Morning Report: Earnings season kicks off with the banks reporting

Vital Statistics:

 LastChange
S&P futures3,963-40.50
Oil (WTI)78.790.43
10 year government bond yield 3.48%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 6.15%

Stocks are lower as we kick off earnings season. Bonds and MBS are up.

Consumer sentiment improved in January, according to the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey. The reading on personal finances drove the increase based on higher incomes and lower inflation. These consumer sentiment surveys are highly influenced by gasoline prices, and the decline at the pump is helping things.

Inflationary expectations fell from 4.4% to 4% which is good news for those who want the Fed to take its foot off the brake. Consumer sentiment is still awful overall, stuck at the levels we saw during the Great Recession.

Wells reported a decline in fourth quarter earnings, however there were a lot of special charges which makes a QOQ and YOY comparison difficult. Revenues rose 0.7% QOQ and EPS fell 21% to $0.67. The company took provisions for CFPB settlements, home lending severance, and impairments in its venture capital business.

Delinquencies are starting to tick up, with provisions for credit losses and charge-offs up QOQ and YOY. Credit cards drove the increase. Mortgage originations fell 32% QOQ and 70% YOY to $14.6 billion. The press release didn’t address the exit from correspondent lending, but I am sure it will come up on the conference call.

JP Morgan reported earnings per share climbed 14% QOQ and 7.2% YOY to $3.57 per share. Like Wells, the company built up its reserve for loan losses and increased charge-offs. Mortgage originations fell 45% QOQ and 72% YOY to $6.7 billion.

Apartment rental rates rose 5% YOY according to data from Redfin. They were down 1.4% MOM and off 3.6% from the peak set in August. Some of this is seasonality, however the massive growth we saw in 2021 is over, and rents will generally lag home prices by 21 months or so. “Rents have room to fall. While they’ve cooled significantly from their peak, it still costs the typical renter 20% more to take on a new lease than it did two years ago,” said Redfin Economics Research Lead Chen Zhao. “An increase in the number of rentals on the market  should also cause rents to ease in the coming months. Rental supply is growing due to an influx of construction in recent years, ebbing household formation and a slow homebuying market, which is driving many homeowners to rent out their properties rather than sell.”

I launched my Substack over the weekend, where I took went over the market’s reaction to the jobs report and the main drivers. The Weekly Tearsheet will take a deeper dive into some of the happenings in the prior week, along with economic commentary. I hope you enjoy it and consider subscribing. If you use this professionally and can expense it, I hope you consider becoming a paid subscriber.

I am accepting ads for this blog as well, if you would like a mention. In addition, if you enjoy the content and would like a white label solution for your company, I would be interested in having a conversation.

30 Responses

  1. Good read:

    Like

  2. Haven’t been here in awhile but this caught my eye!

    Flashback Friday and me being a tiny bit political……I graduated from high school in 1968 and it wasn’t until 1969 that girls were allowed to wear pants to school. I remember kneeling down on the asphalt so the principal could make sure our skirt/dress touched the ground…..a Very True Story. Apparently in Missouri today Female State Legislators have a new imposed dress code by their male counterparts…..no sleeveless blouses….sheesh

    Like

  3. Flashback Friday and me being a tiny bit political……I graduated from high school in 1968 and it wasn’t until 1969 that girls were allowed to wear pants to school. I remember kneeling down on the asphalt so the principal could make sure our skirt/dress touched the ground…..a Very True Story. Apparently in Missouri Female State Legislators have a new imposed dress code by their male counterparts…..no sleeveless blouses….sheesh!

    Like

    • Are men allowed to wear sleeveless shirts?

      I will bet you $100 that the men’s dress code is more restrictive than the women’s. I haven’t looked, but I am happy to make the bet blind.

      Like

    • lms:

      Apparently in Missouri Female State Legislators have a new imposed dress code by their male counterparts

      OK, I checked this out. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that what you say is almost entirely wrong.

      First, it is not a “new” dress code. It is a clarification of the existing dress code, which required a blazer or sweater to be worn, but was written so as to be ambiguous about whether a blazer/sweater was required with a dress and skirt, or just with slacks.

      The old rule read:

      At all times when the House is seated, proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots. Proper attire for women shall be dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots.

      The new one reads:

      At all times when the House is seated, proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots. Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots. For the purposes of this rule, “jacket” shall include blazers and knit blazers.

      So now it is unambiguous…like men, women must wear a jacket, although they still have the option of wearing a “knit blazer”, later clarified to mean a sweater, an option that is actually not afforded to men. Who exactly is more oppressed by the rules?!?

      Second, far from being “imposed” on women by their “male counterparts”, the rule amendment was written and proposed by….wait for it…you know what’s coming…Rep. Ann Kelly.

      The woe-unto-women narrative is so tiring, and almost universally wrong. Why do you continue to fall for it, lms?

      Like

      • In lms’ defense, there’s a concerted effort by the entire MSM to push the story. The whole reason anyone knows anything about the Missouri House dress code in the first place is someone in the media thought to use it to push their narrative.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics/missouri-dress-code-lawmakers-house/index.html

        Like

        • jnc:

          In lms’ defense, there’s a concerted effort by the entire MSM to push the story.

          That is definitely true. But how many times must media-pushed progressive narratives – especially with regard to the notion that women are somehow uniquely subject to discrimination in modern US society – be proven to be false before one shows at least a little skepticism rather than swallowing it hook, line, and sinker?

          Like

        • But how many times must media-pushed progressive narratives – especially with regard to the notion that women are somehow uniquely subject to discrimination in modern US society – be proven to be false before one shows at least a little skepticism rather than swallowing it hook, line, and sinker?

          will never happen.

          Like

        • Agreed. The left even rejects Gell-Mann amnesia. If the media says X, and the left believes Y, they’ll change their belief to Y. It’s never questioned, just accepted.

          Like

  4. Sorry it got posted twice………….I have not control over what happens here anymore…………..LOL I would delete one of the comments if I could!

    Like

  5. Journalists are the real victims here.

    Like

  6. Follow up on the use of facial recognition technology to ban lawyers who are suing venues:

    Like

  7. Sweet Jesus! The poor woman! He’s probably raped her already.

    or, in Jackson’s case, stranded at the end of the bench with only Kavanaugh at her side.

    Also, why is this bad, exactly?

    both challenges to race-based preferences in higher-education admissions—the justices dropped the charade.

    And thus we get to the really fucked up beliefs.

    These are the pipelines to leadership in our society!”

    Why it wasn’t immediately followed by: “and they should be destroyed!” I’ll never know.

    Lol!

    But since the Court’s rightward turn, he has become imperious.

    Gasp!

    During this argument, he made clear that his sympathies lay with the graphic designer, not her potential gay customers.

    Have you no shame, sir?

    He wound up comparing the requirement to design a website for gay customers to forcing a “Black Santa” to sit for photos with children clad as Klansmen.

    So, it was the lefty that broke the norm.

    Kagan had had enough, shoving aside the norm whereby justices take care not to challenge one another directly. After Eric Olson, Colorado’s solicitor general, replied that KKK costumes are not protected characteristics, Kagan calmly fleshed out the fallacy of Alito’s logic. Her pace slowed and her register dropped: It would be the same white robe and hood, Kagan said, “whether the child was Black or white.”

    Also, sick burn, yo.

    The author’s hero.

    Kagan has long been one of the savviest justices, using oral argument to appeal to persuadable colleagues or to limit the damage in cases that her side was bound to lose.

    Duly shamed we hope!

    In response, Kavanaugh turned to his colleague, eyebrows slightly elevated and lips pursed. But he didn’t say anything.

    You know because his lips were pursed.

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F01%2Fsupreme-court-justices-public-conflict%2F672494%2F

    What’s also ultimately unaddressed is how fucked up things are that we’re beholden to 12 unelected people. It never occurs to lefties to devolve power so that they don’t worry excessively over who wields it.

    Like

    • McWing:

      What’s also ultimately unaddressed is how fucked up things are that we’re beholden to 12 unelected people

      It’s even worse. There are only 9 of them!

      Like

    • The telling comment:

      “Much of the time—including at the oral arguments in the comparatively low-stakes cases on attorney-client privilege and sovereign immunity, which the Court heard last week—the justices keep civil and carry on. Occasionally they even seem to like one another. In November, Alito and Kagan laughed—with Alito joking that he had “forgotten what my next question is”—as they jostled during oral argument in a below-the-radar case on the Quiet Title Act. But when ideologically divisive issues appear on the docket, the agitation bubbles up. In any other workplace, a manager would be concerned about the impact of such fractured relationships on the ability of a nine-member team to work together productively. The worry is more urgent when the testy interpersonal dynamics are among members of the nation’s highest court.”

      Why it’s surprising to the author that the “ideologically divisive issues” would cause more dissension escapes me. But apparently it’s time to call HR. Unfortunately for the author, that won’t work here.

      Like

      • If what the article says is true, it actually reflects pretty poorly on the 3 progressives of the court, although the author doesn’t seem to realize it. Things go downhill only after they become the minority and start to lose cases? Ever heard of the term “sore loser”?

        And, on a completely different front, why is it that we still don’t have any information about the huge breach last summer in the leaking of the Dobbs decision? Why is the court hiding and protecting the culprit(s)?

        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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: