Connect the Retail Sales Dots

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 | 06:31 AM

The usually astute WSJ blows a front page story on yesterday's retail sales data. Actually, you can asign 60% of the blame to whoever came up with the headline, leaving the writer only 40% blameworthy -- he gets many (but by no means all) of the details correct.

"Consumers went on a postholiday shopping spree in January, a strong sign of economic vigor that increases the likelihood the Federal Reserve will keep raising short-term interest rates.

The Commerce Department said yesterday that retail sales surged a seasonally adjusted 2.3% in January from December, largely because of gift-card redemptions and abnormally mild winter weather. The January jump followed a tepid 0.4% rise in December. January sales were up 8.8% from a year earlier." (emphasis added)

That is dead on. Recall my prior perspectives on the holiday retail season as so very dependent on gas prices. (Although December 2005 was revised downwards) Fuel costs have moderated, and we had a fair (not great) holiday season, right within my 3-4% range. 

However, the writer goes astray here:

"Coming after an earlier report that employers added nearly 200,000 jobs in January and pushed the unemployment rate down to 4.7%, the retail-sales report was cheered as evidence that the economy has roared back from a fourth-quarter lull."

Econom_20060214221642 My divergement from the standard reporting is based on their fundamental misunderstanding of how BLS reports data, and what it actually means: Citing the the January sales data as a sign of hiring is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of what seasonal adjustments are. In actual numbers, the economy lost 2.625m jobs in January. When the BLS runs the data through their meat grinder, they seasonally adjust them them to a +193k. I have no problem with that, as it makes sense for BLS to present the seasonal adjustments this way. (You can see more details on the NFP and Unemployment data here). 

However, financial reporters should be savvier, and realize that 193k jobs were no more created in January then were Enrons' profits created in Q1 2000.  Its an accounting adjustment (Only Enron's were fraudulent, while the BLS data is real -- just seasonally adjusted). Further, the unemployment rate drop has been fully explained as a drop in the Labor Participation Rate, and note an actual decrease in the number of people looking for work.

But note how putting those two adjusted data points together creates a very false read of the strength of the economy. Its an awesome sucker play, and helps set up the eventual top.

Back to the Journal:

"Excluding the 2.9% increase in sales of motor vehicles and parts and a 5.5% rise in gasoline-station sales driven by higher pump prices, the remainder of January retail sales -- everything from department stores to bars -- were up 1.8% from December, when such sales rose just 0.3%."

Gas sales are hardly signs of economic strength, nor is Detroit giving away cars at cost. Month over month, the gain was less than 2% -- easily explained by a big gift-card season, and the abnormally mild winter weather.

Further, the WSJ's Justin Lahart counsels us to consider the seasonal adjustments to gift cards. That's right, not unlike NFP for January, the seasonal adjustments made in January exaggerate the actual data. (Note that this adjustment predates the rise of gift cards as a Janaury phenomenon:

"The gift-card effect may be exaggerated by "seasonal adjustments" made by the Commerce Department. These adjustments, meant to smooth out monthly sales data, assume January's sales will be paltry next to December's. As a result, a small bump to January's sales level could be magnified in the seasonally adjusted numbers that get reported."

Surprisingly, the person counseling the most restraint about these numbers is Rosalind Wells, chief economist at the National Retail Federation:

"Ms. Wells of the retail federation and other economists cautioned that two primary drivers of January's sales growth -- balmy weather and gift-card purchases -- will likely evaporate this month, particularly after a blizzard last weekend snowed in consumers throughout the Northeast. Discount chain Target Corp. yesterday said colder weather will hurt February sales and that it now expects sales of stores open more than a year to climb 2.5% to 3.5% in February, down from its previous prediction of 2.5% to 4.5% growth.

The January bounce was "a one-month shot," Ms. Wells said. "We're likely to see weak February sales because of the blizzards in the Northeast, and then generally I think the economy is going to slow as the year goes on."

Take this Retail Sales data, tie it into the recent Account Deficit numbers, ands its not to hard to figure out why the Savings Rate is null.

Obviously, I am talking my own beliefs -- but I am also trying to counter the widespread misread of the data.


UPDATE: February 15 2006 9:47am

 The NYT is no better:

But few analysts now fear that consumer spending will fall off a cliff. Job gains and wage growth, typically the leading factor in consumer behavior, appear to be on an upward trajectory after their post-Katrina sluggishness of last fall. The economy added 193,000 jobs in January; wages rose 0.4 percent; and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent, its lowest level in four and a half years.

"The deep fundamentals, the personal income numbers, are healthy," said Gregory Miller, chief economist at SunTrust Bank in Atlanta.

With growth picking up again, economists now expect the Federal Reserve to increase its benchmark short-term interest rate, currently at 4.5 percent, at least once but possibly twice more over the next few months before it brings its tightening cycle to an close. They will be paying particularly close attention today and tomorrow to the Fed's new chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, who is scheduled to testify to Congress for the first time since replacing Alan Greenspan.


Retail Sales Surge 2.3%, Underlining Economy's Health
Data Help Dow Industrials Jump 1.3% to Top 11000; Another Rate Increase Likely
WSJ, February 15, 2006; Page A1

Buying Power
Justin Lahart
WSJ, February 14, 2006; Page C1

U.S. Trade Deficit Ballooned To a Record in 2005
February 11, 2006; Page A1

 What Fuel Bills? U.S. Consumers Still Spending
NYT, February 15, 2006

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 | 06:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) add to | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Connect the Retail Sales Dots:


Doggone it! Why didn't I get a gift card to spend frivolously? Must be body odor.

I still believe a correction is a resetting of expectations and a purging of the excesses rather than the consumer going broke. May come to pass but not yet. Btw, I don't think I have seen a single article talking about the fact that our savings rate could go negative and stay negative for a long time at some point. Will that be when enough people are in retirement and are not working any more or are only working to supplement their savings and, thus, not saving anything or little. One of those long wave economic variables that changes forever? I'm not an economist but I suspect if the models were changed to take this into account, it could turn out to be true. Take away the youth, take away the massive retiree population and you have 25%, or whatever the number is, of the population capable of significantly contributing to savings.

I'm beginning to wonder if the correction scenario that may arise is more along the lines of the economy has been goosed so much that the data may convince the Fed to raise well beyond blah blah blah. But 4Q GDP just plain stunk so may not come to pass.

But one thing that has come to pass is the dividend paying stocks have significantly underperformed in the last month. That is a very new phenomenon. The banks have had bouts of underperformance for some time but now it is all dividend yielding stocks. That, to me, signals their yield is possibly too low to compete with upcoming long rates. In it's psychotic gyrations, the market apparently thought that might be a good thing yesterday. The final hurrah? The glory of large cap leadership? Yea, it steepens the yield curve for banks but at the expense of ............the consumer and alot of other interest rate sensitive industries.

The S&P dividend yield is still at a 100 year low RANGE that started with the mid 90s blow off and still exists today. If long rates are starting to rise off of their unsustainable low, that situation may need to rectify itself. That ain't going to happen by increasing the dividend yield.

PE contraction. Just one scenario which may help lead a market correction that does not necessarily involve the consumer puking. Who knows. Just another possible scenario. Where are all of those economists that are so busy updating their charts? Do they look up long enough to contemplate such possibilities? I doubt most do until the new trend smacks them and it has already happened.

Posted by: B | Feb 15, 2006 9:17:53 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™