Tag: covid
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
Amid the fallout of COVID-19, I often find myself thinking about the impact the pandemic has had and will have on businesses in the coming months—particularly those within the automotive industry. The impact has reached all facets of the industry, leaving dealerships to take unprecedented action. Some have temporarily closed, while many have shifted business priorities to focus on maintenance and repair. Like everyone, we in the automotive industry are concerned about the health and safety of our family, friends and communities. Much like the rest of small business owners, those that oversee dealerships are also concerned about the wellbeing of their work families. The automotive industry is a pillar of our economy, and dealerships are staples within our local communities. Experian has an unwavering commitment to help the industry navigate these uncertain times and address challenges as they arise. The pandemic has impacted groups of people differently and at different times. It’s important for those within the automotive industry to understand how consumer sentiment and priorities will shift over the coming months, in order to address their most pressing needs. As such, Experian launched a daily survey of the general population to gain insight into shifting consumer sentiment as a result of the pandemic. The survey reveals how consumers are dealing with the outbreak across key industries, including automotive. As of May 4, 2020, only 20 percent of Americans plan on buying a new car, truck, van or motorcycle within the next few months, and of those, only 50 percent plan to continue the purchase as planned. 26 percent plan to delay the purchase a few months. While car shopping may not be a priority for most in the coming months, there are consumers who will need to replace their vehicle sooner rather than later—perhaps their lease is set to expire, or they’ve experienced car trouble. In these instances, it’s important for dealers to be able to connect with these consumers to help them understand the options available to them. With this urgency in mind, Experian is providing dealers with complimentary access to nationwide and local automotive market trends. The information will be updated weekly to help dealers gain insight into current sales trends and website traffic, better understand in-market car shoppers and identify the most effective communications channels. For instance, during the week of April 27, dealer website traffic was down 11 percent from the same time last year. That said, web site traffic has picked back up over the past few weeks.. With the short- and long-term impacts of the pandemic largely unknown, dealerships must adapt quickly. Consumers\' vehicle needs will shift based on circumstance, and it’s important for dealers to continually assess the market. We are all adapting to our new environment, and will need to collaborate to find ways to combat the fallout—it’s a difficult time for many, including dealers. The automotive market will recover, and Experian is committed to helping the automotive industry navigate the recovery and ensure car shoppers can find vehicles that meet their needs. To view the Automotive Trends & Marketing Insights and sign up to receive your complimentary local market trends, click here. To view the Consumer Sentiment Index, click here.
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.
The response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) health crisis requires a brand-new mindset from businesses across the country. As part of our recently launched Q&A perspective series, Jim Bander, Market Lead of Analytics and Optimization and Kathleen Peters, Senior Vice President of Fraud and Identity, provided insight into how businesses can work to mitigate fraud and portfolio risk. Q: How can financial institutions mitigate fraud risk while monitoring portfolios? JB: The most important shift in portfolio monitoring is the view of the customer, because it’s very different during times of crisis than it is during expansionary periods. Financial institutions need to take a holistic view of their customers and use additional credit dimensions to understand consumers’ reactions to stress. While many businesses were preparing for a recession, the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus has already surpassed the stress-testing that most businesses performed. To help mitigate the increased risk, businesses need to understand how their stress testing was performed in the past and run new stress tests to understand how financially sound their institution is. KP: Most businesses—and particularly financial institutions—have suspended or relaxed many of their usual risk mitigation tools and strategies, in an effort to help support customers during this time of uncertainty. Many financial institutions are offering debt and late fee forgiveness, credit extensions, and more to help consumers bridge the financial gaps caused by the economic downturn. Unfortunately, the same actions that help consumers can hamstring fraud prevention efforts because they impact the usual risk indicators. To weather this storm, financial institutions need to pivot from standard risk mitigation strategies to more targeted fraud and identity strategies. Q: How can financial institutions’ exposure to risk be managed? JB: Financial institutions are trying to extend as much credit as is reasonably possible—per government guidelines—but when the first stage of this crisis passes, they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Specifically, which borrowers will actually repay their loans. Financial institutions should monitor consumer health and use proactive outreach to offer assistance while keeping a finger on the pulse of their customers’ financial health. For the foreseeable future, the focus will be on extending credit, not collecting on debt, but now is the time to start preparing for the economic aftermath. Consumer health monitoring is key, and it must include a strategy to differentiate credit abusers and other fraudsters from overall good consumers who are just financially stressed. KP: As financial institutions work to get all of their customers set up with online and mobile banking and account access, there’s an influx of new requests that all require consumer authentication, device identification, and sometimes even underwriting. All of this puts pressure on already strained resources which means increased fraud risk. To manage this risk, businesses need to balance customer experience—particularly minimizing friction—with vigilance against fraudsters and reputational risk. It will require a robust and flexible fraud strategy that utilizes automated tools as much as possible to free up personnel to follow up on the riskiest users and transactions. Experian is closely monitoring the updates around the coronavirus outbreak and its widespread impact on both consumers and businesses. We will continue to share industry-leading insights to help financial institutions manage their portfolios and protect against losses. Learn more About Our Experts: [avatar user=\"jim.bander\" /] Jim Bander, Market Lead, Analytics and Optimization, Experian Decision Analytics, North America Jim joined Experian in April 2018 and is responsible for solutions and value propositions applying analytics for financial institutions and other Experian business-to-business clients throughout North America. He has over 20 years of analytics, software, engineering and risk management experience across a variety of industries and disciplines. Jim has applied decision science to many industries, including banking, transportation and the public sector. [avatar user=\"kathleen.peters\" /] Kathleen Peters, Vice President, Fraud and Identity, Experian Decision Analytics, North America Kathleen joined Experian in 2013 to lead business development and international sales for the recently acquired 41st Parameter business in San Jose, Calif. She went on to lead product management for Experian’s fraud and identity group within the global Decision Analytics organization, launching Experian’s CrossCore® platform in 2016, a groundbreaking and award-winning new offering for the fraud and identity market. The last two years, Kathleen has been named a “Top 100 Influencer in Identity” by One World Identity (OWI), an exclusive list that annually recognizes influencers and leaders from across the globe, showcasing a who’s who of people to know in the identity space.
Learn More Image
