Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Gold vs Cash in a Financial Crisis - Richard_Mills
2.Current Stock Market Rally Similarities To 1999 - Chris_Vermeulen
3.America See You On The Dark Side Of The Moon - Part2 - James_Quinn
4.Stock Market Trend Forecast Outlook for 2020 - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Who Said Stock Market Traders and Investor are Emotional Right Now? - Chris_Vermeulen
6.Gold Upswing and Lessons from Gold Tops - P_Radomski_CFA
7.Economic Tribulation is Coming, and Here is Why - Michael_Pento
8.What to Expect in Our Next Recession/Depression? - Raymond_Matison
9.The Fed Celebrates While Americans Drown in Financial Despair - John_Mauldin
10.Hi-yo Silver Away! - Richard_Mills
Last 7 days
Stock Market Potential Short-term top - 18th Feb 20
Coronavirus Fourth Turning - No One Gets Out Of Here Alive! - 18th Feb 20
The Stocks Hit Worst From the Coronavirus - 18th Feb 20
Tips on Pest Control: How to Prevent Pests and Rodents - 18th Feb 20
Buying a Custom Built Gaming PC From Overclockers.co.uk - 1. Delivery and Unboxing - 17th Feb 20
BAIDU (BIDU) Illustrates Why You Should NOT Invest in Chinese Stocks - 17th Feb 20
Financial Markets News Report: February 17, 2020 - February 21, 2020 - 17th Feb 20
NVIDIA (NVDA) GPU King For AI Mega-trend Tech Stocks Investing 2020 - 17th Feb 20
Stock Market Bubble - No One Gets Out Of Here Alive! - 17th Feb 20
British Pound GBP Trend Forecast 2020 - 16th Feb 20
SAMSUNG AI Mega-trend Tech Stocks Investing 2020 - 16th Feb 20
Ignore the Polls, the Markets Have Already Told You Who Wins in 2020 - 16th Feb 20
UK Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic WARNING! Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham Outbreaks Probable - 16th Feb 20
iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF IBB AI Mega-trend Tech Stocks Investing 2020 - 15th Feb 20
Gold Stocks Still Stalled - 15th Feb 20
Is The Technology Stocks Sector Setting Up For A Crash? - 15th Feb 20
UK Calm Before Corona Virus Storm - Infections Forecast into End March 2020 - 15th Feb 20
The Growing Weaponization of Space - 14th Feb 20
Will the 2020s Be Good or Bad for the Gold Market? - 14th Feb 20
Predictive Modeling Suggests Gold Price Will Break Above $1650 Within 15~30 Days - 14th Feb 20
UK Coronavirus COVID-19 Infections and Deaths Trend Forecast 2020 - 14th Feb 20
Coronavirus, Powell and Gold - 14th Feb 20
How the Corona Virus is Affecting Global Stock Markets - 14th Feb 20
British Pound GBP Trend and Elliott Wave Analysis - 13th Feb 20
Owning and Driving a Land Rover Discovery Sport in 2020 - 2 YEAR Review - 13th Feb 20
Shipping Rates Plunge, Commodities and Stocks May Follow - 13th Feb 20
Powell says Fed will aggressively use QE to fight next recession - 13th Feb 20
PALLADIUM - THIS Is What a Run on the Bank for Precious Metals Looks Like… - 13th Feb 20
Bitcoin: "Is it too late to get in?" Get Answers Now - 13th Feb 20
China Coronavirus Infections Soar by 1/3rd to 60,000, Deaths Jump to 1,367 - 13th Feb 20
Crude Oil Price Action – Like a Coiled Spring Already? - 13th Feb 20
China Under Reporting Coronavirus COVID-19 Infections, Africa and South America Hidden Outbreaks - 12th Feb 20
Will USD X Decline About to Trigger Precious Metals Rally - 12th Feb 20
Copper Market is a Coiled Spring - 12th Feb 20
Dow Theory Stock Market Warning from the Utilities Index - 12th Feb 20
How to Get Virgin Media Engineers to FIX Hub 3.0 Problems and NOT BS Customers - 12th Feb 20
China Under Reporting Coronavirus COVID-19 Infections by 66% Due to Capacity Constraints - 12th Feb 20
Is Coronavirus the Black Swan That Takes Gold To-Da-Moon? - 12th Feb 20
Stock Market 2020 – A Close Look At What To Expect - 12th Feb 20
IBM AI Mega-trend Tech Stocks Investing 2020 - 11th Feb 20
The US Dollar’s Subtle Message for Gold - 11th Feb 20
What All To Do Before Opening A Bank Account For Your Business - 11th Feb 20
How and When to Enter Day Trades & Swing Trade For Maximum Gains - 11th Feb 20
The Great Stock Market Dichotomy - 11th Feb 20
Stock Market Sector Rotation Should Peak Within 60+ Days – Part II - 11th Feb 20
CoronaVirus Pandemic Stocks Bear Market Risk 2020? - Video - 11th Feb 20

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Nadeem Walayat Financial Markets Analysiis and Trend Forecasts

BEA Leaves Q4 2014 U.S. GDP Growth Essentially Unchanged at 2.22%

Economics / US Economy Mar 27, 2015 - 05:29 PM GMT

By: CMI

Economics

In their third estimate of the US GDP for the fourth quarter of 2014, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that the economy was growing at a +2.22% annualized rate, effectively unchanged (+0.04%) from the +2.18% previously reported and down -2.74% from the growth rate reported for the prior quarter.


Despite the very minor change in the headline number, there were larger (but mostly offsetting) revisions to the components of that headline. On the upside, improving exports were the most significant revision -- adding +0.17% to the headline number. Personal consumption expenditures for goods (+0.06%) and services (+0.09%) improved slightly, while spending on fixed investments remained mostly unchanged (+0.01%). On the downside, lowered inventory growth was yet again the largest revision -- this time removing -0.22% from the headline growth rate. Growth in governmental spending and imports were also slightly lower.

Real annualized per capita disposable income was revised downward by -$13 (now reported to be $37,729 per annum). This is down $103 per year from the 4th quarter of 2012. The household savings rate dropped -0.1% in this revision to 4.6%, down from 4.8% in the prior quarter.

As mentioned last month, plunging energy prices during the fourth quarter of 2014 were likely impacting many of the numbers in this report. US "at the pump" gasoline prices fell 33% quarter-to-quarter -- pushing all consumer oriented inflation indexes firmly into negative territory. During the fourth quarter (i.e., from October through December) the seasonally adjusted CPI-U index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was solidly dis-inflationary at a -2.24% (annualized) rate, and the price index reported by the Billion Prices Project (BPP -- which arguably more fully reflected the "at the pump" impact on American households) was significantly more dis-inflationary, dropping a full -2.14% quarter-to-quarter (an eye opening -8.30% annualized rate during the quarter).

Yet for this report the BEA assumed a very mildly inflationary annualized deflator of +0.16%. Over reported inflation will result in a more pessimistic headline, and if the BEA's "nominal" numbers were corrected for inflation using the line-item appropriate BLS CPI-U and PPI indexes, the economy would be reported to be growing at an implausibly high 6.84% annualized rate. Clearly there is a major disconnect between the inflation monitoring methodologies used by the BEA and those used by its sister agency, the BLS.

Among the notable items in the report :

-- The headline contribution from consumer expenditures for goods was +1.07% (up +0.06% from the prior estimate).

-- The contribution made by consumer services spending to the headline increased to +1.91% (up +0.09% from the previous report) -- with healthcare spending adding +0.88% all by itself to the headline, up +0.35% in this revision. The combined consumer contribution to the headline number was 2.98%, up +0.15% from the prior estimate.

-- Commercial private fixed investments provided +0.72% of the headline number -- essentially unchanged (+0.01%) from the previous report, but down -0.49% from the 1.21% in the 3rd quarter), and this drop was nearly all in heavy equipment (industrial and transportation). The reported growth came almost entirely from IT spending and intellectual property.

-- Inventories contributed -0.10% to the headline number (down another -0.22% from the previous estimate, while being only modestly lower than the prior quarter (-0.07%). This number had swung wildly in the prior estimates, only to revert ultimately to "practically unchanged." We suspect that rapidly changing energy prices initially created phantom inventory valuation fluctuations that have finally been suppressed.

-- Governmental spending removed -0.35% from the headline (down -0.03% from the previous report but down a full -1.15% from the 3rd quarter). The prior quarter's (3Q-2014) remarkable growth in Federal spending was in fact entirely fictitious: spending pulled forward from the 4th quarter as a result of fiscal year-end budgetary shenanigans -- a repetitive annual distortion that the BEA utterly fails to handle within its "seasonal adjustment" protocols.

-- Exports are now reported to be contributing +0.59% to the headline growth rate (up +0.17% from the previous estimate).

-- Imports subtracted -1.62% from the headline number (down -1.78% from the prior quarter).

-- The annualized growth rate for the "real final sales of domestic product" is now reported to be +2.32% (down -2.67% from the prior quarter). This is the BEA's "bottom line" measurement of the economy.

-- And as mentioned above, real per-capita annual disposable income was revised downward by another -$13 per year. The new number represents an annualized growth rate of +2.80%. Real disposable income is still down -$103 per year from the fourth quarter of 2012 (before the FICA rates normalized) and it is up only +2.87% in aggregate since the second quarter of 2008 -- a pathetic +0.44% annualized growth rate over the past 6 and a half years. Any reported increases in consumer spending are coming from decreased savings and increased personal debt -- and not from improving disposable income.



