What's new

American Economy News & Updates

U.S. Debt Held by Foreigners Hits Record $6.07 Trillion - Real Time Economics - WSJ

  • wsj_print.gif
  • October 17, 2014, 9:26 AM ET
U.S. Debt Held by Foreigners Hits Record $6.07 Trillion
ByIan Talley
Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities hit a record high $6.07 trillion in August, up nearly $70 billion from July, as the dollar began its climb to five-year highs and the U.S. recovery showed signs of gaining steam.

Japan added more than $11 billion to its stockpile – largely in bonds and notes – while China and Belgium, a proxy trader for Beijing, added a net $12 billion to its holdings. The figures came in a monthly Treasury Department report released Thursday afternoon.

BN-FB209_Forieg_G_20141016180958.jpg

The U.S. Treasury said in its semi-annual currency report published late Wednesday that China bought roughly $135 billion in foreign currencies in the year through August to keep the value of the yuan down as growth in the Asian powerhouse slowed.

There’s a good chance that September and October could continue to set new records for foreign holdings of U.S. debt, as indicated by the steady strengthening of the dollar since August andplummeting bond yields.

Amid increasing worries about slowing emerging-market growth slowing and recession risks in the eurozone rising, investors have plowed their cash into the relative safety of U.S. debt.

BN-FB210_Strong_G_20141016181456.jpg


Uncle Sam is getting back up. Good news !

:)
 
. . .
An interesting analysis to provide further support for the strength of the USD.

---

America, the Balanced by Jeffrey Frankel - Project Syndicate


BUSINESS & FINANCE
d32bc4a15051e1fc9428535d28204cb3.square.png

JEFFREY FRANKEL
Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, previously served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. He directs the Program in International Finance and Macroeconomics at the US National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, the official US arbiter of recession and recovery.

OCT 20, 2014
America, the Balanced
CAMBRIDGE – When the United States’ current account fell into deficit in 1982, the US Council of Economic Advisers accurately predicted record deficits for years to come, owing to budget deficits, a low national saving rate, and an overvalued dollar. If the US did not adjust, knowledgeable forecasters intoned, it would go from being the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor. Many of us worried that the imbalances were unsustainable, and might end in a “hard landing” for the dollar if and when global investors tired of holding it.

The indebtedness forecasts were correct. Indeed, every year for more than three decades, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has reported a current-account deficit. And yet now we must ask whether the US current-account deficit is still a problem.

For starters, the world’s investors declared loud and clear in 2008 that they were not concerned about the sustainability of US deficits. When the global financial crisis erupted, they flooded into dollar assets, even though the crisis originated in the United States.

Moreover, a substantial amount of US adjustment has taken place since 1982 – for example, the dollar depreciations of 1985-1987 and 2002-2007 and the fiscal retrenchments of 1992-2000 and 2009-2014. The big increase in domestic output of shale oil and gas has also helped the trade balance recently.

As a result, the US current-account deficit in 2013 had narrowed by half in dollar terms from its 2006 peak, and from 5.8% of GDP to 2.4%. This is a decline of two-thirds when expressed as a share of global output.

A symmetric adjustment has also occurred in China, via real appreciation of its currency and higher prices for labor and land. China’s current-account surplus peaked in 2008 at more than 10% of GDP and has since narrowed dramatically, to 1.9% last year. China’s trade adjustment in some respects followed that of Japan, the original focus of American trade anxieties in the 1980s.

I propose a third, more speculative reason why it may be time to stop worrying about the US current-account deficit. It is possible that, properly measured, the true deficits were smaller than has been reported, and even that, in some years, they were not there at all.

Every year, US residents take some of what they earn in overseas investment income – interest on bonds, dividends on equities, and repatriated profits on direct investment – and reinvest it then and there. For example, corporations plow overseas profits back into their operations, often to avoid paying the high US corporate income tax implied by repatriating those earnings. Technically, this should be recorded as a bigger surplus on the investment-income account, matched by greater acquisition of assets overseas. Often it is counted correctly. But there is reason to think that this is not always the case.

The world has long run a substantial deficit in investment income, even though the correct numbers should sum to zero. The missing income must be going somewhere.

Even for officials as highly competent as those at the BEA, it is impossible to keep track of all of the stocks and flows in the international economy. Everyone knows that errors and omissions are large, especially when it comes to financial transactions. Underfunding of statistical agencies exacerbates measurement problems, but it does not create them.

Less well known, however, is a particular pattern in the revisions of the US international investment position. The currently available historical statistics show that in every year from 1982 to 2000, the initial estimate of the net international investment position was subsequently revised upward, as statisticians found overseas assets about which they previously had no way of knowing. Since then, some subsequent revisions have been positive and some negative. But, despite more frequent surveys of portfolio holdings in recent years, certain new asset acquisitions – for example, some held with foreign custodians – still most likely go unreported.

The numbers are potentially large. The reported US current-account deficits from 1982 to 2013, based on subsequent revisions, total $9.5 trillion. And yet the deterioration in the US international investment position over this period was not much more than half of that amount ($5.7 trillion if measured relative to the revised estimate for 1981).

Certainly a lot of the discrepancy is attributable to valuation effects: since 1982, the dollar value of overseas assets has increased repeatedly, owing to increases in the dollar value of foreign currency and increases in the assets’ foreign-currency value. But part of the discrepancy also reflects the discovery of missing assets, some of which may have originated in the reinvestment of overseas income.

The missing credits also originally could have been earned in other ways. For example, US multinational corporations sometimes over-invoice import bills or under-report export earnings to reduce their tax obligations. Again, this would work to overstate the recorded current-account deficit.

Consider an (admittedly extreme) illustration. If true investment income were double what is reported, the difference was reinvested abroad in the years 1982-2000, and those assets were discovered by 2014, that would explain about half of the upward revision in the US net international investment position.

If something like this under-reporting of reinvested earnings or other balance-of-payments credits has gone on in the past, it may still be going on today – especially with US firms becoming aggressive about arbitraging corporate income tax. And if true investment income is indeed as large as double what is reported, the true US current-account balance entered the black in 2009 and has been in surplus ever since.

America, the Balanced by Jeffrey Frankel - Project Syndicate


Read more at America, the Balanced by Jeffrey Frankel - Project Syndicate
 
. .
Ironic isn't it. In times of crisis even the most anti-American and anti-USD still welcome its sweet, safe and stable embrace.

Which is the reason why the RMB will never replace the USD. It is the Global currency and will remain so in the long term.
 
.
Sober Look: The good, the bad and the ugly of falling energy prices

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2014
The recent correction in the price of crude oil should have an immediate positive impact on the US consumer as well as on a number of business sectors. However there also may be a significant economic downside to this adjustment. Here are some facts to consider.

1. The good:

The US consumer is not only about to benefit from materially lower gasoline prices (see chart), but also from cheaper heating oil.



Source: barchart

With wages suppressed, the savings could be quite impactful, particularly for families with incomes below $50K per year.

Merrill Lynch: - ... consumers will likely respond quickly to the saving in energy costs. Many families live “hand to mouth”, spending whatever income is available. The Survey of Consumer Finances found that 47% of families had no savings in 2013, up from 44% in the more healthy 2004 economy. Over time, energy costs have become a much bigger part of budgets for low income families. In 2012, families with income below $50,000 spent an average of 21.4% of their income on energy. This is almost double the share in 2001, and it is almost triple the share for families with income above $50,000.

Source: Merrill Lynch

Furthermore, with gasoline prices lower, it is unlikely that consumers will be buying significantly more of it than they have been. Historically when oil prices fell, gasoline consumption in dollar terms also fell. Dollars saved on fuel will be redirected elsewhere in the economy.


Source: Scotiabank

Moreover, suppressed oil prices will, at least in the near-term, keep inflation expectations lower. That means lower short-term rates for longer (see chart) and therefore lower home equity and adjustable rate mortgage monthly payments. It also means lower longer-term rates and cheaper fixed rate mortgages (see chart). We may even see some new refi activity.

