Morning Report – Consumer Sentiment is at boom time levels. 2/27/15

Stocks are lower this morning after GDP came in a little better than expectations. Bonds and MBS are up small.

The second revision to fourth quarter GDP came in at 2.2%, a bit higher than the estimate of 2%, but a big drop from the Q3 reading of 5%. Personal consumption rose to 4.2%, a strong reading that bodes well for growth going forward. Government spending was down, driven by a 12.4% drop in defense spending. Business inventories were revised downward as well. Private capital expenditures slowed their rate of growth as well.

Pending Home Sales rose 1.7% in January, lower than expected, but better than the upward-revised 1.5% drop in December. They are up 6.5% year over year. Supply remains tight, however all-cash sales as a percent are dropping, which indicates the professionals may be exiting, leaving room for “real” home buyers to enter. The big question remains regarding inventory: will it simply jack up prices, or will it attract new building? The answer may be “both.”

In other economic data, the ISM Milwaukee Index came in at 50.32, a disappointment, while the Chicago Purchasing Manager index fell sharply from 59.4 to 45.8. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment index rose to 95.4. These consumer confidence indices are driven by gasoline prices for the most part, but the numbers are encouraging nonetheless. We are back to boom-time levels. This is being confirmed by the strong personal consumption numbers this morning.

Why is Germany worried about government spending when it is getting paid to borrow? Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark are imposing negative interest rates on bank deposits. Separately, are these ultra-low rates creating issues that will blow up later? We are in uncharted territory, and while everyone hopes that the world’s central banks can stimulate the global economy without causing another crisis, that is no sure bet. The stock market seems blithely oblivious to this possibility, however and that is another issue. I am wondering if this will all come to a head in time for the 2016 elections. Monetary policy acts with a lag, and if the Fed starts tightening in June, the effects will start kicking in by summer of 2016.

We are starting to see more evidence of improvement in the labor market with small business, which has been the engine of job creation historically. We are actually beginning to see the unwind of a strange dichotomy. The stock market had been flying over the past few years, yet things have been pretty gloomy for the economy overall. To the average American, it didn’t feel like the stock market was at record levels – it didn’t feel like 2005 or 1999. The reason for this was that the big S&P 500 names had lots of international exposure, which was driving earnings and the indices. Not only that, they could borrow at exceptionally low rates, while smaller business was subject to tighter credit. As Europe weakens and the US dollar increases, the international divisions are having a rougher go of it, while US domestic focused small business is benefiting from a turnaround in the US economy.

7 Responses

  1. Frist!

    Take that, @michigoose!

    Like

    • An excellent and amusing brief filed in the Burwell case.

      http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/14-114_amicus_pet_ACLU.authcheckdam.pdf

      It concludes:

      Are the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of Justice not aware of the precedents discussed above? Given that these are the official U.S. government agencies responsible for implementing federal tax law, and for representing federal tax law before this Court, must we not presume and hold them responsible for knowing those precedents?

      We respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice that this case is not being heard in Wonderland, and that the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Justice Department are not Alice. Therefore, Aristotelian logic and the English language still apply to this case. On these grounds, we respectfully submit the question, do not the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of Justice warrant sanctions for the Through the Looking Glass illogic of the arguments they have presented to this Court in the present case?

      Like

      • Just reading a Burwell brief supporting the government. Under the heading “In 36B(b)(2)(A), “State” Does Not Even Really Mean “State”, Thus Showing the Need for Contextual Interpretation” we get this piece of impeccable logic.

        Moreover, if anyone claims that 36B(b)(2)(A) is somehow transparent and unequivocal, operating free of any context: the word “State” there does not even necessarily mean a State. What the real meaning of “State” there is, is seen in 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (Act § 1304(d)): “‘State’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Id. Q.E.D., 36B(b)(2)(A) sorely needs contextual help, of the kind that Respondents provide.

        So the very existence of an explicit definition for a term somehow implies the need to dispense with that explicit definition and seek a totally different definition via contextual interpretation. Indeed, it becomes “sorely needed”! Truly Alice in Wonderland stuff, this.

        http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-114_amicus_resp_boyle.authcheckdam.pdf

        Like

  2. Under what conditions can the Federal government complex a state government to do something, like spending money?

    Like

    • McWing:

      Under what conditions can the Federal government complex a state government to do something, like spending money?

      Constitutionally? I would think it can only compel the states to pay taxes, not spend money on something.

      Like

  3. Hence the need to condition the receipt of funds, like the PPACA subsidies, on actions that the government wants the states to undertake, like setting up a state exchange.

    Like

  4. so what is the pro-ACA argument for creating a state exchange if wealth transfer is not conditional on it?

    If I’m the governor of a blue state, how do I justify state taxpayer expenditures on a state exchange?

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: