Why 2019 Recession Is Possible Despite Unemployment At 50-Year Lows

By Path Financial President and Chief Investment Officer Raul Elizalde

path imageBy most measures, employment is as strong as it has ever been. For example, initial unemployment claims as a percentage of the labor force are by far the lowest since records started. The May 2018 unemployment rate dropped to 3.8%, a level touched only once since 1969 – on April 2000, just as the stock market peaked before a 30-month-long bear market and the economy fell into a recession.

Strong economic indicators are always welcome, but they do not guarantee that growth can be sustained. Take retail sales, for example: they are now at a record high, but they were also at record highs just before the two previous recessions. How can this be?

first graph

Forecasting the economy is just as difficult as forecasting the stock market. Economists are very good at explaining what already happened and why, but not so at predicting what will happen next.

They know this. Prakash Loungani, an economist at the IMF, showed in a study that professional forecasters missed 148 out of 153 world recessions. This is not surprising: Economic indicators very rarely flash any warnings before a recession actually arrives. Economic downturns seem to come unexpectedly.

Regardless of the difficulties, analysts are always looking for clues. One measure that has received attention as a predictor of future recessions is the shape of the yield curve. It seems that when longer-term rates drop below short-term rates, a recession often follows. But this is also true for unemployment claims: a recession seems to follow whenever they drop below 300,000.

second graph

This is a difficult set of facts to rationalize. On one hand, it is easy to speculate that when longer-maturity rates drop below shorter rates it is because the market expects future economic activity to weaken. On the other hand, explaining why strong levels of employment precede a recession is not easy, even though it is also appears to be true.

While the yield curve today is not yet at levels associated in the past with approaching recessions, this may be due to technical reasons that could have moved the threshold upwards, such as negative rates still widespread elsewhere. But unemployment levels are well beyond recession-preceding thresholds, and in any case both indicators are moving in a direction that should cause concern.

Still, it is not obvious why economic indicators often show their best performance before the economy takes a turn for the worse. One explanation could be that it is difficult to rein in distortions when the economy is firing on all cylinders.

Sometimes this is due to politics. When the economy is sluggish, policymakers in charge are accused of ineptitude or lack of concern. To prevent this, they tend to stimulate growth regardless of consequences, and the strategy eventually backfires.

Other times, imbalances happen without blunt policy interventions, such as when asset values take off and build a bubble. Policymakers are leery of taking the punchbowl away when everybody seems to be getting rich, even though that is precisely what they should be doing. But bad policy is often good politics.

Are there any such dangers lurking in the US economy today?

To many, stock market valuations appear overstretched. In addition, the combination of a huge tax cut, a spending increase and an aggressive trade stance adopted by the Trump administration, while intended to keep the expansion going, may not end up well.

The Fed could raise rates too quickly, for instance, if it thinks that the economy is running the risk of overheating or inflation pressures start to mount. Given the enormous amount of private debt built up after years of rock-bottom rates, this could drive some debtors to insolvency and trigger a broad crisis.

Another scenario would be that lower taxes and higher spending cause public debt levels and budget deficits to explode, forcing a drastic reversal of policy that could choke growth. This is not idle speculation. Virtually nobody that has looked carefully at the details of current fiscal policy, among them the Congressional Budget Office, the Tax Policy Center and the Joint Committee on Taxation, believes that the current largesse could create enough growth and pay for itself.

The U.S. expansion may be close to its end just because of old age, given that it has lasted almost nine years and is now the second longest in U.S. history. While economic indicators are strong, they were also strong just before past recessions. And anyone who thinks that a recession is unlikely should keep in mind that it also seemed unlikely to professionals trained to predict recessions 148 out of the last 153 times.

This analysis originally appeared in Raul Elizalde’s Forbes.com investment column. Click here to follow Raul on Forbes.


Raul Elizalde President Path FinancialRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

How to Handle the Flash Crash of 2018

path flash crashAfter a meteoric rise, the stock market lost more than 6% in only two days. Why did this happen, and where do we go from here?

At the close of Monday, February 5 2018, the S&P 500 gave up more than all the year’s gains. Put in perspective this is not a large move: the index is roughly back to where it was just a couple of months before. Also, there are no clear fundamental reasons behind the decline: both the economy and corporate earnings are strong, unemployment is low, and the global economy is in good shape.

Some reasons behind the sharp fall are most likely technical, such as the high levels of margin debt, elevated P/E ratios, side-effects brought about by the purchase of insurance by some market participants, and so on. These kind of factors rarely portend a large, structural move to the downside.

There are, however, some fundamental weaknesses in the system. The most important is the enormous increase in private sector debt that both households and non-financial corporations have accumulated in the last few years. When and if interest rates rise too much or beyond a certain threshold, a much more serious credit-driven problem can materialize and evolve into a full-fledged crisis that could profoundly affect markets. The quick rise in interest rates last week may therefore have something to do with the stock market move, but we think that rates are not yet close to trigger widespread credit problems.

As we described in a recent newsletter, the recent tax cut is another reason for concern. This is because coming at a time of full employment it can cause the economy to overheat and inflation to climb, driving the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy. This could trigger the kind of credit crisis we fear.

Additionally, the tax cut is likely to create a large increase of public debt, which would limit options to fight the next inevitable recession and thus turn a normal deceleration of the economy into a more serious downturn.

We believe, however, that we are not yet at the edge of recession or a negative credit event. The swift market fall seems due, instead, to the kind of technical factors that we mentioned earlier. If so, it could be useful to explore what happened in similar situations in the past when stocks had technically-driven two- or three-day declines of more than 6-7%.

We looked at the history of the S&P 500 since its inception and we identified nine such instances, from the “Kennedy Slide” of 1962 to the China-driven volatility of August 2015. We did not include the Crash of 2008 because it was not a mere technical decline but the result of serious fundamental concerns about the viability of the banking system. While technical factors could have exacerbated the 2008-2009 market rout, they were clearly not the cause.
path image for post
In all these instances we observed that after a few days, weeks or months the market recovered virtually all the lost ground. While the market fell more than 6% twice during the bear market of 2000-2003, it also found full relief soon after, even if it eventually resumed its downward march.

In conclusion, it seems that it rarely pays to sell immediately after a sharp two- or three-day move. Waiting for markets to stabilize instead appears to be a better strategy, because prices eventually tend to rebound even if they keep falling later on. This appears to be the case especially after climbing for a while, as can be seen in the charts of 1987, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2011 and 2015.

Even though we are concerned about the longer-term market outlook due to the stretched credit conditions, we think that investors who want to reduce their exposure to risk assets will not have to wait long before the market reaches a better point if they want to sell.


Raul cropped for facebookRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather