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.


Saturday, February 8, 2020

December 2019 International Trade (Softwood Lumber)

Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
Softwood lumber exports decreased (8 MMBF or -8.2%) in December; imports rose (191 MMBF or +18.2%). Exports were 2 MMBF (1.8%) above year-earlier levels; imports were 123 MMBF (11.1%) higher. As a result, the year-over-year (YoY) net export deficit was 122 MMBF (11.9%) larger. Also, the average net export deficit for the 12 months ending December 2019 was 1.5% 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 (41.0%; of which Canada: 19.8%; Mexico: 21.2%) and Asia (29.7%; especially China: 7.6%; and Japan: 7.4%) were the primary destinations for U.S. softwood lumber exports; the Caribbean ranked third with a 22.4% share (especially Dominican Republic: 7.3%). Year-to-date (YTD) exports to China were -59.7% relative to the same months in 2018. Meanwhile, Canada was the source of most (86.5%) of softwood lumber imports into the United States. Imports from Canada were 4.1% lower YTD than the same months in 2018. Overall, YTD exports were down 21.5% compared to 2018; imports: -3.7%. 
Click image for larger view 
Click image for larger view
U.S. softwood lumber export activity through the West Coast customs region represented the largest proportion (33.5% of the U.S. total), followed by the Gulf (31.6%) and Eastern (25.7%) regions. Seattle (18.6% of the U.S. total) was overtaken by Mobile (21.2%) as the single most-active district. At the same time, Great Lakes customs region handled 62.5% of softwood lumber imports -- most notably the Duluth, MN district (23.9%) -- 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 (16.5%) and treated lumber (12.8%) were also significant. Southern pine exports were down 34.1% YTD relative to 2018, while treated: -21.4%; Doug-fir: -5.3%.
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, February 7, 2020

January 2020 Employment Report

Click image for larger view
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) establishment survey showed non-farm payroll employment rising by 225,000 jobs in January (+153,000 expected). Also, combined November and December employment gains were revised up by 7,000 (November: +5,000; December: +2,000). Meanwhile, the unemployment rate (based upon the BLS’s household survey) ticked up to 3.6%. 
Because January’s estimates reflect the annual benchmarking process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors, comparison with December’s estimates is not statistically valid. The adjustments decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 811,000, the civilian labor force by 524,000, employment by 507,000, and unemployment by 17,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was decreased by 287,000. 
Click image for larger view
Despite the above caveat, observations from the employment reports include:
* Goods-producing industries added 32,000 jobs, while service-providing employment jumped by 193,000. Manufacturing shrank by 12,000 jobs. That result aligns with the Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) manufacturing employment sub-index, which contracted at a slower pace in January. Wood Products employment was unchanged(ISM increased); Paper and Paper Products: +400 (ISM unchanged); Construction: +44,000 (ISM increased). 
Click image for larger view
* The number of employment-age persons not in the labor force (NILF) tumbled (-729,000) to 94.9 million; a sizeable proportion of that decline is likely due to the above-mentioned revisions. As a result, the employment-population ratio (EPR) bumped up to 61.2% -- its highest level since November 2008; roughly, then, for every five people being added to the working-age population, three are employed. 
Click image for larger view
* After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the civilian labor force rose by 574,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 63.4%. Average hourly earnings of all private employees rose by $0.07, to $28.44, resulting in a 3.1% year-over-year increase. For all production and nonsupervisory employees (pictured above), hourly wages rose by $0.03, to $23.87 (+3.3% YoY). Although the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.3 hours, average weekly earnings increased by $2.40, to $975.49 (+2.5% YoY). With the consumer price index running at an annual rate of 2.3% in December, workers are “treading water” with regard to purchasing power according to official metrics. 
Click image for larger view
* Full-time jobs retreated by 656,000, 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 34,000. Those working part time for non-economic reasons rose by 22,000 while multiple-job holders jumped by 206,000. 
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 January fell by $11.1 billion, to $232.4 billion (-4.6% MoM; +10.0% 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 January was 7.2% above the year-earlier average -- well off the peak of +13.8% set back in September 2013.
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, February 5, 2020

