Example? Take Checkable Deposits of the to 1% (blue line) of wealth compared to the bottom 50% of wealth (red line) after The Fed cranked up monetary stimulus to combat the Covid shutdowns.
On the wealth side, Covid-related monetary stimulus benefitted the top 1%.
But the middle class is expericing a tighening of credit coutesy of Cap’n Crunch (Fed Chair Powell).
We quickly found out in June that one downtown San Francisco office building sold for roughly 70% less than its previously estimated value, an ominous sign of what would come as the commercial real estate market dominos appear to be falling.
Now Sixty Spear St., an 11-story building that is 30% occupied and is expected to be entirely vacant by summer 2025, has been sold to Presidio Bay Ventures for $40.9 million, about a 66% discount versus the most recent assessed property value of $121 million, according to local media SFGATE.
“We acknowledge the formidable challenges that confront San Francisco,” Cyrus Sanandaji, founder and managing principal of Presidio Bay, who is now the office tower’s proud new owner. He remains a bull on the San Francisco office market and wants to expand the building’s square footage from 157,436 to 170,000 square feet and transform it into a “Class-A trophy office building with exceptional design and hospitality-driven amenities.”
All we have to say to Sanandaji’s CRE bet is good luck. The crime-ridden metro area covered in poop must come to terms with City Hall’s horrendous progressive policies that have entirely backfired and led to an exodus of businesses and people. Until Mayor London Breed can instill law and order once more — the ability for the downtown area to thrive once more will remain challenging.
Marc Benioff, the chief executive officer of Salesforce, the city’s largest employer and anchor tenant in its tallest skyscraper, warned last month that the metro area is in danger. He offered a grim outlook: The downtown area is “never going back to the way it was” in pre-Covid times when workers commuted to offices daily.
“We need to rebalance downtown,” Benioff said, adding Breed needs to initiate a program to convert dormant office space into housing and hire additional law enforcement to restore law and order.
… and documenting how the downtown area has rapidly transformed into a ghost town is Youtuber METAL LEO, who walks around with a video camera, revealing empty stores, malls, and towers.
Besides Sixty Spear, SFGATE provided data on other recent tower transactions:
The 13-story 180 Howard St. building, known for being the headquarters of the State Bar of California, sold for about $62 million after being expected to sell for about $85 million.
The offices at 350 California St. reportedly sold for roughly 75% less than its previously estimated value in May, and the 22-story Financial District edifice mostly sits empty. Just a few weeks later, nearby 550 California changed hands for less than half of what owner Wells Fargo paid for the building in 2005.
Things are so bad that some building owners are just walking away from properties:
If you’re curious where we could be in the CRE crisis cycle, a recent analysis by CoStar Group shows 55% of office leases signed before the pandemic that were active during Covid haven’t expired, meaning vacancies will continue to rise.
Here’s what could be next: The collapse of WeWork will only cause more pain for CRE markets nationwide. The coworking company occupies 16.8 million square feet across the US.
The US Federal Reserve has not created a CBDC … yet. Our woefully corrupt El Presidente Jose Biden (more of a Latin American, tinhorn Banana Republic dictator than as US President) has ordered the study of a CBDC. Since everything Biden touches reeks of “boodle” I am suspicious as to Biden’s motives.
There are some positives to a CBDC, mostly with WHOLESALE CBDCs. Wholesale CBDCs are similar to holding reserves in a central bank. The central bank grants an institution an account to deposit funds or use to settle interbank transfers. Central banks can then use monetary policy tools, such as reserve requirements or interest on reserve balances, to influence lending and set interest rates.
It is the RETAIL CBDC that is the cause for concern. Retail CBDCs are government-backed digital currencies used by consumers and businesses. Retail CBDCs eliminate intermediary risk—the risk that private digital currency issuers might become bankrupt and lose customers’ assets.
There are two types of retail CBDCs. They differ in how individual users access and use their currency:5
Token-based retail CBDCs are accessible with private keys or public keys or both. This method of validation allows users to execute transactions anonymously.
Account-based retail CBDCs require digital identification to access an account.
The real problem with CBDCs is that The Federal Reserve and Federal government can trace EVERY EXPENDITURE of a household. Including political contributions, firearm and ammo purchases, etc. With this much information at their disposal, this allows for DIRECT CONTROL of the population.
Given that we now know that Biden used social media platforms to pass false narratives and repress alternative views, can we trust The Federal Reserve with this much information about consumer spending? Of course not. This is a consolidation of censorship and repression of individual liberties.
Yes, paper and coin currency serve a purpose in society as an alternative to barter. Imagine trying to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning (LMAO!) using barter? Ok, we have a system of credit where you can obtain a car loan. But barter, an old system of exchange, is inefficient. That leaves us with physical currency (certain restaurants only allow payment in cash). But many consumers are using Debit Cards as a substitute for physical cash, so this is a giant step towards RETAIL CBDC already.
Alternatives to the US Dollar? Of course, gold and silver are popular choices historically. Then we have rise of the cryptocurrencie market, which some Congressional members want heavily regulated or banned. Why? First, there are some shady crypto activities (see Sam Bankman-Fried and his shady political contributions to Democrats). Second, cryptos are volatile. Why is this of any interest to Congress? Third, cryptos can be used for illegal activities (but so can cash. Just watch Netflix’s Narcos for the shipment of US Dollars to Columbia in mattresses, etc. No, the goal of some members of Congress is to overregulate or obliterate alternatives to the US Dollar … unless The Federal government does it, like The Fed’s CBDC!
With Biden’s Department of Injustic and several Democrat state Attorney Generals indicting Biden’s top political opponent Donald Trump with the intent of preventing him from campaigning for President (sounds so much like other Totalitarian regimes in history), trust in the Federal government and Federal Reserve are almost nonexistant.
Here is chart of the purchasing power of the US Dollar (blue line) since the creation of The Federal Reserve system and core CPI YoY which is still relatively high at 4.86%. That is over twice The Fed’s target rate of 2%.
I am sure that Billions Biden doesn’t understand moral hazard risk. For him, there is no risk, But for the middle class and lower wage worker class, CBDC represent a clear moral hazard risk, particularly if cash vanishes and Congress tries to ban cryptos.
The face of why so many Americans don’t trust The Fed. Or The Biden Administation.
Or this face, Urban Joe Biden (Stalin was Country Joe).
During the COVID-19 pandemic the occurrence of remote work jumped, out of sheer necessity. The technology was already available, but the pandemic accelerated its adoption and bypassed the hesitation of employers to allow people working from home. In many cases, remote work has been successful and therefore seems to have become a permanent feature, often in hybrid form. For employers, it has become an employee benefit to attract people in a tight labor market and it saves on office space costs. The flipside of the latter is that demand for office space has seen a structural downward shift. It is estimated that the underlying value of office space in New York City has permanently declined by 39%. This suggests that at current prices, there is a bubble in commercial real estate. In this special we are particularly interested in the implications for financial stability and the economic outlook. First we take a look at the development of commercial real estate prices and commercial real estate lending. Then we discuss the Fed’s recent stress test on large banks that included a large decline in commercial real estate prices. In contrast to the Fed’s exercise, we show that distinguishing between large and small banks provides a sharper picture of the vulnerabilities in the US economy. In particular, the connection between commercial real estate and small banks, through commercial real estate lending, could pose a threat to financial stability and make a recession worse.
Commercial real estate heading south
If we plot the BIS commercial real estate price index, it is clear that since the Great Recession, commercial real estate (CRE) prices have more than doubled in nominal terms (the blue line in Figure 1), but have moved sideways since 2021. This suggests that prices have reached a plateau. However, in recent years inflation has obscured the movement of CRE prices in real terms (the orange line), which shows a peak in 2021, but since then there has been a decline, almost to the level during the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, CRE prices are already failing to keep up with inflation. Is this an indication that the CRE bubble is already deflating? With nominal CRE prices remaining elevated, most of the nominal price correction is likely still to come. If the 39% estimate by Gupta et al. for New York City is representative for the entire United States, we are heading for a major decline in CRE prices.
We can also plot the BIS index against CRE lending to show3 that rising prices for commercial real estate sparked a credit boom in commercial real estate (Figure 2). Given the academic literature linking financial crises to credit booms and busts, this should be cause for concern. Moreover, Minsky (1986) notes that an emphasis by bankers on the collateral value and the expected values of assets (instead of cashflows) is conducive to the emergence of a fragile (as opposed to a robust) financial structure.
