Category: Chart of the Week

Is Home Ownership a Thing of the Past?

Home ownership has historically been part of the American dream; however, recent data trends show that more consumers are postponing or bypassing this life event in favor of renting. The sting of the Great Recession still resides within consumers’ minds, many of whom are still struggling from a period in which millions of homes went into foreclosure and trillions of dollars of home equity was wiped out.

Homeownership has historically been part of the American dream; however, recent data trends show that more consumers are postponing or bypassing this life event in favor of renting. The sting of the Great Recession still resides within consumers’ minds, many of whom are still struggling from a period in which millions of homes went into foreclosure and trillions of dollars of home equity was wiped out. While the devastating housing crash is certainly one culprit, a shift in millennials’ attitudes could also be contributing to this change in sentiment.

In this week’s chart, we examine the declining rate of homeownership versus the increasing costs of renting. Despite the attractive level of home affordability, homeownership is at its lowest level in 29 years and monthly rents are at an all-time high. In ten short years, the percentage of non-vacant housing units occupied by the unit’s owner has declined from its 2005 peak of 69.1% to just 63.7% this year. Meanwhile, the median monthly asking rent has risen 31.4% during the same period. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the most recent median asking sales price was $149,500, the same nominal levels we were seeing in the latter part of 2005 but significantly lower than the 2Q 2007 peak of $201,500.

While the U.S. economy has made great strides in its economic recovery, the housing market has yet to come out of its shell. The impact of increased home purchase activity and its resulting consumption effect would be a boon to the domestic economy. Thirty-year mortgage notes can still be obtained for less than four percent interest, but the availability of cheap credit has not been enough to drive more millennials into homeownership. As we debate the impacts of tightened monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, the consequences of rising interest rates and its direct effect on the housing market cannot be ignored.

Still Waiting for Wage Growth

On Friday, April’s unemployment rate was announced at 5.4%, the lowest reading since May 2008 and significantly down from its peak reading of 10% in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Despite the low participation rate (62.8%), the dramatic improvement in the unemployment rate should be viewed as a positive development for the United States economy.

On Friday, April’s unemployment rate was announced at 5.4%, the lowest reading since May 2008 and significantly down from its peak reading of 10% in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Despite the low participation rate (62.8%), the dramatic improvement in the unemployment rate should be viewed as a positive development for the United States economy.

Although the unemployment rate has recovered, wage growth continues to stagnate, as shown by our chart this week. In looking at the chart, a negative correlation between unemployment and wage growth is abundantly clear and makes sense intuitively: when unemployment is high, workers do not have pricing power to demand higher wages, but when unemployment is low and demand is high for employees, firms are forced to offer higher wages to entice workers. The most recent recovery in the unemployment rate, however, has not been accompanied by the ascension in wage growth that is to be expected. So while the lower unemployment rate is encouraging, it is difficult to label the labor market as fully recovered until we see more tangible growth in hourly earnings.

Will Student Debt Suffocate Economic Growth?

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, an estimated 1.8M students across the country will graduate this month with their undergraduate degrees. These graduates are entering an ever improving job market as shown by the latest unemployment figure of 5.5%, but they are also graduating with an increasing amount of debt as shown by this week’s chart.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, an estimated 1.8M students across the country will graduate this month with their undergraduate degrees. These graduates are entering an ever-improving job market as shown by the latest unemployment figure of 5.5%, but they are also graduating with an increasing amount of debt as shown by this week’s chart.

Total student loan debt levels have grown by over 64% since the end of the recession in 2009. Wage growth, on the other hand, has been modest, increasing just over 10%. There are two major concerns about this disconnect between student debt and wage growth. The first is that there will be a widespread pattern of defaults on this outstanding debt, as students are unable to keep up with the loans after graduating. The second is a reduction in consumption from millennials who are spending a larger percentage of their incomes on debt service, rather than consuming goods and services. Together these two issues could be a significant drag on economic growth.

Is Real Estate Overvalued?

The core real estate market has enjoyed a solid run over the last five years. However, outsized returns do not last forever and for this reason investors are starting to question future return prospects for the asset class. There are several metrics to consider when answering such a question and this week’s Chart of the Week looks at one such metric: new supply.

The core real estate market has enjoyed a solid run over the last five years. However, outsized returns do not last forever and for this reason, investors are starting to question future return prospects for the asset class. There are several metrics to consider when answering such a question and this week’s Chart of the Week looks at one such metric: new supply.

The chart above compares new supply as a percentage of existing stock across the four main property sectors. As the chart indicates, current levels of new supply remain below the pre-recession averages for three out of the four sectors. That affords some comfort. However, new supply of apartment properties has exceeded its pre-recession average. Indeed, a lot of the supply in apartments has been driven by an increase in true rental demand, but the data suggests that the apartment sector may come under pressure in the near- to medium-term if new supply continues to rise. According to this metric, opportunity still remains in the retail, office, and industrial sectors. Ultimately, though, new supply is just one metric to consider when gauging the current state of the real estate market. Other important items to monitor include performance, valuation, debt, income, and capital flows. Our recently released newsletter, The State of Real Estate: Is the Run Over?, analyzes these metrics to formulate a view on future return prospects for the asset class.

Has the Drop in Oil Prices Been a Drag on the U.S. Economy?

Over the past few quarters there has been much discussion about how the recent plunge in oil prices would impact the U.S. economy. While there were expectations of both positive and negative effects associated with lower oil prices, the general consensus amongst economists was that this would have a net positive impact on the U.S. economy.

Over the past few quarters, there has been much discussion about how the recent plunge in oil prices would impact the U.S. economy. While there were expectations of both positive and negative effects associated with lower oil prices, the general consensus amongst economists was that this would have a net positive impact on the U.S. economy. Cuts in capital expenditures from U.S. oil producers (which have been a significant contributor to GDP growth for the past several years) were expected to be a drag on economic growth. At the same time, lower energy costs for consumers were expected to result in increased disposable income and thus increased consumer spending, which would boost economic growth. Given that the U.S. is a net importer of oil, the benefit to consumers was expected to more than offset the decrease in capital spending from producers, resulting in a net positive impact.

Since low oil prices have persisted for several months now, we are starting to get an indication of the impact on the economy, and at this point it does not appear to be nearly as positive as expected. It appears as if the economic drag from decreased capital expenditures from oil producers has been greater than the benefit from lower oil prices. While the drop in capital expenditures from oil producers has more or less been in line with expectations, the increase in disposable income has not translated to the increase in consumer spending that was anticipated. Consumers appear to be saving, rather than spending, this increased disposable income. As the chart illustrates, from June 2014, when oil peaked at approximately $115 per barrel, to February 2015 (the most recent date data is available for), annualized household spending on energy has decreased from approximately $645 billion to approximately $533 billion, representing a decrease of approximately $112 billion. Over the same time frame, annualized household saving has increased from approximately $658 billion to $768 billion, an increase of approximately $110 billion.

Thus far, the negative consequences from lower oil prices (reduced capital spending and job cuts from the energy sector) have been a drag on the U.S. economy, while the benefits from lower oil prices (increased consumer spending) have not yet had the positive impact that was expected. This phenomenon may help to explain some of the disappointing economic data observed during the first quarter. Consumers are often slow to adjust spending habits, and that may well be the case here, meaning that consumer spending will likely be one of the most influential economic data points in the coming months.

Which Equity Sectors are Most Sensitive to Rising Interest Rates?

Over the past few years there has been much discussion on the low interest rate environment and what will happen once interest rates begin to rise. Though the Fed has delayed raising its overnight lending rate for far longer than many people initially expected, it seems likely that it will finally begin to raise rates later this year. Coupled with the fact that the 10 yr Treasury yield is once again below 2% and approaching its historical low, an increase in interest rates seems very likely.

Over the past few years, there has been much discussion on the low interest rate environment and what will happen once interest rates begin to rise. Though the Fed has delayed raising its overnight lending rate for far longer than many people initially expected, it seems likely that it will finally begin to raise rates later this year. Coupled with the fact that the 10 yr Treasury yield is once again below 2% and approaching its historical low, an increase in interest rates seems very likely.

This Chart of the Week examines what has happened historically to the sectors of the S&P 500 index when rates on the 10 yr Treasury rise substantially. The chart compares the average monthly returns during seven rising rate periods to the average monthly returns during this entire timeframe. As a whole, the S&P 500 has generally outperformed during these time periods, along with most sectors. Industries that tend to be more cyclical, such as information technology, consumer discretionary, and materials featured the largest outperformance. On the other hand, more conservative sectors failed to beat their averages, with utilities and telecom delivering negative monthly returns. Though it is important to remember that historical results may not always persist in the future, the largely positive returns shown in the chart should help ease the fears of an equity market correction when rates begin to rise.

International Equity Returns vs. Strong Dollar

A major concern for investors over the last year has been the impact of a stronger dollar on international equity returns. Generally speaking, a stronger dollar translates to lower returns for international equity investments, and in 2014 the currency effect on the EAFE index was -10.9%, a sizable reduction to returns for U.S.-based investors.

A major concern for investors over the last year has been the impact of a stronger dollar on international equity returns. Generally speaking, a stronger dollar translates to lower returns for international equity investments, and in 2014 the currency effect on the EAFE index was -10.9%, a sizable reduction to returns for U.S.-based investors. On the other hand, valuations for international equities – especially those in Europe – appear far more attractive relative to levels in the U.S., and suggest higher upside potential, with the ECB’s asset purchase program offering further upside for European equities.

To date, how has this dynamic played out? Have the compelling valuations abroad been more than offset by the currency drag from the dollar’s strength? Our chart this week examines these very questions, looking at year-to-date performance for major markets and regions. Perhaps not surprisingly, Eurozone equities show the largest downward adjustment as a result of exchange rates, while Japan and China show little to no difference between local and dollar-denominated returns. After the first quarter, international equities have outperformed their U.S. counterparts in 2015 and rewarded investors who were patient with their non-U.S. equity allocations. Though it has only been one quarter, this is a theme that may persist for the better part of the year, as the dollar is still stronger than its historical average versus the Euro, and equity valuations are suppressed relative to those in the U.S.

Is the U.S. Equity Market Overvalued?

As U.S. equity indices again touched record highs during the first quarter, the appropriate valuation level for the market continues to be a popular topic in the financial press. Complicating the issue for investors is the tendency of the financial press to use different valuation methods interchangeably (trailing price to earnings, forward price to earnings, cyclically adjusted price to earnings, enterprise value to pre-tax income, etc.).

As U.S. equity indices again touched record highs during the first quarter, the appropriate valuation level for the market continues to be a popular topic in the financial press. Complicating the issue for investors is the tendency of the financial press to use different valuation methods interchangeably (trailing price to earnings, forward price to earnings, cyclically adjusted price to earnings, enterprise value to pre-tax income, etc.). Oftentimes different valuation methods will flash different signals and there is no single method generally accepted as the “correct” indicator. When confusion arises, it is natural to have Warren Buffett weigh in on the issue with his trademark simplicity. In a 2001 article appearing in Fortune Magazine, Mr. Buffett commented that at any given point in the market cycle, market-cap to GDP is likely the best long-term valuation indicator of the market.

In this week’s chart, we plot the market-cap to GDP ratio for the U.S. by dividing the average quarterly market-cap of the Wilshire 5000 index by the quarterly nominal GDP of the U.S. economy. At the end of 2014, this ratio stood at 122%, the highest level seen since the late 1990s and almost 2 standard deviations away from the 43-year average. Although revered by Mr. Buffett, this indicator should not be relied upon for its predictive power. Instead, it should serve as another data point that urges caution to investors considering outsized allocations to U.S. equity.

Yield Compression in the Eurozone

In January, the European Central Bank (ECB) officially announced its much talked about Quantitative Easing (QE) program, which will purchase a total of about €1.1 trillion (€60 billion per month) of bonds through September 2016. As was the reasoning behind QE here in the U.S., the hope in Europe is that QE will lower borrowing costs, which in turn will spur economic growth and inflation. When the rumor mill started buzzing in November about a possible QE program, forward looking investors began snapping up bonds, but what they didn’t count on was the large range of maturities the ECB would be purchasing.

In January, the European Central Bank (ECB) officially announced its much talked about Quantitative Easing (QE) program, which will purchase a total of about €1.1 trillion (€60 billion per month) of bonds through September 2016. As was the reasoning behind QE here in the U.S., the hope in Europe is that QE will lower borrowing costs, which in turn will spur economic growth and inflation. When the rumor mill started buzzing in November about a possible QE program, forward-looking investors began snapping up bonds, but what they didn’t count on was the large range of maturities the ECB would be purchasing.

On March 5th, Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, announced the details of the QE program and surprised markets by stating that purchases would include issues with maturities as far out as 30 years, causing a compression in yields (actual purchases by the ECB and various national banks began on March 9th). As the chart demonstrates, the largest yield compression has occurred in German bonds, where yields on 30-year maturities were 0.633% on Wednesday morning, down from 0.946% on March 5th. The spread between 2 and 30-year German bonds is currently 87 basis points. Yields for some of the riskiest longer-dated European debt (demonstrated here by Spanish and Italian bonds) have also seen compressions, though the spread between 2 and 30-year yields remains around 2%.

What does this mean for investors and the ECB bond buying program? Given the inverse relationship between bond yields and prices, the notable drop in yields has benefitted investors. However, reinvestment risk is a significant concern for investors should they sell their current holdings, as they would then have to purchase newer bonds that feature lower yields and coupons. Unless immediate cash is needed, bond investors will be loath to give up their higher yielding bonds in exchange for lower yields. Some wiggle room will be available as the front runners of QE look to cash in their profits, but others may hold out for a time since the ECB is a large, price indifferent buyer. Eventually, supply will normalize, possibly through a combination of profit taking and the ECB “nudging” those stubborn bondholders to sell.

Fragile Five Now Fragile Four?

In 2013, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey were dubbed the “Fragile Five” due largely to high current account deficits and dependence on foreign capital flows. During the “Taper Tantrum”, these currencies were hardest hit recording double digit losses. This week’s chart provides an update on current account balances for each respective country.

In 2013, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey were dubbed the “Fragile Five” due largely to high current account deficits and dependence on foreign capital flows. During the “Taper Tantrum,” these currencies were hardest hit recording double-digit losses. This week’s chart provides an update on current account balances for each respective country.

While the “Fragile Five” have been famously linked together, India has taken steps to distance itself from the group, improving its current account deficit from -5.1% in March 2013 to -1.3% in September of 2014. In addition, markets have praised the election of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, given his focus on business confidence, economic growth, and structural reform. In sharp contrast, Brazil’s current account balance has declined and its political turmoil has heightened.

With the U.S. preparing to raise rates, emerging market participants are concerned about the possibility of a “Taper Tantrum” repeat. Relative to 2013, India is in a better position to handle such an environment. India’s contrasts with Brazil exemplify a growing trend of divergence within emerging markets, one that investors should expect to continue. Another tantrum will negatively impact the entire asset class, but some countries are better positioned to navigate the turbulence.