Other benefits include cheaper transport (potentially lower travel costs) and shipping costs (lower UPS/Fedex surcharges), as well as cheaper PVC, nylon, polyester, foam, etc. - all of which should benefit the consumer.

2. The bad:

The US has become a major energy producer, with the sector partially responsible for improving economic growth and lower unemployment in recent years. As an example here is the GDP of Texas as a percentage of the US GDP. This trend is driven in part by the recent energy boom in the state.


Source: @M_McDonough

If oil prices remain under pressure, this boom could soon be in jeopardy. While large US energy companies are sitting on a great deal of cash, at some point they will begin to cut portions of the higher cost development and production. And private investment into energy and oil services firms, which has been brisk lately, is likely to moderate. For example, here is the private debt and equity capital flowing into various states last month.


Source: CAZ Investments

While, only a portion of the funds going to Texas is directly energy related, various other Texas firms funded by PE (including some real estate, manufacturing and financial companies) have been benefiting from the energy boom. Soon that flow of private capital may slow dramatically.

To put this into perspective, here are the jobs directly generated from Texas oil and gas extraction in recent years. And this does not include the thousands of jobs that support this industry. Such trend is unlikely to continue if oil prices remain at current levels or fall further.




In fact, while the overall industrial production growth in the US has been strong recently (see chart), a big portion of the gains are energy driven (see chart from Lee Adler). A slowdown in that sector will be quite visible across the US.

3. The ugly:

A significant number of middle market energy firms in the US - many funded via private capital (above) - are highly leveraged. The leveraged finance markets are becoming quite concerned about the situation - even for larger firms with traded debt. Here is the yield spread between the energy sector loans in the Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index and the index as a whole.


Source: Credit Suisse

Rumors have been circulating of a number of energy (and related services) firms getting ready to "restructure". There are also stories that some large funds are gearing up to scoop up distressed debt of levered energy firms. However, in spite of the ample liquidity out there, bets on companies with significant commodity exposure will be limited going forward - at least until stability returns to the oil markets. Defaults, layoffs, and cancelled projects in the energy space may be in store in the near-term. And that is sure to have a negative impact on the US labor markets and the economy as a whole.

Finally, this is terrible news for the development of alternative energy sources. At these prices, fossil fuels are becoming increasingly difficult to compete with.​
 
.
Ironic isn't it. In times of crisis even the most anti-American and anti-USD still welcome its sweet, safe and stable embrace.

Well said. Cuz the U.S is still by far the safest place to place your bet, even U.S rivals like Russia/China know this.:D

Which is the reason why the RMB will never replace the USD. It is the Global currency and will remain so in the long term.

I agree Nihonji san. however you shouldnt have put the word NEVER. you should never say never, for we dont know what the future holds. Though i agree that you should have said: 'Which is the reason why the RMB will not replace the USD for a long time to come'. Voila.:D
 
Last edited:
.
I agree Nihonji san. however you shouldnt have put the word NEVER. you should never say never, for we dont know what the future holds. Though i agree that you should have said: 'Which is the reason why the RMB will not replace the USD for a long time to come'. Voila.:D

Yes, you're right. Appreciate your correction. I meant to say, within my lifetime, that is.

:)

Well said. Cuz the U.S is still by far the safest place to place your bet, even U.S rivals like Russia/China know this.:D


Yes, that and the US has a lot of God reserve, A whole lot of em. LOL
 
.
Sober Look: Gap between wages and rents continues to grow

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
Gap between wages and rents continues to grow

Here is a quick follow-up to the discussion on the looming rental crisis in the US. The gap in growth rates of rental costs vs. wages continues to widen. This divergence is creating a drag on the GDP growth by suppressing household formation, consumer spending, and labor mobility. Over time this trend will also increase homelessness.


 
.
Majority of Bank Risk Managers Are Worried About the Wealth Gap - Real Time Economics - WSJ

  • wsj_print.gif
  • October 23, 2014, 7:54 AM ET
Majority of Bank Risk Managers Are Worried About the Wealth Gap
ByNick Timiraos
A majority of risk managers at North American financial institutions are worried that the growing wealth gap poses a risk to the financial system.

