Click image
for larger version
The
Bureau
of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimated 2Q2013 growth in real U.S. GDP ) at a seasonally adjusted and annualized rate of +1.7 percent. At the
same time, the BEA also revised the 1Q2013 growth estimate sharply lower (from the
previously published 1.8 percent to 1.1 percent). Private domestic investment
(PDI) and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) added to 2Q growth, in that
order; net exports (NetX) dragged on growth, while government consumption
expenditures (GCE) was a “wash.”
The
1Q revision was part of a comprehensive restatement of all historical GDP estimates from 1929 through 2012. In some cases the revisions resulted
from better data while others were from accounting changes (e.g., the inclusion
of “intellectual property” and other items). All estimates were affected by changing
the "base” year for inflation adjustments from 2005 to 2009. Most notable
among the revisions was 1Q2011, which -- as we had predicted would be the case as
early as mid-2010, and the BEA now concedes -- was in significant contraction.
Click image
for larger version
For
the 2Q2013 estimate, as the analysts at Consumer
Metrics Institute (CMI ) pointed out, the BEA assumed annualized net
aggregate inflation of 0.70 percent. In contrast, the seasonally adjusted CPI -U index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS ) rose by 1.04 percent (June relative to March, annualized), and the
price index published by the Billion Prices Project (BPP ) rose at an annualized rate of 1.76 percent. As a reminder: an
understatement of assumed inflation increases the reported headline number --
and in this case the BEA's relatively low deflator boosted the published
headline rate. If the CPI -U had been used to convert the "nominal" GDP numbers into "real" numbers, the reported headline growth
rate would have been +1.35 percent. And if the BPP index (which arguably best reflects the experiences of the American
consumer) had be used as the "deflator," the economy would have grown
at a much more modest +0.63% annualized rate.
Karl Denninger
posted a critique of the current BEA methodology: “The revisions announced by
the BEA going back to the 1920s are IMHO more than a bit troubling and amount
to double-counting in many cases.
Specifically, intellectual property is now counted as
"investment" when created. The
problem with doing so is that if it pays off then it is already accounted for
and the goods and services that went into the R&D has already been counted
as well.
“Further,
the BEA is now counting the accrual of defined benefit pensions into personal
assets. That's a pleasant fantasy when
the pension is underfunded! I see
nothing [in the GDP report] noting that this is adjusted for the level of
actual funding compared to requirements, which means that now assets are being
effectively double-counted….”
The foregoing comments represent the
general economic views and analysis of Delphi Advisors,
and are provided solely for the purpose of information, instruction and
discourse. They do not constitute a solicitation or recommendation regarding
any investment.