If excess demand for office space pushed up commercial real estate prices, and if that increased CRE lending by banks, what does a structural downward shift in demand for office space mean? If CRE prices are deflating, what does that mean for the indebted CRE sector? Is this going to lead to defaults? And what does that mean for the banks that did the CRE lending? Is the deflation of the CRE bubble a threat to financial stability? Also note that due to the steep hiking cycle by the Fed, some companies in the CRE sector may find it difficult to refinance their loans at substantially higher rates.
We can dig deeper by looking at the demand and supply developments in CRE lending. If we look at the Fed’s SLOOS data (figure 3), it is clear that demand for CRE loans strengthened especially between 2012 and 2017. Lending standards loosened between 2012 and 2015. This era coincides with a strong rise in the CRE price index, which may have motivated banks to expand CRE lending. Demand for CRE loans weakened during the pandemic, then bounced back as the economy reopened, but headed south again in 2022. Loan standards tightened during the pandemic, then loosened again when the economy rebounded, but have tightened since 2021. In other words, there seems to be a correlation between CRE prices and demand and supply developments in CRE lending. Currently, both are heading south, if we look at CRE prices in real terms and CRE lending in terms of net demand. It seems that rising CRE prices sparked a credit boom in CRE and now that the CRE price bubble is deflating, the CRE sector has less appetite to borrow and banks are tightening their lending standards.
The Fed’s incomplete stress test
CRE prices are falling in real terms and credit for the CRE loans is tightening. Does this pose a problem to the economy? Not if we believe the Fed’s June 28 press release that accompanied the annual bank stress test. The stress test looked at “a severe global recession with a 40 percent decline in commercial real estate prices, a substantial increase in office vacancies, and a 38 percent decline in house prices. The unemployment rate rises by 6.4 percentage points to a peak of 10 percent and economic output declines commensurately.” However, according to the Fed “all 23 banks tested remained above their minimum capital requirements during the hypothetical recession.” Therefore, the central bank concluded that “large banks are well positioned to weather a severe recession and continue to lend to households and businesses even during a severe recession.” However, one line in the press release reveals the main problem with the Fed’s stress test: “The banks in this year’s test hold roughly 20 percent of the office and downtown commercial real estate loans held by banks.” So where is the remaining 80%? If the stress test considers a huge decline in commercial real estate prices, it might be relevant to know how this affects the banks that hold 80% of the CRE loans made by banks. Therefore we take a closer look at CRE lending by large and small banks in the next section.
Bank lending: large vs small banks
We already saw in figure 2 that the rise in CRE prices until 2022 was accompanied by an increase in CRE lending. However, there is more to this story of we take a closer look at who has been doing the lending. So far we looked at aggregate bank lending to the CRE sector, without distinguishing between different types of banks. However, a closer look at the banking sector reveals a disturbing vulnerability that could be a threat to financial stability.
The Fed data on commercial banks distinguish between large and small banks. Large domestically chartered commercial banks are defined as the top 25 domestically chartered commercial banks ranked by size. Small domestically chartered commercial banks are defined as all domestically chartered banks outside of the top 25. Note that according to this definition a bank of say $80 billion would still be considered ‘small.’ In figure 4 we show how CRE lending has evolved, distinguishing between large and small banks.
It turns out that CRE lending by large banks has hardly increased in the last 15 years, while at the same time CRE lending by small banks has more than doubled. In other words, the growth in loans to commercial real estate has come from small banks. In fact, small banks have taken over the role of main provider of commercial real estate loans. Therefore, the Fed’s stress test omits the most relevant part of the banking sector for commercial real estate. While commercial real estate lending by large banks has remained stable since 2006, commercial real estate lending by small banks has increased rapidly. We could even talk of a credit boom in commercial real estate loans provided by small banks.
Whether the increased share of CRE lending by small banks is a problem also depends on the relative importance of CRE loans for small banks (Figure 5). FDIC data (Quarterly Banking Profile) distinguish at least three classes of asset size: more than $250 billion, $10-250 billion, and $1-10 billion. The first class contains only large banks as defined by the Fed stress test, the second class is a mix of large and small banks, the third class only contains small banks. While for the largest banks, CRE loans were only 5.7% of total assets in the first quarter of 2023, for the smallest banks this is 32.9%! For the intermediate-size banks the CRE loans are 18.4% of assets. So not only is 80% of the CRE bank loans made by small banks, these loans also make up a much larger fraction of the balance sheet of small banks.
Finally, it is important to note that small banks are regional banks. In fact, the US has so many small banks because for much of its history it was difficult for banks to open a branch in another state. This legislation has been abolished, and the amount of banks in the US has fallen, but there are still many small banks with predominantly regional clients. This means that CRE risk in small banks is also regionally concentrated. Instead of a diversified nationwide CRE loan portfolio, a small bank tends to make loans to local borrowers. Consequently, if commercial real estate in a region turns sour, the small banks in the area will be highly exposed. Bubble or not, any adverse development in the CRE sector is going to hit small banks harder than large banks.
The commercial real estate-small bank nexus brings together two vulnerable sectors that could rapidly deteriorate in a self-reinforcing loop. Small banks have already shown vulnerable to higher interest rates and deposit outflows in March and commercial real estate is high on the list of financial stability concerns of US regulators. We have shown that the two sectors are critically connected and in the next section we speculate on the feedback mechanisms that could arise and make things worse.
Roads to ruin: feedback mechanisms
The commercial real estate-small bank nexus allows for several scenarios in which both sectors could be destabilized. In the first two scenarios, a crisis occurs in one sector, causing problems in the other sector. Tighter credit and reduced activity in the CRE sector could push the economy into a mild recession. In the third scenario, a mild recession causes problems in both sectors, which could then reinforce each other and make the recession worse.
In scenario 1, a small banking crisis leads to problems in CRE. Given that the majority of CRE loans have been made by small banks, continued problems for small banks, caused by or leading to deposit flight, could force them to tighten lending to the CRE sector. This would reduce the supply of credit to CRE, causing additional problems for the CRE sector, on top of office vacancies and stagnating prices.
In scenario 2, a CRE crisis causes small banks to collapse. Even if small banks stabilize in the near future from the recent deposit flight problems, they could subsequently be dragged down by a crisis in the CRE sector. Defaults in CRE will asymmetrically hurt small banks rather than large banks, because of the concentration of CRE risks at small banks. This could lead to a new round of deposit flight from small banks to large banks and money market funds. The losses on loans and loss of funding could be lethal to small banks.
In scenario 3, a mild recession could cause a small banking crisis and a CRE crisis. In turn, this could lead to a more severe recession. A mild recession, for example caused by the Fed’s hiking cycle, will hurt the banking sector and the CRE sector at the same time. In particular, a recession would further reduce demand for office space. This will add to the problems in the CRE sector. Increased CRE defaults will hurt banks, especially the smaller ones with relatively more exposure to CRE. Losses on CRE loans will force banks to tighten credit, including for the CRE sector. The self-reinforcing problems in the two sectors could further drag down the overall economy, making the initially mild recession more severe. Specifically, tighter credit and reduced activity in the CRE sector will drag down GDP growth further.
We summarize the specific feedback mechanisms in the commercial real estate-small bank nexus in figure 6.
More broadly, we already saw in March how problems at small banks had an immediate adverse impact on financial markets. In combination with a faltering CRE sector this could severely undermine confidence among investors, consumers and businesses. This would have a broad-based negative impact on GDP growth.
Conclusion
COVID-19 appears to have a lasting negative impact on demand for commercial real estate. The federal regulators are aware of the risks in commercial real estate, but the Fed’s stress test provides a false sense of security. The finding that large banks are able to absorb losses on CRE loans in case of a CRE crisis is encouraging, but the bulk of CRE bank loans has been provided by small banks. In fact, while CRE lending by large banks has been stable, there has been a credit boom in CRE loans provided by small banks, more than doubling the amount since 2006. What’s more, small banks are more vulnerable to the CRE sector in terms of exposure and have already been hit by deposit outflows earlier this year. The commercial real estate-small bank nexus exposes the US economy to a vulnerability that could threaten financial stability and either cause a recession or make a recession more severe.
And another day, another inverted 10Y-2Y yield curve!
This chart goes along with negative bank credit growth.
Lastly, we have the Conference Board’s leading index plunging to -10!
Thanks in part to Cap’n Crunch, Fed Chair Jerome Powell!
Welcome to Boss Biden’s America! It reminds of woefully corrupt Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall in New York City. Today’s inflation report revealed that core CPI YoY was 4.7%. Ugh!
Expectations for this morning’s must-watch CPI print were for a MoM and YoY rise in the headline, and modest slowing of the core YoY. However, The Fed will be watching its new favorite signal – Core Services CPI Ex-Shelter – which reaccelerated in July (+0.2% MoM, and from +3.9% to +4.0% YoY).
The headline CPI rose 0.2% MoM in July (as expected), the same as in June, pushing the YoY up to 3.2% (from 3.0% in June) but below the 3.3% expected…
Source: Bloomberg
Today’s increase in CPI YoY broke the record-equaling streak of 12 straight months of declines.
Core CPI rose 0.16% MoM, with the YoY growth in prices slowing to 4.7%.
Source: Bloomberg
Both Goods and Services inflation (YoY) slowed in July – but Services remain extremely high at +6.1%…
Source: Bloomberg
On an annual basis, the index for all items less food and energy rose 4.7% over the past 12 months with the shelter index rising 7.7% over the last year, accounting for over two-thirds of the total increase in all items less food and energy.
Other indexes with notable increases over the last year include motor vehicle insurance (+17.8 percent), recreation (+4.1 percent), new vehicles (+3.5 percent), and household furnishings and operations (+2.9 percent).
Source: Bloomberg
Taking a closer look at the all important shelter index, while it is still growing both sequentially and annually, the slowdown in growth is increasing more visible:
Shelter inflation up 7.69% YoY in July vs 7.83% in June, lowest since Dec 22; also up 0.43% MoM, lowest monthly increase since Jan 22
Rent inflation up 8.03% in July vs 8.33% in June, lowest since Nov 22; also up 0.41% MoM, lowest since March 22
The silver lining here, as noted by former Fed staffer Julia Coronado, is that “we are seeing core inflation slow before the expected big step down in rent/oer” which is great news as “lots of price sensitivity in travel and core goods that was slow to take hold but is now fully coming through.” In other words, if and when rent/shelter inflation actually post a decline (with the usual 12-18 month BLS lag), the Fed will be scrambling to fight inflation.
Turning to the wage aspect, for the second month in a row, ‘real’ wages rose YoY in July (but barely, +0.2%), and it appears that we are about to dip back into real contraction next month.
Source: Bloomberg
So the question becomes – is this an inflection point in inflation? (or is M2 still leading the way?)
Source: Bloomberg
Yet, Fed Funds Futures are pointing to no further Fed rate hikes.
With House Republicans releasing bank records showing over $20 million in payments to Biden family, associates, and Democrats denying any wrongdoing, I think we are seeing the Biden Administration as a rebirth of New York City’s Tammany Hall corrupt political machine led by Boss Tweed. Since Biden’s malfeasance/influence peddling occurred when he was Vice President under Barack Obama (aka, Barry Soetoro), Obama is the new Bathhouse John Coughlin the woefully corrupt Chicago Alderman and Hunter Biden is the new Hinky Dink (Michael Kenna, also a woefully corrupt Chicago Alderman).
Bathhouse Barry Soetoro, Boss Biden and Hinky Hunter at a basketball game.
Yes, Bidenomics is an FDR-type massive expansion of government into the private sectors requiring massive Federal spending … and inflation. Except that it beenfits anything BIG and powerful to the detriment of the small and weak.
(Bloomberg) Friday’s jobs data sparked a relief rally in bonds and a flatter yield curve, but the pain trade is still for higher yields and a steeper curve – the lesser-spotted bear steepener – with this week’s CPI a potential catalyst.
Last week was a turbulent one for bonds, but the continued softening in payrolls data served to remind the market that supply and fiscal-profligacy fears have to be counter-balanced with an economy that’s in its late-cycle stages.
After the data, 10-year yields took the elevator back down to sub-4.05% after briefly going above 4.20%. They have since clambered back to 4.12%, but their next cue is likely to come from Thursday’s CPI report. Headline is expected to nudge back up to 3.3% (from 3% last month), mainly due to base effects, and core is expected to hold steady at 4.8%.
Still, stronger-than-expected data probably means higher yields in a market more acutely alert to inflation (and therefore supply) risks. As with last week, term premium would likely drive the move, meaning a curve steepening. After relentlessly flattening for the last two years, the pain trade is for a steeper curve. Implicit positioning of speculators from the COT report shows there is a heavy skew to a flatter curve.
The negative carry for most flatteners remains punitive (for 2s10s USTs it’s ~83bps over a year), but the large upside potential from supply/inflation worries and the covering of positions begins to make that look less insurmountable.
Finally, the Bundesbank’s decision to stop paying interest on domestic government deposits – which initially pushed short-term German bonds higher this morning – highlights the broader issue of central banks paying interest on reserves when they are superabundant.
In the days of QE and 0% interest rates, the ECB and Fed at al. remitted money to their treasuries from the income on their bond portfolios.
But now that is reversed as bond income is dwarfed by the cost of paying interest on trillions of bank reserves. Take the Fed, whose debt to the Treasury is now accruing at over $2 billion each week.
This is something that will become more politically contentious, especially as economies continue to slow and cost-of-living pressures bite further.
Bidenomics. The takeover of the US economy by BIG corporations, BIG labor unions, BIG tech, BIG pharma, BIG defense, BIG healthcare, BIG media, BIG banks, BIG tech, BIG … Well, anyting that is BIG and powerful that can buy influence in Congress and the Administration. Except BIG energy which lost out to BIG Progressive DC thinktanks.
Leading to BIG inflation!
But I feel good! Even though inflation expectations are soaring again as gasoline soars again.
If you believe the recovery talk (from the reckless Covid economic and school shutdowns of 2020), all is well in the (economic) garden. For example, M2 Money Velocity (GDP/M2), is almost back to where it was just prior to the 2020 Covid outbreak and resulting government-caused recession. M2 Velocity was 1.425 in Q4 2019 and was 1.289 for Q2 2023. But ever since The Federal Reserve became hyper intervention in the economy (let’s just start with Bernanke’s massive intervention in late 2008 (red line) and the Fed balance sheet expansion), and it was increased dramatically during the Covid shutdown. And is STILL above $8 trillion!
Before Bernanke and the financial crisis of 2008-2009, M2 Money Velocity was above 2.0. But it has been below 2.0 ever since The Fed’s intervention in 2008.
Granholm called China National Energy Administration Chairman Zhang Jianhua, a longstanding senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, for a half-hour one-on-one conversation on Nov. 21, 2021. Granholm’s calendar also shows an earlier phone call had been scheduled with Jianhua for Nov. 19 but a rep for the former Michigan governor said the first call never took place. Then, on Nov. 23, 2021, the White House announced a release of 50 million barrels of oil from the SPR, the largest release of its kind in U.S. history at the time.
According to Fox News, Granholm’s previously-undisclosed talks with China National Energy Administration Chairman Zhang Jianhua — revealed in internal Energy Department calendars obtained by Americans for Public Trust (APT) and shared with Fox News Digital — reveal that the Biden administration likely discussed its plans to release oil from the SPR with China before its public announcement in the US: yes, China’s Communist Party learned what Biden would be doing before the US did.
While Biden/Granholm are merrily draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we see that West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil (Cushing) prices are up 54% under Biden and regular gasoline prices are up 58%.
All is sort of well in the garden because The Federal Reserve still has its massive interventionist foot on the gas pedal. Yet, America is on an economic suicide course with its green energy hype.
Frankly, Biden talks like Chance The Gardener from the film “Being There.” Except that Chance the Gardener is a nice person and Biden is reputed to have been the nastiest member of the US Senate. Not to mention the stupidest member of the US Senate. Although I don’t think Chance the Gardener would have taken millions in bribes from foreign countries like China and Ukraine.
Biden The Gardener should be Biden’s re-election slogan! Of course, Chance the Gardener could walk much better than Biden with his dementia shuffle. And Chance was a great gardener, all Biden knows how to do is sell the “Biden Brand” of political influece peddling to foreign countries.
“One of the most cowardly things ordinarily people do, Is to shut their eyes to facts.” – C.S. Lewis
Okay, we know Biden lies constantly and misrepresents facts (hey, he is a politician like Adam Schiff (D-CA). But this graphic praising Bidenomics with Biden having created the most jobs (average per month) since Carter (notice they left out Democrat darling Jimmy Carter!!!). In this absurd graphic, Biden wins by “creating” over 400k jobs per month while Trump lost jobs per month. Riveting … except that it is completely misleading.
Actually, the US economy added 12.53 million jobs after April 2020 (Trump) while Bidenomics created took 2 1/2 years to add 12.56 million jobs. So, Biden took over twice as long to create jobs after Covid than it did under Trump. Simply opening the economy and schools produced that magical claim by Biden. And the National Teacher’s Union and Randi Weingarten worked with Fauci to orchestrate shutting down schools. Blaming Trump for local governments shutting down the economy is pure bunk.
12.53 millions jobs added / 8 months = 1.56 million jobs average per month. Biden? 12.56 million jobs added / 30 months = .43 million jobs average per month. So, Trump averaged more than 3x the job growth post-Covid than Biden.
Here is the “glories of Bidenomics” from the White House. As Biden likes to say, pure malarkey!
I wonder if the Democrat Party is a rebirth of New York City’s Tammany Hall corrupt political movement of the 1800s? Is Biden Boss Tweed? Or is Obama Boss Tweed with Biden as his nasty, dimwitted henchman?
In 1871, Thomas Nast denounces Tammany as a ferocious tiger killing democracy. The image of a tiger was often used to represent the Tammany Hall political movement. Sounds an awful lot like today’s Democrat Party.
Josef Stalin of the old Soviet Union used to be called County Joe. But Biden has so many possible nicknames: Corrupt Joe, Pay-for-play Joe, Sleazy Joe, Bully Joe, etc. How about Green Joe?
Green Joe (or the Nasty Green Giant?) along with his energy goon Jennifer Granholm, have drained the strategic petroleum reserve by 46% while gasoline prices have soared 60% under Bidenomics.
Gasoline prices have rise over 6.5% just since 7/23/2023.
Trump wants to drain the swamp, Biden/Granholm want to drain the strategic petroleum reserve so we can’t go back to fossil fuels. Biden and Granholm as Fossil Fools
Energy Secretary Jennifer “The Evil Pixie’ Granholm demostrating how she will refill the strategic petroleum reserve. Which she never will, of course.
Bidenomics, the term for “Government Gone Wild! in terms of spending and EPA regulations, is a disaster for the US middle class and low wage workers. Even the 1% are now hurting if bought into Biden’s green lunacy. Ford is now down -48% since January 14, 2022 as The Fed started raising rates to fight inflation. GM is down “only” -40%.
So far this year, the division has lost $1.8 billion and this year’s $4.5 billion loss figure blows away last year’s $2.1 billion loss. Ford also announced that its electric F-150 pickup trucks will undergo a price cut, according to Fox.
Ford beat earnings on Thursday and reported adjusted EPS of $0.72, beating expectations of $0.54. It posted revenue of $45 billion and adjusted EBITDA of $3.8 billion, above estimates of $3.15 billion.
The company also raised its guidance, forecasting adjusted EBIT of $11 billion to $12 billion from $9 billion to $11 billion. The company is now guiding for free cash flow of $6.5 billion to $7 billion, from $6 billion.
But reality has sunk in about the company’s comments regarding its EV production schedule and spending plans. Price cuts in the industry, led by Elon Musk and Tesla, have thrown Ford’s production targets into a tailspin and Morgan Stanley noted on Friday morning that “major changes to the EV strategy” could be necessary, according to a wrap up by Bloomberg.
Ford now says it is “throttling back” on plans to ramp up EV production, the wrap up said. It blamed the price war for EVs as part of the cause and told shareholders it would need another year to meet its target of 600,000 EVs produced annually.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said late last week: “The shift to powerful digital experiences and breakthrough EVs is underway and going to be volatile, so being able to guide customers through and adapt to the pace of adoption are big advantages for us. Ford+ is making us more resilient, efficient and profitable, which you can see in Ford Pro’s breakout second-quarter revenue improvement (22%) and EBIT margin (15%).”
CFO John Lawler said yesterday that the company “has ample resources to simultaneously fund disciplined investment in growth and return capital to shareholders – for the latter, targeting 40% to 50% of adjusted free cash flow,” Bloomberg added. He now says Ford is “not providing a date” for producing 2 million EVs per year, which was previously the company’s target for 2026.
Is the company pulling an Intel and “kitchen sinking” its guide for the year, or has Elon Musk’s price cuts over at Tesla really put the legacy automaker on the ropes? Ford reports again on October 26, where we’ll get our next glimpse into its continuing operations this year.
Tesla is down -26% since January 14, 2022. And showing a nice turnaround!
Today, the 10-year Treasury yield is up 11 basis points.
Confounded Interest - Anthony B. Sanders 
You must be logged in to post a comment.