The Professional Risk Managers’ International Association and FICO, the credit analytics firm, polled bank risk managers on the consequences of inequality during their quarterly survey. It showed that more than 62% believe the wealth gap could undermine the North American financial system. Just 14% said they didn’t think it posed a threat.

BN-FD601_inequa_G_20141022161243.jpg

The survey found that 41%, a plurality, of bank risk managers believe unemployment or underemployment is the greatest risk to consumers’ credit health over the coming six months. Some 22% were more worried about rising consumer indebtedness. Other concerns, including a sudden financial-system shock (16%), rising interest rates (12%) and the weakening of the housing market (8%), drew less consensus.

BN-FD602_inequa_G_20141022161712.jpg

Home loans were the only asset class where a majority of risk managers didn’t see supply meeting demand. More than one quarter of those surveyed see the supply of mortgage credit falling short of demand, the highest of any consumer borrowing category.
 
.
Dream of U.S. Oil Independence Slams Against Shale Costs
By Asjylyn Loder Feb 27, 2014 1:00 AM GMT+0100


Photographer: Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Drilling for oil in the Bakken shale formation on July 23, 2013 outside Watford City, North Dakota.

The path toward U.S. energy independence, made possible by a boom in shale oil, will be much harder than it seems.

Just a few of the roadblocks: Independent producers will spend $1.50 drilling this year for every dollar they get back. Shale output drops faster than production from conventional methods. It will take 2,500 new wells a year just to sustain output of 1 million barrels a day in North Dakota’s Bakken shale, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Iraq could do the same with 60.

Consider Sanchez Energy Corp. The Houston-based company plans to spend as much as $600 million this year, almost double its estimated 2013 revenue, on the Eagle Ford shale formation in south Texas, which along with North Dakota is one of the hotbeds of a drilling frenzy that’s pushed U.S. crude output to the highest in almost 26 years. Its Sante North 1H oil well pumped five times more water than crude, Sanchez Energy said in a Feb. 17 regulatory filing.Shares sank 7 percent.

“We are beginning to live in a different world where getting more oil takes more energy, more effort and will be more expensive,” said Tad Patzek, chairman of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.


Photographer: Eddie Seal/Bloomberg
Tony Sanchez, chief executive officer for Sanchez Energy Corp., left, speaks at the...Read More

Drillers are pushing to maintain the pace of the unprecedented 39 percent gain in U.S. oil production since the end of 2011. Yet achieving U.S. energy self-sufficiency depends on easy credit and oil prices high enough to cover well costs. Even with crude above $100 a barrel, shale producers are spending money faster than they make it.

Missed Forecasts
Companies are showing the strain. Chesapeake Energy Corp., the Oklahoma City-based company founded by Aubrey McClendon, reported profit yesterday that missed analysts’ forecasts by the widest margin in almost two years. Shares declined 4.9 percent. Fort Worth, Texas-based Range Resources Corp. fell 2.3 percent after announcing Feb. 25 that fourth-quarter profit dropped 47 percent. QEP Resources Inc., a Denver-based driller, slid 10 percent after fourth-quarter earnings reported Feb. 25 fell short of analysts’ predictions.

Rethinking the Ban on Exporting U.S. Oil

The U.S. oil industry must sprint simply to stay in place. U.S. drillers are expected to spend more than $2.8 trillion by 2035 even though production will peak a decade earlier, the IEA said. The Middle East will spend less than a third of that for three times more crude.


Photographer: Eddie Seal/Bloomberg
Floor hands operate an oil rig in the Eagle Ford Shale formation area near Texas.

Bulls Crow
Shale wells can vary in price. Chesapeake will spend an average of $6.4 million each this year, according an investor presentation last updated yesterday. Houston-based Goodrich Petroleum Corp.will spend up to $13 million on some of its wells, Robert Turnham, president and chief operating officer, said in a Feb. 20 earnings call.

Bullish analysts and oil executives have reason to crow. While drilling in Iraq could break even at about $20 a barrel, output will be limited by political risks, Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc. in New York, said in a January report. By contrast, the break-even price in U.S. shale is estimated at $60 to $80 a barrel, according to the IEA. The price of a barrel hasn’t dipped below $80 since 2012 and has stayed above $90 since May. Costs in the U.S. will continue to fall as drillers get faster and improve results, Morse said.

Crude Exports
“The U.S. oil and natural gas renaissance is receiving significant investment because return on investment is good and competitive with other opportunities,” Rick Bott, president and chief operating officer of Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources Inc., a pioneer of shale drilling, said in an e-mail. “We’re confident that continued technological advancements will keep the Bakken and other plays at the forefront of investment for the foreseeable future.”

Harold Hamm, the chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources who became a billionaire drilling in North Dakota, told U.S. lawmakers Jan. 30 that the country, which U.S. Energy Information Administration data show supplied 86 percent of its own energy last year, can drill its way to energy independence by 2020. Hamm is leading an effort to get Congress to allow crude exports for the first time since the 1970s.

U.S. oil production will average 9.2 million barrels a day in 2015, up from 7.4 million last year, according to the EIA, the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department. Colorado boosted output by 11 percent in the first 11 months of last year, Wyoming was up 12 percent and Oklahomaadded 24 percent.

“I don’t see the shale boom coming to an end,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, an energy consulting firm in Houston. “We’re just getting started in places like Colorado, Wyoming and Oklahoma.”

Horizontal Wells
Sanchez Energy said in a Feb. 19 statement that Sante North 1H isn’t yet finished and the well will produce more oil than the early report suggested. The company said it has 120,000 acres in the Eagle Ford and plans to spend 90 percent of its exploration budget there this year. The company’s shares have risen 63 percent in the past year.

Traditional wells are bored straight down, like straws stuck into large deposits of crude. Shale is tapped by steering the drill horizontally through layers of oil-rich rock, sometimes for a mile or more. The formation is blasted apart with a high-pressure jet of water, sand and chemicals, a practice called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, to open up cracks that free pockets of trapped fuel. The complexity and materials needed to drill horizontally and blast the rock add to the cost.

Yield Little
The boom’s boosters have given rise to the misconception that wringing oil and gas from shale can be easily replicated throughout the country, Patzek said. That isn’t the case, he said. Every rock is different. The Bakken shale, along with the neighboring Three Forks formation, covers an area larger than France, according to the IEA. An oil-bearing formation that’s 400 feet (122 meters) thick in one spot may taper off to nothing just a mile away, Patzek said. What works for one well may yield little in a neighboring county.

The output of shale wells drops faster, too, falling by 60 to 70 percent in the first year alone, according to Austin, Texas-based Drillinginfo Inc. Traditional wells take two years to fall by about 55 percent before flattening out. That forces companies to keep drilling new wells to make up for lost productivity.

“You keep having to drill more and you keep having to spend more,” said Mark Young, an analyst with London-based Evaluate Energy, which tracks production and its costs.

Sweet Spots
A prolonged slide in prices below $85 a barrel may put pressure on operators that have struggled to contain costs or that don’t own acreage in the prolific “sweet spots” of the oil fields, said Leonardo Maugeri, a former manager at Rome-based energy company Eni SpA who’s researching the geopolitics of energy at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Companies have boosted well productivity and will continue to whittle down the break-even price, he said. While the boom could survive a brief dip in oil prices, a long slump could slow drilling and cause production to fall swiftly, Maugeri said.

“To sustain in the short term, the U.S. needs prices at $65 a barrel,” Maugeri said. “That’s a critical level. Below that level, many opportunities will vanish.”

The U.S. benchmark oil contract for West Texas Intermediate crude for delivery in April 2016 is trading at about $85 a barrel, almost $18 a barrel less than today and still $20 above Maugeri’s threshold.

Net Debt
Even with crude prices above $100 a barrel, U.S. independent producers will spend $1.50 drilling this year for every dollar they get back from selling oil and gas and will carry debt that is twice as much as annual earnings, said Ryan Oatman, an energy analyst with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc., an investment bank in Houston.

By contrast, the net debt of Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest energy explorer by market value, is less than half of the cash earned from operations last year. The company will spend 68 cents for every dollar it gets back this year, according to company records and analyst forecasts compiled by Bloomberg.

So far, oil prices have been high enough to keep investors interested in the potential profits to be made in shale, Oatman said.

“There is a point at which investors become worried about debt levels and how that spending is going to be financed,” Oatman said. “How do you accelerate and drill without making investors worried about the balance sheet? That’s the key tension in this industry.”
 
.
Companies have boosted well productivity and will continue to whittle down the break-even price, he said. While the boom could survive a brief dip in oil prices, a long slump could slow drilling and cause production to fall swiftly, Maugeri said.

“To sustain in the short term, the U.S. needs prices at $65 a barrel,” Maugeri said. “That’s a critical level. Below that level, many opportunities will vanish.”

The U.S. benchmark oil contract for West Texas Intermediate crude for delivery in April 2016 is trading at about $85 a barrel, almost $18 a barrel less than today and still $20 above Maugeri’s threshold.

I would love to get oil below $65/barrel (or even $57/barrel, but the other analyses I posted), even if it meant the US shale boom was over. The knock-on effects for the economy would provide for a tremendous boom.
 
.
Sales of New Homes Worse Than Most Years in 1980s, 1990s - Real Time Economics - WSJ

  • wsj_print.gif
  • October 24, 2014, 11:32 AM ET
Sales of New Homes Worse Than Most Years in 1980s, 1990s
ByNick Timiraos
BN-FE856_homesa_G_20141024112621.jpg

Home sales rose to their highest annual pace in September in six years, but the new-home market is still depressed by historical standards.

To get a sense of just how painful the housing downturn has been, consider this: excluding the post-2008 depression, sales this year are running at their slowest pace since 1982.

Back then, interest rates were above 15% as the Federal Reserve fought off inflation and unemployment rose above 10%.

Of course, the recessions of the early 1980s were followed by big snapbacks in construction of the kind that haven’t been seen following the 2007-09 recession.

Through the first nine months of this year, builders have signed contracts to sell some 337,000 homes. That’s up just 1.7% from 331,000 through the same period last year, and up from the low of 233,000 in 2011.

Still, this year’s level is below every other year from 1983 to 2009. In 1982, builders had sold 226,000 homes in the first nine months of the year. Sales doubled to 478,000 in 1983.

Friday’s figures suggest that 2014 will be a giant letdown for the new-home sales market.

One sort-of bright spot: For the third quarter of 2014, new home sales were still up 17% from the year-earlier period. Why “sort of” bright? Summer 2013 saw a big drop in sales following a rise in mortgage rates from around 3.5% to 4.5%.

Still, improvement is improvement. Sales in the second quarter stood 5% below the year-earlier level, and the first quarter was down 2%.
 
.
US Manufacturing Activity Slows in October
United States Manufacturing PMI | 2012-2014 | Data | Chart | Calendar
united-states-manufacturing-pmi.png

The seasonally adjusted Markit Flash U.S. Manufacturing PMI decreased to 56.2 in October from 57.5 in September. It is the lowest figure in four months as new business posted the smallest gain this year and new export sales recorded the slowest rise since July.

Softer new business growth was the main negative influence on the headline PMI in October, as the latest rise in new orders was much weaker than in September and the slowest for nine months. A number of survey respondents commented on more cautious spending patterns among clients, especially in relation to export sales. October data pointed to only a moderate expansion of new orders from abroad, with the pace of growth easing sharply to a three-month low.

In line with softer new business gains, manufacturing output growth also slowed in October. The latest increase in production volumes was the weakest since March. Moreover, the rate of output growth has now moderated for two months in a row, which represents the first back-to-back slowdown since May 2013.

October data pointed to resilient manufacturing payrolls trends, despite a continued moderation in both output and new business growth. The rate of job creation was little-changed from September’s two-and-a-half year high and much sharper than the average seen since the survey began in May 2007.

Markit | Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com
10/23/2014 2:53:26 PM
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom