Haver Analytics
Haver Analytics

Introducing

Joseph G. Carson

Joseph G. Carson, Former Director of Global Economic Research, Alliance Bernstein.   Joseph G. Carson joined Alliance Bernstein in 2001. He oversaw the Economic Analysis team for Alliance Bernstein Fixed Income and has primary responsibility for the economic and interest-rate analysis of the US. Previously, Carson was chief economist of the Americas for UBS Warburg, where he was primarily responsible for forecasting the US economy and interest rates. From 1996 to 1999, he was chief US economist at Deutsche Bank. While there, Carson was named to the Institutional Investor All-Star Team for Fixed Income and ranked as one of Best Analysts and Economists by The Global Investor Fixed Income Survey. He began his professional career in 1977 as a staff economist for the chief economist’s office in the US Department of Commerce, where he was designated the department’s representative at the Council on Wage and Price Stability during President Carter’s voluntary wage and price guidelines program. In 1979, Carson joined General Motors as an analyst. He held a variety of roles at GM, including chief forecaster for North America and chief analyst in charge of production recommendations for the Truck Group. From 1981 to 1986, Carson served as vice president and senior economist for the Capital Markets Economics Group at Merrill Lynch. In 1986, he joined Chemical Bank; he later became its chief economist. From 1992 to 1996, Carson served as chief economist at Dean Witter, where he sat on the investment-policy and stock-selection committees.   He received his BA and MA from Youngstown State University and did his PhD coursework at George Washington University. Honorary Doctorate Degree, Business Administration Youngstown State University 2016. Location: New York.

Publications by Joseph G. Carson

  • Try to recall a period when the Fed has misjudged inflation and labor market dynamics as poorly as they have in the past year. The Fed initially called the inflation jump "transitory," only to back away from that assessment when it continued to move higher and broaden. Consumer price inflation will end the year near 7%, the highest in several decades. At the same time, despite growing evidence of labor shortages, the Fed continued to argue it still did not meet its full employment mandate. If an unemployment rate of 3.9% at year-end, down nearly 300 basis points in a year, and a 5.8% increase in average wages for non-supervisory workers, the highest jump in several decades, is not evidence of an economy well-beyond full employment, then what is it?

    Never before has the Fed continued to ease policy in the face of sharp increases in prices and wages. As flawed as the current monetary policy stance is nowadays, the more significant issue is how policymakers undo the past year's mistakes. Because of adhering to rigid rules of communicating a policy change well before and only at regularly scheduled meetings, policymakers cannot lift official rates for a few more months. Being late on rate adjustments suggests that modest policy steps to contain inflation and emerging imbalances would not be enough. Uncertainty over monetary policy spells trouble for the economy and deepens the downside for risk-assets.

    A few weeks ago, Randall Forsyth, Associate Editor, Up & Down Wall Street columnist at Barron's, interviewed Mr. Felix Zulauf, a longtime member of the Barron's Roundtable. Mr. Zulauf expects a sharp drop in the S&P 500, falling to 3000, as "the markets are about to be slammed by a reversal of the extraordinary fiscal and monetary stimulus applied to fight the pandemic. While policies remain loose, what counts is the change in, rather than the absolute level of, stimulus.

    Mr. Zulauf did not offer a forecast for fed funds, Yet, history shows that it requires a fed funds rate above consumer price inflation to reverse or stop inflation cycles. That does not mean the Fed needs to raise rates equal to peak inflation. Policymakers are more concerned about persistent inflation, running well ahead of its 2% target. Suppose we assume roughly half the rise in consumer price inflation in 2021 is pandemic-driven, probably an overly generous assumption. In that case, that still results in an underlying inflation rate in the 3.5% to 4% range and a policy rate of equal scale. Yet, policy rates might never reach that scale as it would trigger declines in asset prices similar to or greater than Mr. Zulauf's forecasts.

    Mr. Zulauf did not offer any timeline for the sharp drop in equity prices. But he felt the sharp decline would "shake authorities," forcing them to stop and reverse course at some point. An equally bullish view follows Mr. Zulauf's bearish outlook. He believes the Fed will turn on the monetary spigots again, triggering a rally in the S&P 500 to 6000. A u-turn of that magnitude is not a 2022 event.

    In my view, with the market valuation of equities trading 2X times GDP, above the tech-bubble levels, risk assets are most vulnerable to a rapid change in Fed policy. An increase in official rates spells trouble for equities, and a decision to shrink the balance sheet at some point would be doubly bad as the latter would lift long-term rates and reduce the present value of future cash flow. Blunders by the Fed in 2021 come with a cost---higher rates, increased volatility, and sharply lower equity prices in 2022.

    Viewpoint commentaries are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the views of Haver Analytics.

  • Having erred in calling the inflation surge transitory, the Fed appears to be making another error in assessing the labor market. The official statement following the December 14-15 FOMC meeting stated that "the Committee expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range (i.e., on official rates) until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee assessments of maximum employment.

    What is maximum employment? Maximum employment is a level of employment and joblessness that strikes a healthy balance between demand and supply of labor, resulting in moderate wage increases. The current employment situation is anything but balanced.

    November's unemployment rate of 4.2% is 1.8 percentage points below March. The last time the jobless rate starting at 6% fell as much as it did since March was 1950---over 70 years ago. Yet, after that record fall, there are 11 million job openings, 4 million more than the unemployed. Moreover, a record number of small businesses can't find qualified workers, and a record number are planning wage increases.

    Average hourly earnings have increased 5.9% in the past year. Workers are demanding more, and companies are rushing to meet those demands by hiking wages and bonuses and promising more.

    Labor markets have far passed the point of demand and supply balance. And by not recognizing the tightness of labor markets, the Fed is fueling a faster wage cycle and a different source of inflation.

    Viewpoint commentaries are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the views of Haver Analytics.

  • Significant and persistent increases in labor costs could be the next big surprise in the inflation cycle. My research found that the most reliable signal on the labor market is the monthly change in the civilian unemployment rate. Since the spring, the record drop in the civilian unemployment rate indicates that the labor markets have far passed the point of demand and supply balance. That will force companies to continue increasing pay to maintain workers and attract new ones.

    November's unemployment rate of 4.2% is 1.8 percentage points below March. Over that period, the jobless rate recorded monthly declines of 0.4 percentage points or more three times. Monthly drops in the jobless rate of 0.4 percentage points or more are rare. It's even rarer to occur when the jobless rate is at or below 6%. It happened four times in the past 50 years, and three of those occurred since March. Also, the last time the jobless rate starting at 6% fell as much as it did in 2021 was 1950---over 70 years ago.

    Press reports indicate that companies plan the most significant wage increases in 2022 in over a decade. Yet, with job openings at 11 million and exceeding the number of unemployed by 4 million, the odds are high that wage costs will surprise as much on the upside as commodity and freight costs did in 2021.

    A few months ago, large companies, such as Walmart, Costco, and Amazon, announced pay increases and significant pay incentives for workers to stay with the firm in 2022. At those announcements, the jobless rate was around 5%; there is even more pressure now, with the jobless rate approaching 4%. The most severe pressure is likely to be felt in smaller companies (100 or fewer workers) since losing a handful of workers will force others to work longer hours, demanding more pay in the process.

    Average hourly earnings have increased 5.9% in the past year but still, trail inflation by 100 basis points. Workers want more. Wage increases have not exceeded consumer price inflation for an extended period since the late 1990s. But, the balance of power between labor and employers has shifted, and faster wage increases are in store for 2022.

    So far, the current inflation cycle has been more significant and broader than expected. Despite its scale and persistency, many are forecasting an end to the inflation cycle, citing stable to lower oil prices and easing freight and shipping costs. Yet, that optimistic view contradicts the lessons learned from the 1970s inflation cycles and the political trade-off at the Fed of fighting inflation at the expense of jobs and wages.

    Supply-side factors, impacting a wide range of agricultural and industrial commodities, sparked the 1970s inflation cycle. That is similar to what sparked the current inflation cycle. But, years of easy money and expansive fiscal policy extended the 1970s inflation cycle.

    Fed policy nowadays is more accommodative than the entire decade of the 1970s. At the same time, the federal government appropriated a record $5.6 trillion in spending (roughly 25% of GDP) over the past two years, with the White House hoping Congress will pass another round of stimulus before year-end. In the 1970s, fiscal stimulus was a fraction of that.

    With that monetary and fiscal accommodation scale, it makes more sense to look for reasons the inflation cycle will live instead of dying on its own. Surprised by the 2021 inflation cycle, policymakers and many analysts appear to be making the same mistake by ignoring the factors that could sustain the inflation cycle in 2022.

    Viewpoint commentaries are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the views of Haver Analytics.

  • The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is researching the shortcomings of the owner's rent price index it gets from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) consumer price index as it plans to change its source data for housing services in the GDP accounts. Shifting to a market-based measure of owners' rents in the PCE inflation measure would be an inflation bombshell.

    Assuming everything else equal, a market-based measure of owners' rents would permanently lift the PCE inflation, especially during expansions and the dwindling supply of homes for rent, and put an end to the Fed's elusive chase for 2% inflation. The level of official rates would be markedly higher and sit above inflation rather than below. Could a simple change in the measurement of reported inflation end the decades-long bull market in bonds and equities?

    Owners Housing Costs

    In its May Survey of Current Business, BEA announced that it planned to include a new current dollar estimate for housing services as part of the annual update to the GDP accounts, using data from the American Community Survey. The article stated that the revisions would affect the current dollar estimates and would not affect the deflators for PCE housing services as they planned to continue to use the CPI rental equivalence measure.

    BEA has a dual responsibility, providing an accurate estimation, as best possible, of the nominal and real output values. So, I asked a senior official at BEA why they didn't move away from the CPI measure of owners' rent. Using an improper price deflator for owner-housing would over-state the real value of housing services during cyclical upturns and understate PCE inflation.

    The senior official responded, "We are currently in the process of researching possible shortcomings of the current rental equivalence price." Saying they are investigating the issue does not mean a change is coming. But in the nearly two decades of researching and writing about how the CPI understates housing inflation, this is the first time a senior official from a government statistical agency (BEA or BLS) stated to me that they were looking into the issue. Progress?

    I shared with BEA the research that I presented in 2005 at a panel session, "Housing Costs in the CPI: What Are We Measuring?" at the National Association of Business Economists Annual Meeting in Chicago. The CPI rent index could be statistically explained with a high degree of accuracy by four factors; the vacancy rate in the rental market, the ratio of the vacancy rates in the rental and owners markets, construction cost inflation, and the change in house prices. Of the four, the vacancy rate is the most critical driver of the change in rents.

    • Bullet points 1
    • Bullet points 2
    • Bullet points 3
    • Bullet points 4
    • Bullet points 5
    • Bullet points 6
    • Bullet points 7

    Employing the same approach but replacing the vacancy rate of the rental market with that of the owner market help create an estimated implicit rent for owner-occupied housing. The estimated implicit rent index tracked the BLS series, but a significant divergence appeared when BLS stopped sampling the owners market in 1998. And during the housing cycle of the 2000s, the estimated implicit rent ran considerably faster than the official BLS series; in other words, the change in sampling led to an understatement of CPI and PCE inflation from what would have occurred had the change not been made.

    BLS, in its presentation, agreed "that the rental-vacancy rates influence rents, but that it is not clear how the owner-vacancy rate influences the cost of shelter services for owners." Common sense would tell you that if the vacancy rate is essential in one market, it is equally significant in the other. And it is the relative shift in vacancy rates that drive different rent patterns. Suppose the vacancy rate is declining in the owner's market while stagnant or rising in the tenant market. In that case, one will expect the rental rate in owner housing to be increasing relative to the tenant market. But for the past two decades, the CPI rent series shows the opposite tenant's rents rise faster than owners even with higher vacancy rates.

    A market-based measure of owner-occupied rents would have zero effect on the economy. But there would be spillover effects on the economy and finance as policymakers respond to a permanently higher reported PCE inflation rate. That's because the days of monetary policy trying to achieve a 2% inflation rate would be over and replaced by policymakers attempting to limit the cyclical uptick in inflation. The transition would not be seamless, and the payback in finance could be significant as higher reported inflation increases volatility and risks. Stay tuned.

    Viewpoint commentaries are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the views of Haver Analytics.

  • What many are missing about price cycles is that they create sustainability of their own. Higher prices generate revenue and income, creating more demand and more revenue and income. Price cycles don't die out; they spread and develop [...]

  • The Federal Reserve continues to claim that the current run-up in consumer price inflation is "transitory," pushed higher due to base effects and a temporary burst in pent-up demand as the economy re-opens. Yet, that view is in direct [...]

  • Consumer price inflation is experiencing its most significant increases in decades. Yet, reported inflation does not capture the full scale and breadth of experienced inflation. I never thought the US would experience rampant [...]

  • In May, the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported that lead time for production materials jumped to 85 days, up from 79 in April. The May reading is an entire work-day month (21 days) above the level from one year ago and the [...]

  • In Q1 2021, the US economy registered double-digit annualized growth in nominal GDP, a rare occurrence. Yet, an even more rare event is that corporate operating profits did not increase in the quarter when GDP growth increased double- [...]

  • In Q1, GDP-based operating profits for all US companies were unchanged from the fourth quarter of 2020 and posted a 12.7% gain from the comparable period one year ago. The reported profit performance of S&P 500 companies was markedly [...]

  • Federal Reserve officials have made a bold claim arguing that the current run-up in consumer price inflation is "transitory," pushed higher due to base effects and a temporary burst in pent-up demand as the economy re-opens. The Fed [...]

  • Inflation has arrived, evident by the 4.2% gain in the consumer price index over the past twelve months. But the most significant increase since 2008 still is not fully capturing "experienced" inflation since it is missing the rise in [...]