Profits, Compensation, and Unemployment: A New Pattern?

Corporate profits as a percentage of employee compensation reflect the after tax profits of companies compared to the total compensation provided to American workers.  As this percentage increases, corporate profits are increasing relative to employee compensation.

In the above chart, corporate profits as a percentage of employee compensation reflect the after tax profits of companies compared to the total compensation provided to American workers. As this percentage increases, corporate profits are increasing relative to employee compensation. Historically, corporate profits as a percentage of employee compensation and the unemployment rate have moved in opposite directions: in the past, both employees (through lower unemployment rates) and employers (through higher profits relative to employee compensation) have benefitted together during periods of prosperity and both have suffered together through difficult periods.

The historical pattern mentioned above holds for the period 1968 – 2008 when the unemployment rate and corporate profits as a % of employee compensation move in opposite directions: high relative profits for employers have historically coincided with low levels of unemployment. However, beginning in 2009 both the unemployment rate and corporate profits relative to employee compensation began to move sharply higher. This appears to be the first time in recent history that they have moved in tandem to such a dramatic degree and shows that corporate profits relative to employee compensation are at historical highs given the current unemployment rate. Intuitively, this makes sense, given that economic growth has been slow: companies have achieved profits through cost-cutting and efficiencies, which unfortunately comes at the expense of jobs. If previous patterns repeat themselves, either corporate profits relative to employee compensation will decline or the unemployment rate will begin to recede noticeably as companies begin to hire.

New Sources of a Recession?

Since 1980 the three most volatile cyclical components of GDP have been “change in private inventories”, “fixed investment in non residential structures”, and “fixed investment in residential structures”. While these three categories make up only 8% of GDP, they have historically accounted for almost 60% of any negative change in GDP during a recession.

Since 1980 the three most volatile cyclical components of GDP have been “change in private inventories”, “fixed investment in non residential structures”, and “fixed investment in residential structures”. While these three categories make up only 8% of GDP, they have historically accounted for almost 60% of any negative change in GDP during a recession.

Recent economic data indicate that the risk of recession in the U.S. has increased substantially over the last three months. However, one major difference as the chart shows, is that these components of GDP (“change in private inventories”, “fixed investment in non residential structures”, and “fixed investment in residential structures”), which typically are the key drivers of a cyclical downturn, are not anywhere close to the peak levels that are often seen leading up to a recession. In fact, “fixed investment in nonresidential structures” is almost one standard deviation below normal, “fixed investment in residential structures” is more than two standard deviations below normal, and “change in private inventories” is roughly in line with historic norms.

While this does not mean that the US cannot slide into recession in the coming months, it does mean that any recession is likely to look very different from the prior recessions the US has experienced since 1980. Since any recession is usually positive for net exports (as we saw in 2008), and given that the normal drivers of recession discussed above are already unusually low, a recession is likely to be driven by a drop in Government Consumption Expenditure or Personal Consumption Expenditure. These two components made up 91.4% of GDP in 2Q2011, but have historically been two of the most stable components of GDP.

As a result it seems likely that if a recession occurs over the next 12 months, it will be driven by lower consumer or government spending. However, since these components tend to be very stable, both a deep recession or a rapid recovery seem unlikely.

Labor Share and Corporate Profits

Since the 1980’s until the most recent recession, the U.S. maintained relatively stable GDP growth.  However, this growth was not evenly apportioned.  During this time, income inequality increased, and labor’s share of output declined.

The chart above shows labor share on the left axis, and corporate profits as a percentage of GDP on the right axis. Labor share is calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and measures the percentage of output that employers pay in employee compensation. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP is calculated based on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). It includes income earned abroad by corporations.

Since the 1980’s until the most recent recession, the U.S. maintained relatively stable GDP growth. However, this growth was not evenly apportioned. During this time, income inequality increased, and labor’s share of output declined. Over the past decade this loss in income was supplemented with an increase in leverage, including mortgage debt. The subsequent consumer deleveraging has led to weak aggregate demand and tepid GDP growth out of the recession. With lower wage costs and new sources of global demand, corporate profits soared.

In the near term, these imbalances still seem firmly in place. Aggregate demand, and thus economic growth, is weak. Earnings growth remains comparatively strong. In the long-term, what may be good for the economy may or may not be good for corporations and the stock market. Wage inflation would improve household balance sheets by both increasing income and decreasing nominal debt burdens. However, higher costs would lead to declining corporate profits.

A Wild Summer for VIX and the Stock Market

This week’s COW takes a look at the Volatility Index (“VIX”), defined by the CBOE as the measure of short-term stock market volatility conveyed by S&P 500 option prices. It is also known as the “markets fear index”, as VIX tends to rise when markets are falling. Although the VIX has been extremely volatile since the Financial Crisis of 2008, we chronicle the events of the last two months in an effort to further illustrate the dramatic equity market movements of summer 2011.

This week’s COW takes a look at the Volatility Index (“VIX”), defined by the CBOE as the measure of short-term stock market volatility conveyed by S&P 500 option prices. It is also known as the “markets fear index”, as VIX tends to rise when markets are falling. Although the VIX has been extremely volatile since the Financial Crisis of 2008, we chronicle the events of the last two months in an effort to further illustrate the dramatic equity market movements of summer 2011.

Looking at the chart, we first notice the overall inverse relationship between the S&P 500 index (red line) and VIX (gray line); when one index is falling, the other is rising – not surprising, since we would expect market fear (as measured by the VIX) to increase when the equity market (S&P 500) is falling. Second, the month of July was relatively quiet, as neither index showed much movement over the course of the month. However, as August arrived, several events triggered substantial movements in the two indices. We focus on three of the most notable:

  • On Monday, August 8th, S&P downgraded the United States’ credit rating from AAA to AA+; VIX saw a 50% intraday gain from 32 to 48.
  • On Thursday, August 18th, VIX closed 35% higher than the previous day in the wake of more rumored problems for European banks, settling at 42.67 by end of day.
  • Finally, August 24th featured another large movement in the VIX index when it was announced that the CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, was resigning due to health concerns. VIX quickly subsided though as markets expressed confidence in his successor to maintain Apple’s impressive run.

For the sake of comparison, the five-year average of the VIX index is 24.32; thus these elevated figures in August certainly reflect a higher than normal volatility, which has indeed played out in the equity markets. Although the figures do not approach the all-time high of 96.4 when markets were collapsing in October of 2008, the elevated levels have made investors stand up and take notice. Unfortunately, the VIX will likely continue to be volatile, which is a direct reflection of expected choppiness in the equity markets.

Will Excess Reserves Lead to Inflation?

This week’s chart looks at the amount of excess reserves banks are holding at the Federal Reserve (orange line) along with the corresponding changes to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet (black line). As of the end of July 2011, banks are holding over $1.6 trillion in excess reserves, which is notably higher than what historical averages would suggest. This has led some market commentators to worry about inflation escalating as banks begin to lend out those assets (note that overall loans and leases issued by commercial banks, as represented by the red line, have fallen since the Financial Crisis of 2008 – 2009).

This week’s chart looks at the amount of excess reserves banks are holding at the Federal Reserve (orange line) along with the corresponding changes to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet (black line). As of the end of July 2011, banks are holding over $1.6 trillion in excess reserves, which is notably higher than what historical averages would suggest. This has led some market commentators to worry about inflation escalating as banks begin to lend out those assets (note that overall loans and leases issued by commercial banks, as represented by the red line, have fallen since the Financial Crisis of 2008 – 2009).

In the United States, all depository institutions (commercial banks, savings and loans, credit unions, etc.) are required by the Fed to satisfy a reserve requirement (or liquidity ratio): each bank must retain a certain amount of cash that cannot be used for loans to business or consumers. Any reserves held above the required amount are considered “excess reserves”.

Historically, institutions have minimized their excess reserves because it is generally more profitable to issue loans than to hold the cash (the banks can earn higher amounts of interest via loans). When money is lent by banks, it can have what is called a multiplier effect on money supply: because banks only have to hold a small percentage of assets to meet the reserve requirement, they are able to increase the money supply by lending. For instance, with a 10% reserve requirement, $100 could theoretically be turned into $1,000 through the multiplier effect.

As a result of this theory, many market commentators have expressed concern over the current large level of excess reserves held by banks. Based on this macroeconomic theory, even a relatively small decline in excess reserves of $100 billion could theoretically increase the money supply by $1 trillion (assuming a reserve requirement of 10%).

The Fed is confident that inflation is not a near term threat to the economy, and when (if) inflation does become a concern, it has the tools to control the growth of price levels. A large output gap in the U.S. economy, high levels of unemployment, and slow wage growth are the most commonly cited reasons for the expected low levels of future inflation. The Fed also has a few tools to help combat inflation from excess reserves, including selling large amounts of securities from its balance sheet (either outright sales or using reverse repurchase agreements) or increasing the interest rate it pays on excess reserves to incent banks to continue to hold excess reserves. The ability to pay interest on excess reserves is a new tool for the Fed and in its view alters the theory behind the multiplier effect.

The fact remains that the U.S. is in uncharted monetary policy territory, with little historical precedent to rely on. As Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said, “the calibration of our exit from these policies is complicated by a paucity of evidence on how unconventional policies work. We will need to be flexible and adjust as we gain experience”.

Frequency and Magnitude of Stock Market Corrections

This week’s chart examines the frequency and magnitude of market corrections in the U.S. equity market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index. A market correction is defined as a decrease of 10% or more within one calendar year.

This week’s chart examines the frequency and magnitude of market corrections in the U.S. equity market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index. A market correction is defined as a decrease of 10% or more within one calendar year. Using data back to 1950, we found that every year featured at least one market drawdown, and over half of those years (35 of the 62 years, approximately 56%) were true market corrections. What is even more interesting is how large some of these corrections were, with 11 of those years seeing intra-year declines of over 20%. So while the steep drop over the last week has contributed to an 18% decline in the S&P 500 Index (through Monday’s close), perhaps investors can find some reassurance knowing that more severe market corrections have occurred in the past.

Job Growth and GDP Growth

This week’s Chart of the Week compares growth in nonfarm payrolls to real GDP growth. The year over year change in nonfarm payrolls (i.e. jobs created or lost) is plotted on the left axis, and year over year real GDP growth is plotted on the right axis. As the chart shows, job growth is highly correlated to GDP growth.

This week’s Chart of the Week compares growth in nonfarm payrolls to real GDP growth. The year over year change in nonfarm payrolls (i.e. jobs created or lost) is plotted on the left axis, and year over year real GDP growth is plotted on the right axis. As the chart shows, job growth is highly correlated to GDP growth.

Currently, the civilian labor force in the United States (the measure the BLS uses when calculating the unemployment rate) is approximately 153 million people. The civilian labor force has grown at about 0.8% per year since 2000. This means that the U.S. economy needs to add approximately 1.2 million jobs per year in order to keep pace with the growth of the labor force (i.e. keep the unemployment rate at the current level). A 1.0% decrease in the unemployment rate would require an additional 1.5 million jobs on top of that. Given the recent GDP numbers (GDP grew at an annualized rate of 1.3% in the second quarter), the near-term outlook for employment is not very positive.

Labor Market Churn

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release of the U.S. unemployment rate each month generates a significant amount of attention; however, this headline number provides only a static view on the health of the labor market. Since reaching a high of 10.1% in October 2009, the unemployment rate is currently 9.2% through June 2011 and remains at elevated levels following the “Great Recession” of 2007-2009.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release of the U.S. unemployment rate each month generates a significant amount of attention; however, this headline number provides only a static view on the health of the labor market. Since reaching a high of 10.1% in October 2009, the unemployment rate is currently 9.2% through June 2011 and remains at elevated levels following the “Great Recession” of 2007-2009.

An alternate method to gauge the health of the labor market involves analyzing the total number of job openings, hires, and separations each month. The BLS refers to this as the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). The JOLTS survey shows the level of activity taking place in the labor market, generally referred to as “churn”. Labor market churn, the movement of workers from one job to another, shows how fluid the job market is with higher levels generally corresponding to a healthier job market. Hires and separations have remained below pre-recession levels and have shown little improvement during the past two years.

It has been estimated that approximately 125K jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with the pace of population growth. In order to bring unemployment down, a significantly higher amount of job growth per month will be needed for a sustained period of time. In May 2011, the number of hires was roughly 12% higher than the low in experienced in October 2009, but remains well below pre-recession levels.

Dispersion of Commodity Returns

For all the press coverage of rising gold and oil prices, commodity prices during the first half of 2011 showed a tremendous degree of dispersion across different sectors. Silver saw the greatest increase in value as it rose by more than 12%, but wheat fell by more than 26%, thus creating a spread between best and worst of almost 40%.

For all the press coverage of rising gold and oil prices, commodity prices during the first half of 2011 showed a tremendous degree of dispersion across different sectors. Silver saw the greatest increase in value as it rose by more than 12%, but wheat fell by more than 26%, thus creating a spread between best and worst of almost 40%. Despite hitting a price of $1,600 / ounce earlier this week, gold rose by less than 6% through the first 6 months of 2011; in fact, only 6 of the 14 commodities on the chart actually increased in price. The main take away from this chart? Commodity investors must have a keen understanding of their underlying exposures, as the large dispersions of individual commodity returns can lead to vastly different results across products and strategies.

Is the Market Expecting a Debt Default?

With the August 2nd deadline fast approaching investors are increasingly wondering whether the U.S. might actually default on its debt obligations. In an effort to gain some insight into what the market is expecting, this chart looks at the pricing of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on U.S. Government debt over the last year.

With the August 2nd deadline fast approaching investors are increasingly wondering whether the U.S. might actually default on its debt obligations. In an effort to gain some insight into what the market is expecting, this chart looks at the pricing of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on U.S. Government debt over the last year. CDS only pay off in the event of a default and are often used by bondholders to hedge against the risk that a bond in their portfolios defaults. As a result rising CDS prices offer a good indication that the market expects a higher probability of default. What is most notable is the jump in CDS prices on 1 Year Treasuries, while at the same time, CDS on 5 and 10 Year Treasuries remain largely unchanged. Given the jump in CDS on shorter duration Treasuries the market seems to be indicating that, if there is a default, it is likely to occur in the next year. However, the lack of movement in CDS prices for 5 and 10 Year Treasuries indicates that the markets are assigning little overall risk of a default (because if a default occurred all Treasury bonds would suffer losses so we would expect to see a jump in spreads for CDS of all maturities). Lastly, to put these numbers in perspective, CDS on 5 year Greek debt trades at 2,320, CDS on 5 year French debt trades at 107, and United Kingdom debt trades at 75. So while there is considerable amount of concern over the debt ceiling deadline in Washington, the markets appear to be pricing in little risk of default.