Taking a Closer Look at Unemployment

Employment as measured by the "establishment survey," was down by 190,000; and Many feel it is an improvement that we are not falling as fast.

Well, let us take a moment to look under the hood of these numbers. First, while the establishment survey was down 190k,  the number of unemployed soared by 558,000, to 15.7 million, as measured by the household survey. The establishment survey is taken from large businesses while the household survey calls individual households. It is the household survey that sets the unemployment rate. The establishment survey of companies doesn't count the self-employed and undercounts employees of small businesses. So the economic picture is probably worse than the headlines when it comes to jobs.

Let's look at the establishment survey. The actual change in unemployment for October was 641,000, not 190,000 which is seasonally adjusted. The so-called birth-death ratio added 86,000. Who knows if that is a reasonable statistical adjustment. While we should adjust the number seasonally, in the real world the jobs were still lost.

The total (U-6) employment rate has climbed to a record high of 17.5%. This is complied by adding in those employed part time for economic reasons. Total job losses since the onset of the recession now are approximately 10.5 million.

From John Mauldin we get this report from Greg Weldon (www.weldononline.com). Greg points out one of the issues with just looking at unemployment, because if you have not looked for a job in four weeks they no longer count you as unemployed:

“Moreover, when we combine the monthly change in the number of Unemployed, with the number Not in the Labor Force, we might consider the result to be a proxy for the actual 'change' in the underlying labor market situation ... in which case, October's figure of 817,000 represents the fourth LARGEST yet, behind last month's (September's) second largest figure of 1,021,000 ... for a two-month combined figure of 1.838 million, in newly Unemployed, or no longer 'in' the Labor Force ...

... the second LARGEST two-month total EVER posted, barely trailing the December-08/January-09 total 1.955 million.

Bottom line ... basis this measure AND the 'Total Unemployment Rate,' we could conclude that not only is there NO 'improvement' in the labor market, but moreover, that it continues to DETERIORATE, intently.”

Of course, unemployment is typically a lagging indicator, but not always. In a “balance sheet” recession where home price declines, rising defaults (yes they are still rising) credit losses, a wave of foreclosures as large or larger than the subprime tsunami and deleveraging are in motion, unemployment rising at the rate we are seeing now is likely to be a significant drag for years to come.

Looking back at 1982, which so many people told us was far worse than today could ever be, we see households dealing with similar “levels” of unemployment with more than three times the debt load and half the savings. Workers are finding it takes longer to find work than in 1982. The count of people jobless for six months or longer stands at a record 5.6 million.

There was a bright spot, though it is so early we might see it revised down or a statistical aberration. Temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, its third straight month of gains after steep losses earlier this year. Typically employers add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

The even uglier fact. Average hours worked still stands at 33, a record low. Two important things to be gleaned form that number:

The unemployment number is much lower than it otherwise would be because workers hours have been cut rather than jobs lost.

Hiring is likely to be slower than normal as early on we will see hours worked rise rather than bring in new employees.

So how are companies beating their estimates amidst all this gloom? First off, they always beat their estimates. They are not beating the estimates of a year ago, or six months ago, or even three months ago. They are beating the estimates which keep getting chopped almost until they are reported. The estimates six months out from now are unlikely to be met, but by then they will be reduced yet again.

Still, profits are better than many expected six months ago, even if they are worse than the analysts estimates from then as well. Why? John Forsyth gives us the skinny:

The genius of American business for doing more with less has been evident in the parade of earnings reports showing profits improving far more than the revenue that produces them. The secret: Productivity soared at a 9.5% annual rate in the third quarter, a stunning increase that was nearly half again as much as economists had projected. Business cut labor costs at a 5.2% annual rate, with total hours falling at a 5% pace. Fewer workers worked fewer hours.

That is a recipe for deflation and slow growth if it doesn’t reverse. Profits can only be improved by cost cutting for so long, and the carnage amongst workers is made even worse.

Charts are courtesy of Barry Ritholtz. Also posted at The View From the Bluff.

(download)

A Roll of the Dice

Media_httpmediabusinessreportcommediaimgphotos20091102lancepaddockcvbt290jpg_fsffgicgtkdlygk

Emma James of the Baton Rouge Business Report interviews myself, Mike Patton of Integrity Wealth Management (a pretty good egg from what I know of him) and Professor Kelley Pace of LSU on the subject of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT’s.) I think she does a pretty good job on what is in fact a very complex issue at the moment.

On a longer term basis public REITs are reasonably valued, and the very possible collapse in the Commercial Real Estate market will give public REITs with their more flexible capital structures the ability to buy some very attractive property at distressed prices. However, they will likely be under tremendous pressure in the shorter run, and the overall market environment is likely to be unkind as well. Which means we may get a chance to buy them at a much cheaper price down the road, with the opportunity for them to profit from the distressed property market still in front of us. It may seem a bit like dancing on gravestones, but I would welcome it.

Unlike 2006-2008 I am not of a mind to go “short” publicly traded REITs however, as reasonable long term valuations make that potential decline far from a given.

More "Money on the Sidelines" Nonsense

Barry Ritholtz jumps on one of my pet peeves, the whole "gobs of money on the sidelines" scam (silliness, nonsense or delusion work also) which constantly crops up in financial commentary. Folks, don't fall for it. The stock market may rise or fall in coming months but "money on the sidelines" will not have anything to do with it. Barry resurrects an old John Hussman piece which is one of my favorite dissections of this myth:
I've said this before, but it's important. If Ricky sells his money market shares and buys stocks, then his money market fund has to sell commercial paper to Nicky, whose currency goes to Ricky, who uses it to pay for the stock bought from Mickey. In the end, the currency that Nicky held is now held by Mickey, the commercial paper held by Ricky is now held by Nicky, and the stock held by Mickey is now held by Ricky, and there is exactly as much stock, commercial paper, and currency outstanding as there was before. All that happened is that the owner of each security has changed.
I suggest reading the whole thing, but if ordinary logic doesn't prove it then maybe actual facts about the behavior of markets will help, also courtesy of Barry:
Media_httpwwwritholtzcomblogwpcontentuploads200909mmfandspxpng_dlbfewjygeaqllf
Notice, when the market was rising so was cash. It didn't disappear into the stock market and explain the rising market. In fact, during the tech crash it declined along with the market. Before the most recent market crash this argument "cash on the sidelines" was used to argue why the stock market wouldn't decline. How did that work out? Amusingly (if somewhat darkly so) Hussman in the piece above wrote in 2006 how the fallacy might mislead us:
There is an important reason for these considerations here. As I've noted in recent months, it's likely that China and Japan will at least stabilize in their willingness to absorb the flood of government liabilities that they've been snapping up in recent years. That means that more of these liabilities will be forced into the hands of U.S. investors. As that happens, we're likely to observe an accumulation of “cash on the sidelines” that might look like a hopeful sign for stocks.
A hopeful sign that left investors holding the bag. Don't believe it this time or next time.

The Bailout May Need a Bailout

Our government is now on the hook for trillions in mortgage loans, and traders are making money selling them more debt. The problem is that the bailout just may be suffering losses that are leaving our government scrambling to shuffle the pea from cup to cup. From Heidi Moore:
Look deeper, however, and the government isn't really quitting its bailouts at all. It is just shifting strategy away from banks and financial services to a new set of quieter bailouts, centered on the housing and real estate markets in general and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. In this way, the administration's actions are meshing with the wishes of House financial services committee Chairman Barney Frank, who said last year, "I want at least two years with President Obama and a solidly Democratic Senate so that we can get the federal government back in the housing business." Now it is, even to the point that the government is at risk of creating another mortgage bubble. We just have to see if the government can handle it. The government has to concentrate all of its resources on keeping the housing and real estate markets stable because the government is now the single biggest investor in mortgage-backed securities. It bought more than 80 percent of all the mortgages issued by Fannie and Freddie. What this means is that if homeowners start to fall behind on those mortgages in even bigger numbers than the current 9.24 percent default rate, the government is in deep trouble, starting with the Federal Reserve. The Fed's own balance sheet—its financial holdings—has ballooned to $2.1 trillion from just $800 billion a year ago. One-third of the Fed's balance sheet is weighed down with $625 billion of troubled mortgage-backed securities, once floating around the market and now invited to stay in Uncle Sam's own accounts.
Read the whole thing.

Inside the Stanford Mess

Olivia Watkins of the Baton Rouge Business Report interviewed me as background for a large piece she did on the alleged Stanford Ponzi scheme and the sales tactics used to lure clients. It is filled with inside information, some of it startling, though I believe Olivia held back on some of the more disturbing tales, possibly because they could not be substantiated. Overall it is a very interesting read compared to much of what I have read on the matter (my parts are not that interesting) and reveals a lot about the culture of the firm, especially its use of religion. Michael Word's (one of the Stanford advisors, the others declined to comment) statements are disturbing in various ways