January 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 fell by $2.30 (-3.8%), to $57.52 per barrel in January. The decrease occurred within the context of a marginally weaker U.S. dollar (broad trade-weighted index basis -- goods and services), the lagged impacts of a 182,000 barrel-per-day (BPD) decline in the amount of petroleum products supplied during November (to 20.8 million BPD), and a sideways move in accumulated oil stocks (January average: 431 million barrels). 
Click image for larger view
From the 3 February 2020 issue of Peak Oil Review:
“Oil prices fell for the fourth straight week on mounting worries about economic damage from the coronavirus that has spread from China to around 20 countries.  Futures closed the month down about $10 a barrel since the beginning of the year, seeing the biggest January loss since 1991.  New York futures settled at $51.56 and London at $56.62.  The rapid price decline is causing much consternation with OPEC+ as some commentators are talking about $40 oil if the virus situation gets much worse.
“Global oil prices rallied at the end of last year due to announcements of cuts in production, followed by a boost in early January due to tensions in the Middle East.  But Brent crude is now down almost 17% from its early January peak, while U.S. natural gas prices are also under pressure due to a mild winter.  That is prompting a lot of investors to consider more in-depth, longer-term challenges for producers and refiners.  Some analysts warn that too many companies in the oil and gas sector have unsustainable balance sheets, weighed down by too much debt.
“The coronavirus-triggered fall in crude oil prices over the last few weeks has shaken some OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, to the realization that waiting until March 5-6, as scheduled, to potentially announce deeper production cuts may be too late.  OPEC’s core Middle East members typically announce how they have allocated their crude exports to customers between the 10th and 15th of each month.  March loading programs and allocations have already been set, so any OPEC+ decision would affect April shipments at the earliest.  Holding the meeting on its scheduled date of March 5-6 would push any changes to the May loading program.
“Beyond the physical market practicalities, the politics of agreeing on deeper cuts could be complicated.  OPEC and its 10 allies are one month into their latest production accord, which commits them to a 1.7 million BPD cut through the end of March.  The deal, signed at a highly fractious meeting in December 2019, saw Angola walk out of the talks at one point, and Iraq and Russia play hardball in negotiating their new quotas.  “Saudi Arabia, as expected, is leading by example, but should other producers fail to pull their weight or offer further adjustments, does the kingdom act unilaterally if the coronavirus impact escalates and spirals from here on out?” said an analyst with Medley Global Advisors.
“Even with Libya’s oil production plummeting by nearly 1 million BPD due to a port blockade, oil prices have seen downward pressure over the past week as fears of oil demand destruction currently outweigh supply outages.  Last week’s EIA inventory report was not supportive, reporting a 3.5 million build during the seven days to January 4th.  According to oil market analysts, until the impact of the Wuhan virus on the Chinese economy and oil demand becomes clearer, market participants will continue to be spooked by the specter of waning oil demand during the season when demand is weakest.
“The Phase One trade deal between the U.S. and China may end up being exports on paper only—at least as far as energy is concerned.  Analysts concur that the Chinese promise to buy an additional $52.4 billion worth of U.S. energy products in 2020 and 2021 on top of the 2017 levels is most likely unachievable, even if China intends to fulfill all its pledges in the deal.  With the coronavirus epidemic leaving a large share of Chinese industry, retail, and non-essential transportation shut down for an indefinite period, demand for oil in China and even around the world is bound to slow significantly.” 
Click image for larger view
Selected highlights from the 31 January 2020 issue of OilPrice.com’s Oil & Energy Insider include:
Oil posted its largest monthly loss since May 2019, as fears of the coronavirus continue to rise. The 15% price decline is also the worst January performance since 1991, according to Bloomberg. The oil market is “troubled by both rising demand worries and rising fuel stocks,” said Ole Sloth Hansen, head of commodities strategy at Saxo Bank A/S in Copenhagen. “It’s going to take a firm commitment by OPEC+, or rising geopolitical tensions, to achieve a sustained recovery.”
Bernstein: Chinese oil demand growth at just 100,000 BPD. China’s oil demand could grow at just 100,000 BPD this year due to the coronavirus, according to Bernstein. That would make it the slowest expansion in consumption in nearly 20 years. The firm previously predicted 350,000 BPD of growth.
Investors warn industry not to move on Trump’s deregulation. A group of 58 companies, including institutional investors, representing around $113 billion in assets, warned the energy, timber and mining industries not to move aggressively to take advantage of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging deregulatory campaign. The investors said that doing so would put investors at “significant risk of public backlash and stranded assets, should these actions be legally challenged or protections be restored by the courts or by future administrations.”
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.

January 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 returned to expansion in January. The PMI registered 50.9%, up 3.1 percentage points (PP) from the revised December 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. Production (+9.5PP), exports (+6.0PP), new orders (+4.4PP) and imports (+2.5PP) all flipped into positive territory. 
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 (+0.6PP, to 55.5%). Imports (+7.1PP), business activity (+3.9PP) and new orders (+0.9PP) drove the increase. 
Click image for larger version
Of the industries we track, only Paper Products and Real Estate did not expand. Respondent comments included the following:
Construction -- "1Q sales are improving, which makes us more optimistic."
Real Estate -- "Customer inquiries are strong to start the new year."

Relevant commodities:
Priced higher -- Oil, propane, and labor (general and construction).
Priced lower -- Freight, natural gas, and fuel (including diesel)
Prices mixed -- None.
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 January surveys were mixed relative to their ISM counterparts.
Manufacturing -- Manufacturing growth slows at start of 2020 as exports fall.
Key findings:
* PMI dips to three-month low as exports fall
* Employment rises at only a marginal rate
* Business confidence picks up to seven-month high

Services -- Business activity growth accelerates to 10-month high at start of 2020.
Key findings:
* Faster upturn in output amid sustained rise in new orders
* Rate of job creation quickest since last July
* Business confidence remains subdued

Commentary by Chris Williamson, Markit’s chief business economist:
Manufacturing -- "U.S. manufacturing limped into 2020, with falling exports dampening output growth and causing a pullback in hiring. The survey data are consistent with factory production falling moderately, meaning the manufacturing sector looks set to act as a drag on the overall economy once again in 1Q.
“Weakness looks broad-based. Rising demand from households has helped support production in recent months, but January saw a marked slowing in new orders for consumer goods. Production of capital goods such as business equipment, plant and machinery meanwhile fell for the first time in almost four years, hinting at weakened business investment.
“More encouragingly, business expectations for the year ahead perked up, coinciding with an easing of trade tensions and the signing of new North American and Chinese trade deals. Companies are therefore expecting the soft patch to be short-lived, though fears surrounding the Wuhan coronavirus and any further potential escalation of trade tensions could erode this optimism.”

Services -- "The PMI data indicate that the U.S. economy is ticking along at a steady but unspectacular annualized rate of growth of approximately 2% at the start of 2020. Growth has gained some momentum from the lows seen in the fall as the service sector enjoys stronger growth and manufacturing has also shown signs of the trade-led downturn easing. However, factory activity remains worryingly subdued, and optimism about future growth across the business community as a whole continues to run at one of the lowest levels seen over the past decade.
“Business are concerned by the prospect of weaker economic growth at home and abroad in the coming year, especially with spending potentially being dampened in an election year. Fresh worries are also likely to appear. With the vast majority of the survey data having been collected prior to the 24th January, we’ve yet to see any impact from the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, but the potential disruption to business and the associated financial market jitters pose additional downside risks to both the global and US economies in coming months."

Commenting on the J.P.Morgan Global Composite PMI, Olya Borichevska, from Global Economic Research at J.P.Morgan, said:
“The global economy started 2020 on a stronger footing, with output growth rising for the third straight month to its highest since March [2019] suggesting global growth at an above-potential pace. However, we brace ourselves for a much weaker outcome this quarter as the outbreak of the nCoV virus disrupts activity in China and potentially around the world. Encouragingly, the gains in the PMI were not just confined to the Output Index, with trends in new orders, business sentiment and employment also firming.”
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, February 4, 2020

December 2019 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 December increased $2.3 billion or 0.5% to $504.1 billion. Durable goods shipments decreased $0.5 billion or 0.2% to $250.3 billion, led by transportation equipment. Meanwhile, nondurable goods shipments increased $2.8 billion or 1.1% to $253.8 billion, led by petroleum and coal products. Shipments of wood products fell by 0.5%; paper -0.4%. 
Click image for larger view
Inventories increased $3.5 billion or 0.5% to $704.9 billion. The inventories-to-shipments ratio was 1.40, unchanged from November. Inventories of durable goods increased $2.1 billion or 0.5% to $435.9 billion, led by transportation equipment. Nondurable goods inventories increased $1.4 billion or 0.5% to $269.0 billion, led by petroleum and coal products. Inventories of wood products expanded by 0.5%; paper: +0.2%. 
Click image for larger view
New orders increased $8.6 billion or 1.8% to $499.3 billion. Excluding transportation, new orders rose by 0.6% (+2.6% YoY). Durable goods orders increased $5.9 billion or 2.4% to $245.6 billion, led by transportation equipment. New orders for non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft -- a proxy for business investment spending -- fell by 0.8% (+1.8% YoY). New orders for nondurable goods increased $2.8 billion or 1.1% to $253.8 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 51% of the ground given up in the Great Recession. 
Click image for larger view
Unfilled durable-goods orders decreased $0.6 billion or virtually unchanged to $1,156.2 billion, led by machinery. The unfilled orders-to-shipments ratio was 6.65, down from 6.66 in November. 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.

December 2019 Construction Spending

Click image for larger view
Construction spending during December 2019 was estimated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of $1,327.7 billion, 0.2% (± 0.8%)* below the revised November estimate of $1,329.9 billion (originally $1,324.1 billion); consensus expectations were for +0.5%. The December figure is 5.0% (±1.3%) above the December 2018 SAAR of $1,264.8 billion; the not-seasonally adjusted YoY change (shown in the table below) was +5.2%.
The value of construction in 2019 was $1,303.5 billion, 0.3% (±1.0%)* below the $1,307.2 billion spent in 2018.
* 90% confidence interval includes zero. The U.S. Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero. 
Click image for larger view
Private Construction
Spending on private construction was at a SAAR of $991.2 billion, 0.1% (±0.5%)* below the revised November estimate of $992.2 billion (originally $985.5 billion):
- Residential: $540.7 billion, +1.4% (±1.3%);
- Nonresidential: $450.5 billion, -1.8% (±0.5%).
The value of private construction in 2019 was $974.7 billion, 2.5% (±1.0%) below the $1,000.2 billion spent in 2018.
- Residential: $514.3 billion, 4.7% (±2.1%) below the 2018 figure of $539.6 billion;
- Nonresidential: $460.4 billion, virtually unchanged from (±1.0%)* the $460.5 billion in 2018.
Public Construction
Public construction spending was $336.4 billion, 0.4% (±1.3%)* below the revised November estimate of $337.7 billion (originally $338.6 billion):
- Educational: $80.4 billion, -2.1% (±2.1%)*;
- Highway: $99.9 billion, +3.1% (±3.1%)*.
The value of public construction in 2019 was $328.8 billion, 7.1% (±1.8%) above the $307.1 billion spent in 2018:
- Educational: $79.0 billion, 3.4% (±3.6%)* above the 2018 figure of $76.4 billion;
- Highway: $98.8 billion, 8.8% (±4.6%) above the $90.8 billion in 2018. 
Click image for larger view
Click here for a discussion of December’s new residential permits, starts and completions. Click here for a discussion of new and existing home sales, inventories and prices.
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, February 3, 2020

January 2020 Currency Exchange Rates

Click image for larger view
In January the monthly average value of the U.S. dollar (USD) depreciated versus Canada’s “loonie” (-0.6%) but appreciated against the euro (+0.1%) and yen (+0.2%). On the broad trade-weighted index basis (goods and services), the USD lost 0.5% 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.