October 2013 Employment Situation: eye-popping gains

the report

Last Friday at 8:30 est, the  Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Labor Department released its Employment Situation report for October 2013.

Given the general tone of deep discouragement about the economy-retarding actions of Washington–and the impending government shutdown, in particular–the ES figures were surprisingly, even shockingly, good.

The economy added 204,000 net hew jobs during the month.  The private sector accounted for +212,000, government lost -8,000.

In addition, revisions to the two prior months’ figures were also strongly positive.  August job gains, estimated last month at +193,000 were upped to +238,000.  The September figures, initially put at +148,000, were increased to +163,000.  Together, therefore, revisions added +60,000 to the +204,000 total for October–meaning employment in the US on Halloween was over a quarter-million positions higher than estimated a month earlier.

One more positive:  economists, who had called the October ES figure at +130,000 new jobs, also estimated that the impending government shutdown depressed job creation by another +50,000.

There’s only one month since employment turned up in October 2010 where job gains are clearly on a par with, or better than, this October.  That was January 2012, where the final job tally was a gain of +311,000.

what this means

On the surface, the figures appear to be some sort of weird outlier.  If employment gains should be weak during any month, this October should have been it.  And that’s the way I perceive Wall Street to be taking the Employment Situation  report.

Suppose it’s not   …that the economy actually gained about +300,000 new jobs last month and will continue to do so.  This would mean that the US has shifted from creating just about enough new positions (+150,000 or so) to absorb new entrants to the workforce to creating around +150,000 a month more than that.   This would be enough to bring the economy back to full employment–reabsorbing the country’s 3 million long-term unemployed into the workforce in less than two years.

Hard to believe.

If it were so, that would mean that the “normalization” of interest rates–that is, bringing short-term rates from the present zero to 3%+–could/should proceed much more quickly than anyone now expects.

In some ways, that would turn my current idea for portfolio construction on its head.  In particular, it would imply a stronger dollar (therefore a weaker euro) and a preference for purely domestic US companies, not international earners.

I’m not making any changes yet.  I’d like to see next month’s ES first.  But I am putting the search for domestic-oriented EU names on the back burner.

Macau gambling, October 2013

The Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) recently released its tally of aggregate gambling winnings of the Chinese SAR’s casinos during the holiday month of October.  The results, in MOP millions, are as follows:

Monthly Gross Revenue from Games of Fortune in 2013 and 2012
Monthly Gross Revenue Accumulated Gross Revenue
2013 2012 Variance 2013 2012 Variance
Jan 26,864 25,040 +7.3% 26,864 25,040 +7.3%
Feb 27,084 24,286 +11.5% 53,948 49,325 +9.4%
Mar 31,336 24,989 +25.4% 85,284 74,314 +14.8%
Apr 28,305 25,003 +13.2% 113,589 99,317 +14.4%
May 29,589 26,078 +13.5% 143,178 125,395 +14.2%
Jun 28,269 23,334 +21.1% 171,447 148,729 +15.3%
Jul 29,485 24,579 +20.0% 200,932 173,308 +15.9%
Aug 30,737 26,136 +17.6% 231,670 199,444 +16.2%
Sept 28,963 23,866 +21.4% 260,632 223,310 +16.7%
Oct 36,477 27,700 +31.7% 297,109 251,011 +18.4%

Source: Macau DICJ.

 

The monthly “win” is an all-time record for Macau, and, in my view, stunningly good.

Two factors appear to be at work:

–the expansion of casino capacity and the parallel development of non-gambling entertainment (at the insistence of the Macau government) in the Cotai region is broadening the appeal of Macau as a tourist destination and drawing in a younger, “merely” affluent crowd in large numbers, and

–the upturn in the Chinese economy is prompting the return of increasing numbers of the enormously wealthy VIP baccarat players who have until now formed the backbone of Macau’s casino industry.

 

What I find interesting is that the Hong Kong-traded Macau casino stocks have been selling off on this good news.  This is partly, I think, because the stocks have been extremely good performers over the first three quarters of the year, as it became clearer that the Chinese economy was beginning to rebound.  The fact that more speculative and less skillful operators in the Macau market have been leading the pack had already been suggesting that the recent run was getting a bit long in the tooth.  In addition, however, I think the pullback we are seeing also is in line with an emerging mood of caution I see building in stock markets around the world.

I don’t think anything is wrong, either with Macau gambling or with the strongest operators.  A while ago, I trimmed my casino holdings a bit, based solely on position size.  Others may be doing the same, only timing their move a bit better than I did.  I expect that as Macau continues to exhibit strong growth in gambling win over the coming months, the stocks will take up their outperforming ways again, with Galaxy Entertainment, Sands China and possibly Wynn Macau in the vanguard.

bank investigations finally beginning

Until recently, one of the key aspects of the financial wrongdoing that led to the Great Recession, one bemoaned by mid-level investigators/regulators, has been that virtually no one has been prosecuted.  This contrasts sharply with what occurred during the savings and loan collapse of the early 1980s and the junk bond debacle later in that decade.

One obvious difference between the latter and today is that the perpetrators in the former instances were tiny fish in the financial pond–either owners of small S&Ls or the rogue financier Michael Milken, who worked for the US subsidiary of a Belgian bank.  No one systematically important.  No big sources of political patronage.

Just what any cynic would have thought.

But what appears to be proving most important, in my view, is who is serving as head of the SEC.

President Obama’s appointment in 2008 to chair the regulatory agency was Mary Shapiro. Her previous job?   …head of the National Association of Securities Dealers, now known as FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), the trade group representing the investment banking industry.  In other words, Ms. Shapiro was the chief publicist/lobbyist for the big commercial/investment banks.  According to Wikipedia, FINRA paid her $9 million in her final year in that post.  Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Now that Ms. Shapiro has been replaced by a tough veteran prosecutor, Mary Jo White, investigations are suddenly far more extensive.  And the SEC efforts now have teeth.  No more consent decrees without admission of criminal behavior.  And it’s finally ok to investigate the systematically important banks.

I think this new effort to clean up Wall Street is a huge plus for all portfolio investors, and particularly for individuals like us.

A perverse part of me just can’t accept a gift horse, though.  I keep wondering what led to Mr. Obama’s change of heart.  I’m thinking that the contrast between Shapiro and White (Elisse Walter, another FINRA alumna, served as SEC chairperson for a few months between the two) is so great that there must have been a reason.  Could Mr. Obama just have been that clueless?  Does he no longer need political donations?  I can’t imagine what.  Any thoughts?

 

US banks since the repeal of Glass Steagall

In the 1930s, Congress passed a series of laws, collectively known as Glass Steagall, that barred commercial banks from engaging in brokerage/investment banking activities.  The rationale:  the linking of banking and brokerage in one company had spawned abuses that had a big hand in causing the Great Depression.

Fast-forward to the late 1990s.  Glass Steagall was gradually rolled back and then discarded. The rationale advanced by bank lobbyists in Washington?  …commercial banks were older, wiser and better-managed.  Banks also needed to expand their size and activities to compete successfully with the “universal” banks of the EU, which already were allowed to combine commercial and investment banking under one roof.

How’s that been working for us?

Well, in the decade-plus since, the new domestic “universal” banks:

–destroyed the mortgage market through wild speculative lending and widespread misrepresentation of the poor character of the mortgages they subsequently bundled up and sold off to others.  Voilà!   …the Great Recession.  (Perversely, though, the American banks caused near-fatal wounds to their EU rivals, who were the eventual “dumb money” buyers of much of the sketchy mortgage-backed paper.)

–last year, regulators began investigating the big banks for illegally colluding to manipulate short-term interest rates through LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate).

–recently, a similar investigation has been opened up to look at illegal bank collusion in foreign currency markets.  According to the Wall Street Journal, so many bank senior currency traders have been suspended that too few honest traders (not an oxymoron, but close) may be left for global currency trading to function smoothly.

–reportedly, more investigations will be opened for other bank commodities trading, notably oil.

 

 

Wow!  I find this all hard to take in.  I have several reactions.

The first is that, either by accident or design, these investigations are only being launched after the worst of the financial crisis is over–meaning that the banks can withstand the financial and reputational shocks these inquiries are causing without triggering panic withdrawals by depositors.

The downsizing of the banks, now underway, probably still has a long way to go.  The best and the brightest younger minds will search for jobs elsewhere, fearing the industry taint may be deep and more enduring.

Despite the financial industry’s enormous political clout in Washington, continuing scandals argue that further legal restrictions on banks’ activities are probably inevitable.

This all suggests to me that big money-center banks will be uninteresting investments for a considerable time to come.

As a citizen, the banking mess is appalling.

As an investor, the current situation suits me fine.  I’ve never understood banks,  I’ve never been willing to do the work needed to see what’s going on underneath the covers–although I’m sure I would never have guessed the extent of the criminality they’ve been involved in.

In a practical sense, the banking scandals mean I can focus my attention on IT and Consumer Discretionary as sources for individual stock ideas, without worrying that Financials will move to the head of the pack.

What makes this important is that Financials account for a big chunk of the index.

As the S&P 500 stands today, the largest sector by market weight is IT at 17.7% of the index.  Financials (16%) is second.  Healthcare is #3 (13%).  Consumer Discretionary (12.5%) is #4.  Together, these four sectors make up about half the index.  Being able to ignore/underweight one of them with a high degree of confidence is a big deal.