part in the uneven distribution of PPP loans. One explanation may be that some financial institutions in highly populated urban areas did not have the capacity to process such a large volume of loan applications in such a short amount of time. There may also be an urban-rural divide to how relationship banking occurs. Rural communities and small businesses with close-knit ties to area financial institutions may have had easier access to getting their PPP applications submitted and approved. In line with this, Figure 2 shows the top five and bottom five states in terms of financial institutions (banks and credit unions) per 100,000 people. The states with the highest prevalence of financial institutions were also the top states for PPP small business loan share. While the states with the lowest prevalence of financial institutions were the states with the smallest share. Another factor may have been the extent that shelter-in-place rules were being enforced. North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota – the three top states for loan share – are part of the handful of states that still do not have statewide lockdowns. California, on the other hand, was the first state in the country to issue shelter-in-place measures. Why it matters The first round of stimulus through the Paycheck Protection Program provided relief for many small businesses around the country. However, the first-come, first-serve method of distributing loans may have resulted in some small business communities having easier access to the program than others. Insights as to why these differences occurred and why small businesses in the larger markets received a lower share of PPP loans can inform future stimulus efforts and ensure that recovery among the states is as even and broad as possible. Figure 1 Sources: Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection Program Report 4/16/2020, Census Bureau SUSB and NES Statistics. Author’s calculations. Figure 2 Sources: Experian data on financial institutions, Census Bureau population estimates. Author\'s calculations.
Learn More Image
