What is Macro Pulse?

Macro Pulse highlights recent activity and events expected to affect the U.S. economy over the next 24 months. While the review is of the entire U.S. economy its particular focus is on developments affecting the Forest Products industry. Everyone with a stake in any level of the sector can benefit from
Macro Pulse's timely yet in-depth coverage.


Tuesday, March 31, 2020

February 2020 Residential Sales, Inventory and Prices

Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Sales of new single-family houses in February 2020 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 765,000 units (743,000 expected). This is 4.4 percent (±14.8 percent)* below the revised January rate of 800,000 (originally 764,000), but 14.3 percent (±17.5 percent)* above the February 2019 SAAR of 669,000 units; the not-seasonally adjusted (NSA) year-over-year comparison (shown in the table above) was +19.3%. For longer-term perspectives, NSA sales were 44.9% below the “housing bubble” peak but 30.1% above the long-term, pre-2000 average.
The median sales price of new houses sold in February jumped ($20,500 or +6.3% MoM) to a record $345,900; meanwhile, the average sales price increased to $403,800 ($19,800 or +5.2%). Starter homes (defined here as those priced below $200,000) comprised 11.8% of the total sold, up from the year-earlier 8.8%; prior to the Great Recession starter homes represented as much as 61% of total new-home sales. Homes priced below $150,000 made up 2.9% of those sold in February, up from 1.8% a year earlier.
* 90% confidence interval includes zero. The Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero. 
Click image for larger view
As mentioned in our post about housing permits, starts and completions in February, single-unit completions increased by 127,000 units (+14.1%). Although sales fell (35,000 units; -4.4%) while completions rose, inventory for sale contracted in absolute terms (-3,000 units) but expanded in months-of-inventory (+0.2 month) terms. 
Click image for larger view
Existing home sales advanced in February (350,000 units or +6.5%), to a SAAR of 5.77 million units. Inventory of existing homes for sale expanded in absolute terms (+70,000 units) but was unchanged in months-of-inventory terms. Because new-home sales fell while resales rose, the share of total sales comprised of new homes retreated to 11.7%. The median price of previously owned homes sold in February increased to $270,100 ($3,900 or +1.5% MoM). 
Click image for larger view
Housing affordability improved (+6.7 percentage points) as the median price of existing homes for sale in January fell by $8,400 (-3.0; +6.9 YoY), to $268,600. Concurrently, Standard & Poor’s reported that the U.S. National Index in the S&P Case-Shiller CoreLogic Home Price indices inched up at a not-seasonally adjusted monthly change of less than +0.1% (+3.9% YoY).
"The trend of stable growth established in 2019 continued into the first month of the new year,” said Craig Lazzara, Managing Director and Global Head of Index Investment Strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “The National Composite Index rose by 3.9% in January 2020, and the 10- and 20-City Composites also advanced (by 2.6% and 3.1% respectively). Results for the month were broad-based, with gains in every city in our 20-City Composite; 14 of the 20 cities saw accelerating prices. As has been the case since mid-2019, after a long period of decelerating price increases, the National, 10-City, and 20-City Composites all rose at a faster rate in January than they had done in December.
“At a regional level, Phoenix retains the top spot for the eighth consecutive month, with a gain of 6.9% for January. Seattle, Tampa, and San Diego all rose by 5.1%. Housing prices were particularly strong in the West and South, and comparatively weak in the Midwest and Northeast.
“It is important to bear in mind that today’s report covers real estate transactions closed during the month of January. The COVID-19 pandemic did not begin to take hold in the U.S. until late February, and thus whatever impact it will have on housing prices is not reflected in today’s data.” 
Click image for larger view
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.

Friday, March 27, 2020

4Q2019 Gross Domestic Product: Third Estimate

Click image for larger version
In its third estimate of 4Q2019 gross domestic product (GDP), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) bumped the growth rate of the U.S. economy to a seasonally adjusted and annualized rate (SAAR) of +2.12% (+2.1% expected), up 0.02 percentage point (PP) from the second estimate (“4Qv2”) and +0.01PP from 3Q2019.
As noted in prior 4Q reports, three of the four groupings of GDP components -- personal consumption expenditures (PCE), net exports (NetX) and government consumption expenditures (GCE) -- contributed to 4Q growth; private domestic investment (PDI) detracted.
Changes in this report were truly statistical noise: No component aggregate was revised by more than ±0.07PP; even at the next level down in line items, revisions were smaller than ±0.09PP. Contribution to the GDP headline from PCE was shown to be marginally stronger than in 4Qv2, whereas contributions from the other categories were even more marginally weaker. To provide an idea of just how insignificant the revisions were, the largest positive change was to health care spending (+$8.8 billion), while the largest negative change was to gross output of nonprofit institutions (-$10.6 billion) -- in an economy of $21.7 trillion (nominal dollars). 
Click image for larger version
Consumer Metric Institute’s Rick Davis put the above numbers in further context: “March 2020 has made this report completely irrelevant,” he wrote. “The BEA has metaphorically fine-tuned the deck chairs on the Titanic. In a matter of weeks we have transitioned from the above numbers to the reality of unprecedented economic contraction and soaring unemployment rates last seen 90 years ago.
“In fairness, the BEA did what it was charged with doing. But even during times of economic stability, the BEA's quarterly ritual of issuing a preliminary growth estimate, followed a month later by a first revision, followed yet a month later by a final estimate, is obscenely antiquated.
“As a further indictment of the BEA's methodologies, current ‘real time’ estimates -- using those exact same methodologies -- provide us with annualized growth estimates for 1Q2020 of 3.1% (GDPNow, Atlanta Fed) and 1.5% (NowCast, New York Fed). If you are a betting person, we would suggest that you take the ‘under.’”
Davis concluded by saying, “Unlike 90 years ago, this economy won't require a decade and a global war for full recovery. But the contraction will certainly spike lower than anything this generation has ever seen.”
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.

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

February 2020 Residential Permits, Starts and Completions

Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Builders started construction of privately-owned housing units in February at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 1,599,000 units (1.520 million expected). This is 1.5 percent (±12.4 percent)* below the revised January estimate of 1,624,000 (originally 1.567 million units), but 39.2 percent (±17.7 percent) above the February 2019 SAAR of 1,149,000 units; the not-seasonally adjusted YoY change (shown in the table above) was +41.3%.
Single-family housing starts in February were at a rate of 1,072,000; this is 6.7 percent (±13.9 percent)* above the revised January figure of 1,005,000 units (+37.4% YoY). Multi-family starts: 527,000 units (-14.9% MoM; +49.6% YoY).
* 90% confidence interval (CI) is not statistically different from zero. The Census Bureau does not publish CIs for the entire multi-unit category. 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Total completions were at a SAAR of 1,316,000 units. This is 0.2 percent (±12.4 percent)* below the revised January estimate of 1,319,000 (originally 1.280 million units) and 1.2 percent (±14.8 percent)* below the February 2019 SAAR of 1,332,000 units; the NSA comparison: -0.2% YoY.
Single-family completions were at a SAAR of 1,027,000; this is 14.1 percent (±14.1 percent)* above the revised January rate of 900,000 units (+24.8% YoY). Multi-family completions: 269,000 units (-31.0% MoM; -42.0% YoY). 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Total permits amounted to a SAAR of 1,464,000 units (1.500 million expected). This is 5.5 percent (±1.5 percent) below the revised January rate of 1,550,000 (originally 1.551 million units), but 13.8 percent (±2.1 percent) above the February 2019 SAAR of 1,287,000 units; the NSA comparison: +12.4% YoY.
Single-family permits were at a SAAR of 1,004,000; this is 1.7 percent (±1.4 percent) above the revised January figure of 987,000 units (+23.0% YoY). Multi-family: 460,000 (-18.3% MoM; -6.5% YoY). 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Builder confidence in the market for newly-built single-family homes fell two points to 72 in March, according to the latest NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI). Sentiment levels have held in a firm range in the low- to mid-70s for the past six months.
“Builder confidence remains solid, although sales expectations for the next six months dropped four points on economic uncertainty stemming from the coronavirus,” said NAHB Chairman Dean Mon. “Interest rates remain low, and a lack of inventory creates market opportunities for single-family builders.”
“It is important to note that half of the builder responses in the March HMI were collected prior to March 4, so the recent stock market declines and the rising economic impact of the coronavirus will be reflected more in next month’s report,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz.  “Overall, 21% of builders in the survey report some disruption in supply due to virus concerns in other countries such as China. However, the incidence is higher (33%) among builders who responded to the survey after March 6, indicating that this is an emerging issue.”
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.

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

February 2020 Industrial Production, Capacity Utilization and Capacity

Click image for larger version
Total industrial production (IP) rose 0.6% in February (+0.4% expected) after falling by a revised 0.5% in January (originally -0.3%). Manufacturing output edged up 0.1% in February; excluding a large gain for motor vehicles and parts and a large drop for civilian aircraft, factory output was unchanged. The index for mining declined 1.5%, but the index for utilities jumped 7.1%, as temperatures returned to more typical levels following an unseasonably warm January. At 109.6% of its 2012 average, the level of total IP in February was unchanged from a year earlier. 
Click image for larger version 
Click image for larger version
Industry Groups
Manufacturing output edged up 0.1% in February, but was still 0.4% below its level of a year earlier (NAICS manufacturing: +0.1% MoM; -0.2% YoY). The output of durable goods increased 0.3%. Among the components of durables, motor vehicle and parts recorded the largest gain, while aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment recorded the largest decline (wood products: +0.5%). The output of nondurable manufacturing slipped 0.1% as its components posted mixed results. Sizable declines were posted by textile and product mills, by petroleum and coal products, and by chemicals. Sizable gains were posted by food, beverage, and tobacco products; by apparel and leather; and by printing and support (paper products: +0.6%). The output of other manufacturing (publishing and logging) declined 1.0% and was 9.0% below its year-earlier level.
Mining output fell 1.5% in February, reflecting broad-based declines among its components; even so, overall mining production was 2.1% above its year-earlier level. The output of utilities jumped 7.1% in February, with electric and natural gas utilities each posting large gains. 
Click image for larger version
Capacity utilization (CU) for the industrial sector increased 0.4 percentage point (PP) in February to 77.0%, a rate that is 2.8PP below its long-run (1972–2019) average.
Manufacturing CU in February was 75.0%, unchanged from its rate in January but 3.2PP below its long-run average (NAICS manufacturing: 0.0%, at 75.6%; wood products: +0.2%; paper products: +0.6%). The utilization rate for mining fell to 88.4%, but it was 1.2PP above its long-run average. The operating rate for utilities advanced to 75.8%, a rate that is 9.4PP below its long-run average. 
Click image for larger version
Capacity at the all-industries level nudged up 0.1% (+2.0 % YoY) to 142.4% of 2012 output. Manufacturing (NAICS basis) rose fractionally (+0.1% MoM; +1.4% YoY) to 140.4%. Wood products: +0.2% (+3.9% YoY) to 169.9%; paper products: 0.0% (-0.2 % YoY) to 109.7%.
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.

Monday, March 16, 2020

January 2020 International Trade (Softwood Lumber)

Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Softwood lumber exports increased (13 MMBF or +13.4%) in January; imports fell (209 MMBF or -16.9%). Exports were 15 MMBF (-12.1%) below year-earlier levels; imports were 19 MMBF (-1.8%) lower. As a result, the year-over-year (YoY) net export deficit was 5 MMBF (-0.5%) smaller. Also, the average net export deficit for the 12 months ending January 2020 was 0.9% smaller than the average of the same months a year earlier (the “YoY MA(12) % Chng” series shown in the graph above). 
Click image for larger view
North America (45.1%; of which Canada: 18.4%; Mexico: 26.7%) and Asia (27.3%; especially China: 7.7%; and Japan: 5.9%) were the primary destinations for U.S. softwood lumber exports; the Caribbean ranked third with a 21.7% share (especially the Dominican Republic: 10.5%). Year-to-date (YTD) exports to China were -28.2% relative to the same months in 2019. Meanwhile, Canada was the source of most (86.1%) of softwood lumber imports into the United States. Imports from Canada were 3.1% lower YTD than the same months in 2019. Overall, YTD exports were down 32.3% compared to 2019; imports: -1.8%. 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
U.S. softwood lumber export activity through the Gulf customs region represented the largest proportion (34.2% of the U.S. total), followed by the West Coast (33.5%) and Eastern (26.0%) regions. Seattle (17.4% of the U.S. total) was overtaken by Mobile (20.1%) as the single most-active district. At the same time, Great Lakes customs region handled 59.6% of softwood lumber imports -- most notably the Duluth, MN district (19.8%) -- coming into the United States. 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Southern yellow pine comprised 27.0% of all softwood lumber exports, Douglas-fir (12.8%) and treated lumber (16.2%) were also significant. Southern pine exports were down 5.3% YTD relative to 2019, while treated: +15.3%; Doug-fir: -3.6%.
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.

Thursday, March 12, 2020

February 2020 Consumer and Producer Price Indices (incl. Forest Products)

Click image for larger version
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.1% in February (+0.1% expected). Increases in the indexes for shelter and for food were the main causes of the increase in the seasonally adjusted all items index, more than offsetting a decline in the energy index. The food index increased 0.4% over the month, with the food at home index rising 0.5%, its largest monthly increase since May 2014. The index for energy fell 2.0% in February, with all of its major component indexes declining.  
The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2% in February, the same increase as in January. Along with the index for shelter, the indexes for apparel, personal care, used cars and trucks, education, and medical care were among those that increased in February. The indexes for recreation and airline fares declined over the month.  
The all items index increased 2.3% for the 12 months ending February, a smaller increase than the 2.5% figure for the period ending January. The index for all items less food and energy rose 2.4% over the last 12 months. The food index rose 1.8% over the last 12 months, while the energy index increased 2.8% over that period.

The Producer Price Index for final demand (PPI-FD) fell 0.6% in February (+0.2% expected). Final demand prices advanced 0.5% in January and 0.2% in December. In February, 60% of the decline in the final demand index can be traced to a 0.9% decrease in prices for final demand goods. The index for final demand services moved down 0.3%.
On an unadjusted basis, the final demand index increased 1.3% for the 12 months ended in February. Prices for final demand less foods, energy, and trade services inched down 0.1% in February, the first decline since falling 0.1% in June 2019. For the 12 months ended in February, the index for final demand less foods, energy, and trade services rose 1.4%.
Final Demand
Final demand goods: The index for final demand goods fell 0.9% in February, the largest decline since moving down 1.1% in September 2015. Over 60% of the broad-based February decrease can be traced to prices for final demand energy, which dropped 3.6%. The indexes for final demand foods and for final demand goods less foods and energy declined 1.6% and 0.1%, respectively.
Product detail: Nearly one-third of the February decrease in the index for final demand goods is attributable to gasoline prices, which dropped 6.5%. The indexes for fresh and dry vegetables, diesel fuel, jet fuel, meats, and light motor trucks also moved lower. In contrast, prices for chicken eggs rose 27.8%. The indexes for pharmaceutical preparations and electric power also increased. (See table 4.)
Final demand services: The index for final demand services fell 0.3% in February, the largest decline since moving down 0.3% in September 2019. In February, over 70% of the broad-based decrease can be traced to margins for final demand trade services, which dropped 0.7%. (Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers.) Prices for final demand services less trade, transportation, and warehousing and for final demand transportation and warehousing services declined 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively.
Product detail: Leading the February decrease in prices for final demand services, margins for apparel, jewelry, footwear, and accessories retailing dropped 11.7%. The indexes for guestroom rental; loan services (partial); food and alcohol wholesaling; health, beauty, and optical goods retailing; and airline passenger services also moved lower. Conversely, margins for machinery, equipment, parts, and supplies wholesaling increased 1.3%. The indexes for outpatient care (partial) and wireless telecommunication services also advanced. 
Click image for larger version
The not-seasonally adjusted price indexes we track were mixed on both MoM and YoY bases. 
Click image for larger version
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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

February 2020 Monthly Average Crude Oil Price

Click image for larger view
The monthly average U.S.-dollar price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil dropped by $7.14 (-12.4%), to $50.54 per barrel in February. The decrease occurred within the context of a modestly stronger U.S. dollar (broad trade-weighted index basis -- goods and services), the lagged impacts of a 300,000 barrel-per-day (BPD) decline in the amount of petroleum products supplied during December (to 20.3 million BPD), and a sideways move in accumulated oil stocks (February average: 444 million barrels). 
Click image for larger view
From the 2 March 2020 issue of Peak Oil Review:
“As the coronavirus epidemic spreads to some 60 countries, the outlook for the oil industry and, indeed, the global economy is undergoing a sea change.  Oil prices and equities are dropping rapidly as transportation and business activity is already being curtailed in many parts of the world.  Brent futures settled at $50.52 Friday, down $7.98 on the week, and down 22.5 percent since January 20, when the commodities markets began reacting to the virus.  Forecasters are lowering their estimates of how much the growth in oil demand will fall this year, and some are suggesting that demand may even contract.  The IEA has the growth in the need for oil down to 825,000 BPD, but this could turn out to be optimistic. 
“As could be expected, demand for oil by the major Chinese companies CNPC and Sinopec dropped by 15 percentage points since January.  The independent Chinese refiners’ utilization rates have declined by 28 percentage points as compared to operations before the Chinese New Year.  Beijing is making a significant effort to increase its exports of oil products as domestic demand is clearly much lower than usual.
“The implications of what we may be facing are so enormous that if the epidemic spreads widely, the regular forces that drive oil prices and the economy may no longer obtain.  Should the demand for oil fall by millions of barrels per day due to lower global economic activity – a no-longer-unthinkable possibility – then OPEC decisions or central bank moves no longer carry much weight.  Beijing is already trying to buy its way out of the problem by showering money on its economy.
“With U.S. oil prices now down to about $45 a barrel, the prospects for much growth in U.S. shale oil production in the immediate future do not seem good.  Events are overtaking recent forecasts that shale oil will grow by 600,000 to 700,000 BPD in 2020.  Even without the virus phenomenon, some observers are saying that shale oil may be peaking this year because the industry is running out of good places to drill. This, combined with the lack of profitability for shale oil, suggests that the shale oil boom may slow markedly in the next year or so.” 
Click image for larger view
Selected highlights from the 28 February 2020 issue of OilPrice.com’s Oil & Energy Insider include:
Saudi Arabia seeks larger cut. Saudi Arabia is pushing OPEC to increase its production cut to 1 million BPD. Just a few weeks ago, OPEC’s Joint Technical Committee recommended additional cuts of just 600,000 BPD. Riyadh’s proposal would entail Saudi Arabia taking on the bulk of the new cuts. To date, Russia has been reluctant to sign on, but the sharp drop in prices increases pressure on the group.
China’s emissions fall sharply. Amidst an economic lockdown, China’s CO2 emissions have temporarily fallen by roughly a quarter.
BofA: Oil demand and supply to slow through 2025. A report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch sees oil demand slowing in the years ahead as EVs take hold. But it also sees supply growth slowing as U.S. shale slams on the brakes. The bank sees oil bouncing around between $50 and $70 through 2025.
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.

Friday, March 6, 2020

February 2020 Employment Report

Click image for larger view
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) establishment survey showed non-farm payroll employment rising by 273,000 jobs in February (+175,000 expected). Also, combined December and January employment gains were revised up by 85,000 (December: +37,000; January: +48,000). Meanwhile, the unemployment rate (based upon the BLS’s household survey) ticked down to 3.5% under a combination of a shrinking labor force (-60,000) and an increase in the number of employed persons (+45,000). 
Click image for larger view
Observations from the employment reports include:
* The establishment (+273,000 jobs) and household survey results (+45,000 employed), although directionally consistent, were otherwise poorly correlated. Had average (since 2010) February CES (business birth/death model) and seasonal adjustments been used, job gains might have been a more sedate +178,000.
* Goods-producing industries added 61,000 jobs, while service-providing employment jumped by 212,000 (especially health care and social assistance, food services and drinking places, government, professional and technical services, and financial activities). Manufacturing expanded by 15,000 jobs. That result runs counter to the Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) manufacturing employment sub-index, which contracted at a slower pace in February. Wood Products employment dropped by 200 (ISM unchanged); Paper and Paper Products: -700 (ISM increased); Construction: +42,000 (ISM increased). 
Click image for larger view
* The number of employment-age persons not in the labor force (NILF) rose (+186,000) to 95.1 million. As a result, the employment-population ratio (EPR) eased back to 61.1%; roughly, then, for every five people being added to the working-age population, three are employed. 
Click image for larger view
* Although the civilian labor force shrank by 60,000 in February, the labor force participation rate was unchanged at 63.4%. Average hourly earnings of all private employees rose by $0.09, to $28.52, resulting in a 3.0% year-over-year increase. For all production and nonsupervisory employees (pictured above), hourly wages rose by $0.08, to $23.96 (+3.3% YoY). Since the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up (+0.1 hour) to 34.4 hours, average weekly earnings increased by $5.94, to $981.09 (+4.9% YoY). With the consumer price index running at an annual rate of 2.5% in January, wage earners are gaining purchasing power according to official metrics. 
Click image for larger view
* Full-time jobs barely budged (+10,000), to 131.1 million. Workers employed part time for economic reasons (shown in the graph above) -- e.g., slack work or business conditions, or could find only part-time work -- rose by 136,000. Those working part time for non-economic reasons advanced by 21,000 while multiple-job holders fell by 82,000. 
Click image for larger view
For a “sanity test” of the employment numbers, we consult employment withholding taxes published by the U.S. Treasury. Although “noisy” and highly seasonal, the data show the amount withheld in February fell by $9.5 billion, to $222.9 billion (-4.1% MoM; +6.3% YoY). To reduce some of the monthly volatility and determine broader trends, we average the most recent three months of data and estimate a percentage change from the same months in the previous year. The average of the three months ending February was 6.8% above the year-earlier average.
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.

Thursday, March 5, 2020

January 2020 Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and New & Unfilled Orders

Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the value of manufactured-goods shipments in January decreased $2.3 billion or 0.5% to $501.8 billion. Durable goods shipments decreased $0.4 billion or 0.2% to $249.9 billion, led by transportation equipment. Meanwhile, nondurable goods shipments decreased $1.9 billion or 0.8% to $251.9 billion, led by petroleum and coal products. Shipments of wood products rose by 0.9%; paper +0.2%. 
Click image for larger view
Inventories decreased $0.5 billion or 0.1% to $703.4 billion. The inventories-to-shipments ratio was 1.40, unchanged from December. Inventories of durable goods decreased less than $0.1 billion or virtually unchanged to $435.3 billion, led by machinery. Nondurable goods inventories decreased $0.5 billion or 0.2% to $268.1 billion, led by chemical products. Inventories of wood products shrank by 0.9%; paper: -0.2%. 
Click image for larger view
New orders decreased $2.3 billion or 0.5% to $497.9 billion. Excluding transportation, new orders slipped by 0.1% (+1.4% YoY). Durable goods orders decreased $0.4 billion or 0.2% to $246.0 billion, led by transportation equipment. New orders for non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft -- a proxy for business investment spending -- rose by 1.1% (+1.3% YoY). New orders for nondurable goods decreased $1.9 billion or 0.8% to $251.9 billion.
As can be seen in the graph above, real (inflation-adjusted) new orders were essentially flat between early 2012 and mid-2014, recouping on average less than 70% of the losses incurred since the beginning of the Great Recession. The recovery in real new orders is back to just 49% of the ground given up in the Great Recession. 
Click image for larger view
Unfilled durable-goods orders increased $0.1 billion or virtually unchanged to $1,157.0 billion, led by fabricated metal products. The unfilled orders-to-shipments ratio was 6.63, down from 6.65 in December. Real unfilled orders, which had been a good litmus test for sector growth, show a less positive picture; in real terms, unfilled orders in June 2014 were back to 97% of their December 2008 peak. Real unfilled orders then jumped to 102% of the prior peak in July 2014, thanks to the largest-ever batch of aircraft orders. Since then, however, real unfilled orders have been trending sideways-to-down.
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.

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

February 2020 ISM and Markit Surveys

Click image for larger version
The Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) monthly sentiment survey showed that U.S. manufacturing barely expanded in February. The PMI registered 50.1%, down 0.8 percentage point (PP) from the January reading. (50% is the breakpoint between contraction and expansion.) ISM’s manufacturing survey represents under 10% of U.S. employment and about 20% of the overall economy. Slumps in imports (-8.7PP) and input prices (-7.4PP), declines in production (-4.0PP) and new orders (-2.2PP), and a surge in slow deliveries (+4.4PP) suggest weakening demand. 
Click image for larger version
The pace of growth in the non-manufacturing sector -- which accounts for 80% of the economy and 90% of employment -- accelerated (+1.8PP, to 57.3%). New orders (+6.9PP), exports (+5.5PP) and employment (+2.5PP) were the main drivers behind the increase. 
Click image for larger version
Of the industries we track, only Ag & Forestry contracted. Respondent comments included the following:
Construction -- "[The] coronavirus has increased lead times for the critical items."
Real Estate -- "Construction activity appears to be getting off to a good start for 2020."

Relevant commodities:
Priced higher -- Construction contractors and labor (general and construction).
Priced lower – Gasoline, corrugate and natural gas.
Prices mixed -- Crude oil and diesel.
In short supply -- Construction contractors and subcontractors; and labor (general, construction and temporary).

As has become common in recent months, findings of IHS Markit’s February surveys were mixed relative to their ISM counterparts.
Manufacturing -- Manufacturing output growth weakens amid slower upturn in new orders.
Key findings:
* Operating conditions improve at softest pace for six months
* New order growth slows to nine-month low
* Business confidence strongest since April 2019

Services -- Fastest contraction in business activity since October 2013.
Key findings:
* Marginal fall in output as demand conditions weaken
* Slower rise in employment amid reduced pressure on capacity
* Business confidence strengthens, but remains relatively muted

Commentary by Chris Williamson, Markit’s chief business economist:
Manufacturing -- "Manufacturing production and order book trends deteriorated markedly in February as producers struggled against the double headwinds of falling export sales and supply chain delays, both in turn often linked to the coronavirus outbreak.
“Any growth in sales was once again largely driven by domestic consumers, though even here the rate of growth was weakened considerably compared to late last year.
“Historical comparisons against official data indicate that the survey is consistent with factory production and orders both falling at annualized rates of around 3%, with manufacturing jobs being lost at a monthly rate of roughly 20,000.
“While trade war fears have eased, helping push firms’ expectations for future growth to the highest since last April, coronavirus-related supply chain issues threaten to constrain production in coming months. At the same time, companies have become increasingly concerned that the COVID-19 outbreak will also hit demand, which is reportedly already cooling amid uncertainly leading up to the presidential election. Recent stock market volatility could also further dampen consumer spending and deter business investment.”

Services -- "The U.S. service sector took a knock from the coronavirus outbreak and growing uncertainty about the economic and political outlooks in February. The fall in the headline index measuring business activity levels was the second largest seen since the global financial crisis over a decade ago, exceeded only by the brief slump in activity during the 2013 government shutdown.
“Combined with a weak manufacturing survey in February, the data are consistent with annualized GDP growth slipping from around 2% at the start of the year to just 0.7% midway through the first quarter.
“Business sectors such as travel and tourism are reporting weakened activity due to the virus outbreak, most notably in terms of foreign visitors and overseas sales. However, other sectors such as financial services and business services are reporting virus-related hits to demand, suggesting a more broad-based weakening of demand across the economy, exacerbating the supply-shock that is constraining manufacturing.
“Companies have meanwhile grown increasingly concerned about client spending and investment being curbed ahead of the presidential election. Political and economic uncertainty, the coronavirus outbreak and financial market turmoil all risk building into a cocktail of risk aversion that has severely heightened downside risks to the economy in coming months. Much will depend of course on the speed with which the virus can be contained and how quickly business can return to normal.”

Commenting on the J.P.Morgan Global Composite PMI, Olya Borichevska, from Global Economic Research at J.P.Morgan, said:
“The outbreak of COVID-19 disrupted global economic activity in February, with output and new business falling [by] the greatest extents since mid-2009. However, a lot of this owes to China where the composite PMI fell 24PP as rates of decline in activity and new orders accelerated to survey records at manufacturers and service providers alike. The rest of the world fell a bit more than two points to near stagnation though we expect further declines as long as the disruptions continue. Business sentiment held up better, staying close to January's nine-month high.”
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.

Monday, March 2, 2020

February 2020 Currency Exchange Rates

Click image for larger view
In February the monthly average value of the U.S. dollar (USD) appreciated versus Canada’s “loonie” (+1.5%), the euro (+1.7%) and yen (+0.7%). On the broad trade-weighted index basis (goods and services), the USD gained 1.2% against a basket of 26 currencies. 
Click image for larger view
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.