Evaluating the Fed's First Woman Chair: How Labor and Stock Markets Performed During Janet Yellen's Tenure

The U.S. got its first Federal Reserve Chair in 1914. 100 years later the first woman was appointed to Chair the Fed. Now, after she has served the shortest tenure in 40 years, the country is once again getting a man as head of the Fed. 100 years of men. 4 years of a woman. Now, at least 4 more years of a man. That seems fair and balanced.

Trump announced the appointment of Jerome Powell to be the Fed Chair, replacing Janet Yellen after the end of her first term in February. It's worth examining how the economy did on her watch.

While the folks appointing Federal Reserve Chairman seem to have a gender bias, the economy apparently does not. Or if it does, it is a positive bias. Even though hers was the shortest tenure in 40 years and the second shortest tenure in 66 years, more wealth was created on her watch than during that of any other Fed Chair: $17.7 trillion and counting. In the nation's first 237 years, it created $78.5 trillion in wealth; in the last 3.5 years it has created an additional $17.7 trillion, an uptick of 22.5% in less than four years. (Yellen's 4 year term does not end until February of 2018.) This is, of course, at least partly due to the simple dynamics of compound interest. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Money makes money and then the money your money makes makes money too." As the nation creates more wealth it creates more wealth. Also, just this month consumer sentiment hit its highest point for the century. (Well, okay. Highest point in 17 years. But century sounds more impressive.) And the economy has created an average of about 2.6 million jobs a year, helping to drive unemployment down from 6.7% to 4.1%.  Things have been good during Yellen's tenure.

The big question facing Janet Yellen throughout her four years was when and at what rate to begin increasing interest rates. The trick is to keep inflation low while creating jobs. How did she do? Well, inflation is still low (it's bounced around 2%  - mostly on the low side - during her time) and the economy has created about 9.6 million jobs thus far into her tenure. Those numbers strike me as  flawless. And already she's begun to unwind the stimulus from the Great Recession; during her watch excess reserves at banks have dropped from $2.7 trillion to $2.1 trillion, a drop of $570 billion. (To put that in perspective, just before the Great Recession excess reserves were at $1.7 billion. Yep. Now it is over $2 trillion and  only a decade ago it was under $2 billion. She has unwound that by vast multiples of what it once was without scaring off investors or consumers. That deserves respect.)

Here is a graph that contrasts the average annual job creation and stock market performance under each of the last seven Fed Chairs.  The numbers are not final for Yellen, of course, because it will be about a half a year before the data is in on her full four year tenure.

In comparison to Yellen, the economy created more jobs per year under William Miller and the stock market did better under Miller and Paul Volker.
Miller wasn't normal, though. He was in office for only 18 months and he refused to raise interest rates to battle inflation during the late 70s oil shock. (Curiously, he was the last Fed Chair who did not have an economics degree; the most recent is Jerome Powell, Trump's new appointment.) Given he deferred addressing a bad situation, the economy did do well during his time but he left a mess to clean up; Volker was his successor and Volker's policies to bring down inflation triggered one of the ugliest recessions in the last half of the 20th century. So putting aside Miller's weird tenure, the punchline is that she did better than the boys in this century's old boys' club; no one else who served four years or more enjoyed the strong combination of labor and stock market performance that she did.

I could throw in all the usual caveats about how the economy is more than the result of fiscal policies defined by the Congress and President and more than monetary policy defined by the Federal Chair. And all of that is true. No president or Fed Chair invented personal computers or pioneered genetic engineering or venture capital. Still, monetary policy does help to determine things like inflation, interest rates and thus stock market performance and unemployment rates. The Fed's mandate is to keep unemployment and inflation low (but not too low) and it takes actions to do that. It is true that the economy is incredibly complex and luck plays a large role in what kind of numbers a Fed Chair presides over. That said, monetary policy matters and no one does more to define it than the Chair. If you are a woman or know one, you might be proud to see that the economy under Janet Yellen did as well as it did under any other Chair. While she did not get offered a second term, she should be proud of how markets - specifically labor and stock markets - performed under her watch.

We should consider appointing another woman someday. And maybe next time we won't wait a century.

In Which Your Blog Author Manages to Turn a Big Stock Market Prediction into a Very Small Gain

On October 13, I made a prediction about job numbers and a prediction about the stock market. 

Here is the prediction I blogged about the stock market.

"The S&P 500 is up only 1.4% from the start of the year. ...

I'd look for a sharp rise in the market before year end. I think between now and December 31, the market could easily rise 5% or more. The result will be a fairly unimpressive year but it will have gotten there in spectacularly volatile fashion."

I predicted a rise of 5% or more and the S&P is up 10.7%. I'd like to file that under accurate prediction but of course the market could still fall spectacularly before 2015, so let's mark that as tentative. 

Here is the prediction I tweeted about job numbers. 

"Prediction:

Job report for October (released 7 Nov) will be for over 300,000 new jobs."

I jumped the gun on this one. Even with Friday's upward adjustment to the numbers, it looks like the economy created only 243,000 jobs for October. It didn't break 300,000 until November. So, that's a miss on timing.

Finally, in spite of getting the market prediction right, my own portfolio limped along in that time. The S&P is up 10% since I made my stock market prediction and my portfolio is up just 2%. Pretty pathetic. So that's a big miss.

My final score on predictions:

1 right (so far)

1 right about magnitude, wrong about timing

1 major miss in applying big insights into personal victories (the sort of thing that might have happened to me once or twice before).

So, 1 for 3. That sounds better in baseball.

Is This Record Streak of Job Creation Finally Raising Wages?

Today's job reports makes for some great facts.

In November, the American economy created 321,000 new jobs. 365,000 jobs were announced today, though, because the job creation numbers for September and October were revised upwards.

Since 2000, there have been only 2 months with job gains of more than 365,000.

It has been nearly 20 years since we've had 10 consecutive months in which the economy has created at least 200,000 jobs.

This month's positive number means the current uninterrupted streak of positive job numbers is now 50 months, breaking last month's record for longest streak since the US began keeping records in 1939.

Even if the economy creates zero jobs this month, 2014 will be the best year for job creation since 1999. That is, this is already the best year of the new century.

While the unemployment rate held steady at 5.8%, it is down 1.2% from last year and this sustained rate of job creation might finally be putting upwards pressure on wages.

There is also really promising news about wages. In the October report, wages were up only 0.1% from the previous month. This month, they were up 0.7%. Now 0.7% is almost surely unsustainable. (That would translate into a 8.2% raise in wages for the next year, a delightful prospect that's more fantasy than possibility in light of the last couple of decades but a rate that we actually hit in the 1970s and 1980s.) But such a sharp upwards trend in the context of lower unemployment rate and strong job growth suggests that we might finally be moving beyond the prolonged period of wage stagnation that has characterized this new century. If so, that could be the best news yet.

How the August Job Numbers Could Boost Your Stock Portfolio

Economic forecasters were expecting 225,000 jobs last month but today the government reported just 142,000. If recent trends hold, you could use this news to strengthen your portfolio.

First, the consensus forecast of 225,000 was about what we'd averaged for the year. That's not much of a forecast. One can almost imagine consensus forecasters saying, "What's the average monthly gain for 2014? Let's use that for our estimate for next month."

The problem with that approach is that July and August have been the worst months for job creation during this recovery. During the months of summer, job creation averages about two-thirds of what it is during the rest of the year. If you really thought that the average of 225,000 was going to hold for the year, you would adjust that downwards by about a third for August to arrive at a number more like 153,000 - which isn't far off from the 142,000 reported. (And Paul Davidson in US Today reports that the numbers for August have been routinely adjusted upwards in the months after.)

A little dip in August seems more aligned with seasonal trends than an indicator that the recovery has changed. But the appearance of a dip might trigger a weaker market, particularly once September numbers come in.

September has also been weak for job gains, averaging 70-some percent of annual totals. When those numbers get reported next month, people are liable to make it mean that the economy is weakening. One weak month they can brush off but two looks like the start of something bad. It could be one of those ugly Octobers when the market falls. If that happens, wait for panic to set in and then buy those stocks you wished you owned a couple of months ago. A little panic lowers prices.

But if trends hold, October job gains - which won't be reported until November 7 - are likely to turn things around. October has run about 30% higher than the average month, meaning that it could be roughly double what we see for August and September. Also, positive job gains through October would break the all-time record for consecutive months of job gains. Shocked at this sign of dramatic improvement, panic will dissolve into a sigh of relief and then a loud hallelujah. And you could make a little money on the stocks you bought during that time in October when the financial shows gave their microphones to the analysts who always see signs of a coming financial apocalypse.

An August number of 142,000 doesn't really challenge the prospect that we are on track for creating more jobs than any year since 1999. It's actually just a reminder that a month when most people take vacation is never a great month for finding a new job. But if people insist on making it mean something, it could mean something (good) for your portfolio. Stay tuned.

P.S.
This jobs report marks an important milestone. Per Jason Furman's blog, above average unemployment is now largely a function of long-term unemployment. Short-term rates have returned to their pre-Recession levels.

Job Numbers in Historical Context

Here are some graphs and a couple of tables to compare this decade and administration with those of the last few decades.

This first graph assumes that the monthly average for job creation during these first 4 years and 5 months holds through the rest of the decade. You can see that this decade's numbers aren't much different from the 1990s.

However, if we adjust the raw numbers to percent of population (you might think that a population of 300 million would be able to - and need to - create more jobs than a population of 200 million), you can see that this decade is so-so.

Here is a graph showing the cumulative job creation numbers during the last four re-elected administrations.

The ranking of administrations through month 64 - the most recent month for which job numbers have been reported for the Obama administration - results in this ranking.

Assuming that the effect of a president's policies won't be felt until at one year in (if even then, given the myriad forces at work on the economy, including Congress's tendency to at turns exacerbate or mitigate the president's plans), this graph shows job creation without the first year.

The ranking without the inclusion of that first year (a particularly favorable change for Obama given that during his first six months in office the American economy hemorrhaged 3.4 million jobs), Obama and Reagan trade places on the ranking.

It does look as though - Great Recession aside - this decade and Obama's administration are shaping up to be fairly normal in comparison to past decades and administrations. 

This Jobs Recovery Has Quietly Crept Up on the Record for Longest Expansion

Tomorrow's job report will probably extend the streak of months with uninterrupted job growth to 44, placing it 3rd among recorded streaks in these United States. (The data only goes back to 1939.) By the time July's numbers come in, this recovery should tie for second; by the time September's numbers come in, this recovery could hit its 4th anniversary and be tied for first.

The rate of job creation has been okay - only slighter better than the recovery in the mid-aughts. Everyone has been complaining about it the whole time. And of course it comes on the heels of the worst recession since we began collecting monthly data, making its gradual improvements seem paltry. But it is nonetheless quietly edging towards a new record. This recovery is not just long: it shows little sign of ending soon.

The global economy is steadily recovering from the Great Recession. Emerging markets from Africa to India show great promise. Europe's debt default talk has quieted. Abe's policies are waking Japan's economy for the first time in decades. All that will help the American economy.

\

Unemployment here in the US is still moderately high and inflation relatively low: this recovery has yet to show the signs of overheating that we saw towards the end of the three other long recoveries. The unemployment rate at the end of the runs in the 80s, 90s, and aughts was 5.2%, 4.0%, and 4.6%. At the rate our unemployment rate is dropping, it will take us another year or two to reach those levels, suggesting that we won't run out of slack anytime soon. In fact, our unemployment rate of 6.3% may well rise to 6.4% tomorrow. 

Of course this run of uninterrupted job gains could end next month. One thing that every one of the three other recoveries share in common? They ended in summer, in June or July. Perhaps summer is the time when the beach looks more alluring than a cubicle. But I think that's a beach blanket that won't be spread out until next summer, when this recovery is closer to 5 years old.

----------

Yes, it's a fool's errand to forecast the movement of something as unwieldy as an economy a year into the future. But what's the use of blogging if you can't do fool's work?

Today's April Jobs Report Adds to the Promise of 2014

This is the jobs report I prematurely forecast last month for March. It took a month longer to happen than I thought, but this ~300,000 jobs report is good news.

288,000 jobs created in April plus the numbers for February and March revised upwards by 36,000 means that a total of 324,000 new jobs were announced this month. We may actually have a year in which monthly job creation numbers average more than 200,000; if so, it will be only the second time since 1999.

The unemployment rate, after being stuck at the same rate for four months, sharply fell. The unemployment rate for April in the last five years leaves little doubt that we're experiencing a real recovery. And it actually seems to be accelerating, 4+ years in.

Two Reasons Why This Recovery Feels So Anemic (And Why Even Normal Could Create a Boom)

The economy is recovering but we've yet to feel a wave of optimism sweep across the country. The two biggest reasons are that the 2000s gave us a huge hole to dig out from and we're creating jobs at about half the rate we should be given our population.

At first blush, the first few years of this decade have been pretty good in terms of job creation. Assuming that the rate of job creation continues at the average of the first 4.25 years (2010 through March of this year), a graph showing job creation by decade looks like this.

At the rate it is going, the economy would create 19.4 million jobs - exactly what it created in the 1970s and not that much better than the 1980s or worse than the 1990s. That seems really good but I'll explain in bit why it isn't.

REASON ONE: MAKING UP FOR AN AWFUL DECADE
In this graph we see the first reason why our recovery seems so anemic. During the 2000s the economy actually destroyed 1.1 million jobs. Such a decade is unprecedented in the post WWII period. A disaster. And think about what it means for a running total. During the 1990s it wasn't just that the economy created nearly 22 million jobs: added to the 1980s, it created a total of 40 million jobs. For an equivalent job market coming off a decade in which no jobs were created, the economy would have to create 40 million jobs during the 2010s, an average of 4 million per year. During the entire period shown in this graph (1940 to 2014), the economy created 4 million jobs only one year (1978).

REASON TWO: A BIGGER POPULATION NEEDS MORE JOBS
It gets worse. These numbers of jobs created make no allowance for whether the population is 132 million (as it was in 1940) or 309 million (as it was in 2010). Obviously, though, a larger population needs more jobs. This graph shows the number of jobs created as a percentage of the population.

As a raw number, a rate of job creation that would give us 19 million jobs by decade's end is not bad in comparison to the previous seven decades. But creating new jobs for only 6% of the population is bad. The average for the decades up to 2000 was 9%. To create the equivalent number of jobs would mean creating about 30 million jobs in this decade instead of 20 million.

What would it take to party like it's 1999? To feel as flush with jobs, cash, and wealth? At least a few years of job creation at the rate of 3 to 4 million per year. If we come even close to this, it'll create a boom as impressive as any since WWII even though it will - in some sense - simply get us back to normal.

Forecasting Job Numbers for Tomorrow and the Unemployment Rate for 2014 (and Beyond)

Tomorrow the Bureau of Labor Statistics unveils their job numbers for March, reporting job creation and the unemployment rate. My prediction is job creation numbers closer to 300,000 than 200,00 and an unemployment rate dip from 6.7% to 6.5%. Gallup's job creation index has risen sharply in the last couple of months and everyone is hiring - from stores and construction companies to manufacturing and governments.
[P.S. from 4 Apr 2014. Well, I blew this forecast. ADP was spot on, forecasting 191,000 when the number came in at 192,000. At this point the closest I can come is in the revisions that will come out over the next two months. The numbers for January and February were revised upwards, making the new jobs reported for this month about 220,000. There is a chance that the March numbers will be revised upwards eventually but probably not enough to get us north of 250,000. Mine is an optimistic bias. But my forecasts are also a reminder of how tepid is this recovery. In 1999, in 7 of 12 months the economy created more than 250,000 jobs.]

It gets even more interesting if you interpret the stock market as a leading indicator of the economic recovery. That perspective suggests 2014 will be a really good year.

From January 2008 to the worst of the recession, the S&P 500 fell by half and the unemployment rate doubled. The two markets moved in tandem.

The S&P 500 has since fully recovered. In fact, it's now 34% above what it was in January of 2008. Lest you get too excited about that, up 34% in 6 years equates to an annual return of 5%. That's not exactly amazing. In fact, given the (obvious) risk in the stock market, a 5% annual return would roughly equate to "back to normal."

So what about the labor market? Shouldn't unemployment be about normal by now?

Well, the markets don't move at the same speed. There is a time lag since capital moves faster than labor. During the Great Recession, the stock market hit bottom seven months before the unemployment rate peaked. You can sell stock much more quickly than you can layoff employees. And of course it takes even longer to hire than it does to fire, so if the labor market is lagging the stock market by seven months on the way down, it seems safe to assume that it would take about two to three times as long - 12 to 24 months, say, - to catch up during the recovery.

So if that's right, it means that the unemployment rate could hit "normal" in another 6 to 18 months.

That raises the question, What is normal for the unemployment rate? The obvious answer would be 5%, where it was before the Great Recession began. My prediction? The unemployment rate will dip below 6% by Fall and by this time next year will be somewhere between 5.5% and 6.0%. Whether it returns to 5% or even goes below 5% or 4% will depend on the extent to which governments and corporations get serious about popularizing entrepreneurship. Once we learn how to popularize entrepreneurship, unemployment could join starvation as something that people regularly worried about in the past.

Within hours, we will find out whether I'm right about the March job numbers. It will take years to find out if I'm right about the popularization of entrepreneurship.

Gallup Job Creation Index Back to Pre-Recession Levels

Gallup tracks job creation in the US, posting a three-day running average. Its posted values go back six years. Here is a graph that plots only the value on March 16, from 2008 to 2014.

The index is back to where it was just before the recession. It's worth remembering that six years ago, unemployment was 5.1 percent.

This is good news for the obvious reason that a job creation index this high will continue to bring down unemployment. Almost as importantly, as unemployment continues to lower wages will start going up. That is terribly overdue.

I think that this graph showing how household income has stagnated is probably the single most important graph from the president's recent economic report. It explains a host of political and economic issues, showing that household income last year was about where it was in the late 90s.

As household income has stagnated, it has simultaneously put pressure on two political fronts. Liberals, aware of how hard this economy has been on people, have pushed for a better safety net. Conservatives, aware of how hard this economy has been on government debt load, have pushed for less spending. Because of this reality of diminished household income, both sides are hugely disappointed: debt has soared even as government programs have been scaled back. 

Back when household income rose, it was possible to simultaneously increase government revenues and take-home pay; that makes for easy politics. When household income drops, so does take-home pay and money for government programs; that makes for hard politics.

If the rate of job creation rises, it won't just make things easier in households across the country. It will make politics a little easier in capitol buildings in DC and every state.