Third Quarter 2010 GDP Revision

The revision to third quarter 2010 GDP was released last week. The original estimate, 2.0%, was revised up to 2.5%, a more "respectable" number than the original. In the first release of each quarter's GDP number, inventories, exports, and imports are all approximated. Subsequent months will use available data to eliminate the "educated guesses" contained in the first estimate. That was the case for today's release. Here is a story discussing the GDP release.

As the official GDP releases represent somewhat "stale" data, we can approximate what they will entail using real-time data from asset markets, which has been a central theme of my classes. To do this, go to StockCharts.com and on the middle right select the PerfChart (this stands for Performance Chart) that deals with the sectors of the S&P 500. To save you time and effort, here is the link.

PROCEDURE:
First, choose a bar chart at the bottom left (second button from the left). Then, move the slider (bottom right) to cover the exact time period you desire. Here, I have used the third quarter of 2010.

ANALYSIS:
Observe which sectors have performed better than the S&P 500 index (i.e., outperformed the overall market). This occurs when the S&P 500 button at the top left of the chart is selected.

For the third quarter of 2010, clearly the most cyclically sensitive sectors outperformed the market, with the exception of Financials. Overall, this is a reflection of the growth that occurred during that quarter. Had the defensive sectors (i.e., Consumer Staples, Health Care, and Utilities) outperformed, this would have signaled a potentially weakening economy.

Can this analysis be used to help predict the GDP report before it is actually released? The answer is yes. Asset markets, one of which is the stock market, are leading indicators, which means they tend to move in advance of changes in other parts of the economy. So, current changes in leading economic indicators tend to signal future changes we can expect to observe in the overall economy.

What is the stock market (and its sectors) telling us about the fourth quarter rate of economic growth? The second chart (click to enlarge) shows market performance since October 1. Other than Energy and Consumer Discretionary stocks (which themselves are cyclical), the remainder of cyclical indicators are performing less well than they did in the third quarter. The apparent message is that economic growth in the fourth quarter will be slower than it was in Q3, or spotty at best in comparison.

There are two things that should be noted. First, there is no indication that economic growth will become negative in Q4. Second, the slowing of economic growth these sectors seem to be indicting also affects the defensive sectors, so they are more negative than they were in Q3. The greater under performance utilities may also reflect an expectation of somewhat higher interest rates in the near term (i.e., (public) utilities like electric companies tend to pay high dividends which become less attractive when interest rates are expected to rise). Part of this no doubt reflects ongoing worries about the US housing market and the economic stability and solvency of several European countries as well (Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, sometimes referred to as the PIIGS, using their first letters). Will economic weakness in Europe weaken the recent momentum the US has been experiencing? The market apparently believe that this is likely.

Let me suggest that you continue to follow the sectors as we move farther into the fourth quarter and see what the market is suggesting. We won't get the initial Q4 GDP data until late in January, so this should be informative in advance of the formal data in January (that will be stale at that point).

January Employment Report

 Friday's employment report was multifaceted, to say the least. First, there were the employment change results: -20,000 (a very small amount for the entire country, and not statistically significant). Then there were the employment revisions for 2009 -- very large, making the job loss during "The Great Recession" equal to 8.4 million. Finally, there was the unemployment rate, which fell from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. Recommendation: ALWAYS LOOK AT REVISIONS TO PRIOR PERIOD(S) BEFORE EXAMINING THE NEW DATA (as this establishes a proper context for you).

Much was written about these results. Here's what the WSJ said. Here is the link for a video from CNBC after the results were announced, and another link for the same group discussing things before the release. After reviewing all of these,make sure you understand: (1) that there are two separate surveys used for these results; (2) how can the unemployment rate actually fall if employment falls; and (3) what are the implications of the set of results for the stock market, bond market (interest rates), and the US dollar. As I have said numerous times already this semester, "other things" are seldom "equal." So, as a backdrop to all of this information from Europe, is the ongoing concern about the Sovereign debt of Spain, Ireland, and Portugal (these countries have now come to be referred to as the "PIG" countries). So, the final outcome of the day was the joint effect of the Sovereign debt problems and the US employment/unemployment rate data.

Today's Employment Report

This morning, the January employment report was released. The consensus estimate for job change was +150,000, partly related to what was considered to be warmer-than-normal weather nationally in January. When the number was initially released, it appeared that employment change was slower than expected: +111,000. BUT, prior months were revised up significantly higher, RULE: ALWAYS LOOK AT REVISIONS TO PRIOR DATA BEFORE ANALYZING THE MOST RECENT DATA POINT. Here is an article about the report that you should read.

Along with employment change, the government released the January unemployment rate (slight rise to 4.6%), hours worked (slight decline), and the change in average hourly wages (+0.4%).

When the employment report is released, market participants attempt to gauge the implications for growth and inflation. As we will see this week, nominal interest rates are a function of both of these, so interest rate implications are critical when this report is released. And, it took a while for the markets to "digest" all that was going on with this report. The graph below shows this, focusing on the 10-year bond rate. It is from MarketWatch.com and has OHLC bars for 15 minute intervals to show more immediate and ongoing reactions. The double vertical line in the middle of the graph denotes the end of trading on Thursday. To the right is Friday (today) and the reaction to the job report. Can you see the obvious manifestation of initial confusion by the market for the 10-year bond rate.? Actually, the relevant question is how can you miss it?

The inflation implications of the report are derived from the behavior of the unemployment rate (it relates to resource utilization) and the hourly wage change (which could put upward pressure on prices when it rises "a lot"). In general, when the unemployment rate falls, this is taken to signal tighter labor markets and upward pressure on wages and prices in the future. Translation: higher future expected inflation. How inflationary depends on where the rate is and how much it changes. The lower the unemployment rate, the more inflationary will be the impact of declines. Similarly, the more rapid is growth in the average hourly wage, the more inflationary is it taken to be. We will see later in the course that productivity should also be taken into account to make a more proper determination of this (called Unit Labor Cost), but productivity data are only released quarterly.

Follow the 10-year rate for the remainder of the day. What ultimately happened? Compare the daily bar in StockCharts.com to the prior day. Also, look at the 10-year on a weekly chart.