The Numbers, As Revised

As a quick reminder, the classic definition of the GDP can be summarized with the following equation :

GDP = private consumption + gross private investment + government spending + (exports - imports)


or, as it is commonly expressed in algebraic shorthand :

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)


In the new report the values for that equation (total dollars, percentage of the total GDP, and contribution to the final percentage growth number) are as follows :

GDP Components Table

Total GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
Annual $ (trillions) $17.7 = $12.1 + $2.9 + $3.2 + $-0.5
% of GDP 100.0% = 68.5% + 16.6% + 18.0% + -3.1%
Contribution to GDP Growth % 2.22% = 2.98% + 0.62% + -0.35% + -1.03%


The quarter-to-quarter changes in the contributions that various components make to the overall GDP can be best understood from the table below, which breaks out the component contributions in more detail and over time. In the table below we have split the "C" component into goods and services, split the "I" component into fixed investment and inventories, separated exports from imports, added a line for the BEA's "Real Final Sales of Domestic Product" and listed the quarters in columns with the most current to the left :

Quarterly Changes in % Contributions to GDP

4Q-2014 3Q-2014 2Q-2014 1Q-2014 4Q-2013 3Q-2013 2Q-2013 1Q-2013 4Q-2012 3Q-2012 2Q-2012 1Q-2012 4Q-2011 3Q-2011 2Q-2011 1Q-2011
Total GDP Growth 2.22% 4.96% 4.59% -2.11% 3.50% 4.51% 1.77% 2.75% 0.06% 2.48% 1.62% 2.25% 4.59% 0.84% 2.94% -1.53%
Consumer Goods 1.07% 1.06% 1.33% 0.23% 0.83% 0.80% 0.30% 1.35% 0.67% 0.74% 0.29% 1.06% 0.90% 0.20% -0.18% 0.66%
Consumer Services 1.91% 1.15% 0.42% 0.60% 1.69% 0.59% 0.93% 1.11% 0.65% 0.58% 0.57% 0.81% 0.04% 1.00% 0.75% 0.72%
Fixed Investment 0.72% 1.21% 1.45% 0.03% 0.95% 1.01% 0.74% 0.42% 0.96% 0.45% 0.61% 1.24% 1.36% 2.25% 1.10% -0.11%
Inventories -0.10% -0.03% 1.42% -1.16% -0.34% 1.49% 0.30% 0.70% -1.80% -0.19% 0.27% -0.20% 2.80% -2.10% 1.04% -0.96%
Government -0.35% 0.80% 0.31% -0.15% -0.71% 0.04% 0.04% -0.75% -1.20% 0.52% -0.08% -0.56% -0.31% -0.52% -0.08% -1.60%
Exports 0.59% 0.61% 1.43% -1.30% 1.30% 0.67% 0.82% -0.12% 0.19% 0.28% 0.64% 0.19% 0.56% 0.57% 0.82% 0.27%
Imports -1.62% 0.16% -1.77% -0.36% -0.22% -0.09% -1.36% 0.04% 0.59% 0.10% -0.68% -0.29% -0.76% -0.56% -0.51% -0.51%
Real Final Sales 2.32% 4.99% 3.17% -0.95% 3.84% 3.02% 1.47% 2.05% 1.86% 2.67% 1.35% 2.45% 1.79% 2.94% 1.90% -0.57%




Summary and Commentary

Any revisions seen in this report (like those in its predecessor) are mainly noise. The lack of material new information offers an opportunity to reflect on several the larger issues evident in recent GDP reporting:

-- Inventory fluctuations (whether real or imaginary) continue to play havoc with the headline number. An accurately measured line item that captures real physical inventory levels should have nearly zero sum changes over year-long time spans. It would be very useful to definitively know if any increased production is being fully consumed or merely inventoried. But the BEA's current inventory methodologies and data are counterproductive. They often include phantom inventory changes that are in fact the artifacts of rogue "deflators" impacting inventory valuations -- and not actual changes in physical inventory levels. And any useful physical inventory data is so late arriving that it gets finalized only in the annual July revisions -- long after anyone (other than academicians at the BEA) still cares.

-- The discrepancies between the BEA's and the BLS's inflation reporting is staggering. It feels like a sporting event where each team keeps its own score -- reflecting their own political agendas. Can't we just have one set of "best practice" Federal inflation data that has transparency, consistency and accuracy as the primary agenda items?

-- Speaking of deflators, clearly the BEA's are troubling. But using more reasonable deflators from the BLS or other third parties generates nonsensical growth rates when applied to the BEA's nominal data. This in turn suggests that the BEA's initial nominal data may be more overstated (or optimistically guesstimated) than reasonable deflators can handle -- which perhaps the BEA is tacitly admitting by using unreasonable deflators.

-- Can't the BEA include Federal fiscal year-end budgetary shenanigans in its otherwise impenetrably opaque "seasonal adjustment" protocols? How can third calendar quarter (fourth fiscal quarter) Federal spending always be an annual upside surprise?

-- Should economic data in the 21st century still be reported using the methodologies and calendars developed by Wesley Clair Mitchell (at the behest of Franklin Roosevelt) in 1934? Can't we do better than quarterly data published monthly? With the first "estimate" more accurately described as "a wild ass guess, fudged to align with media expectations"? And with the second and third estimates actually just place holders that have been gently nudged towards the numbers that the BEA expects will ultimately show up in the next annual revision?

It all brings to mind Ralph Waldo Emerson's foolish consistency -- a consistency that conveniently maintains a methodology based deniability.

That said, stay tuned for the next report (covering 1Q-2015), which could be far more interesting.

Consumer Metrics InstituteTM
Home of Daily Consumer Leading Indicators

http://www.consumerindexes.com

© 2014 Copyright Consumer Metrics Institute - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules